<story><title>Silk Road 2 Hacked, All Bitcoins Stolen</title><url>http://www.deepdotweb.com/2014/02/13/silk-road-2-hacked-bitcoins-stolen-unknown-amount/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>sillysaurus2</author><text>&lt;i&gt;If SR was re-issuing coins automatically, it&amp;#x27;s because they were being intentionally stupid.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;MtGox was re-issuing coins automatically.  Due to this, Gox has lost money.  Possibly a huge amount.  Were they being intentionally stupid, or just stupid?&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7222690&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&amp;#x2F;item?id=7222690&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;This transaction malleability flaw is certainly a convenient excuse.  But if these people implemented their wallet software in the same manner as Gox, then they would&amp;#x27;ve suffered the same fate: a loss of thousands of coins, which is exactly what they claim happened.</text></item><item><author>blhack</author><text>This is almost certainly hogshit, and anybody who has been paying even a little bit of attention over the last week can probably smell it.&lt;p&gt;The &amp;quot;hole&amp;quot; in MtGox&amp;#x27;s security was a social one.  You could contact customer support and claim that you had not received your coins, and they could re-issue you new ones if they chose to.  There is also no evidence that this ever happened.&lt;p&gt;This wasn&amp;#x27;t, and isn&amp;#x27;t, a flaw in the underlying architecture, it&amp;#x27;s just a way to convince a customer service rep that you weren&amp;#x27;t lying.&lt;p&gt;If SR was re-issuing coins &lt;i&gt;automatically&lt;/i&gt;, it&amp;#x27;s because they were being intentionally stupid.&lt;p&gt;--&lt;p&gt;They&amp;#x27;re using this as a scapegoat.  Either somebody ran off with the coins, or something otherwise hacked them and they&amp;#x27;re using this as an explanation.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>blhack</author><text>&amp;gt;MtGox was re-issuing coins automatically&lt;p&gt;They worded that very strangely in their statement about it:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;This means that an individual could request bitcoins from an exchange or wallet service, alter the resulting transaction&amp;#x27;s hash before inclusion in the blockchain, &lt;i&gt;then contact the issuing service while claiming the transaction did not proceed.&lt;/i&gt; If the alteration fails, the user can simply send the bitcoins back and try again until successful.&lt;p&gt;Emphasis mine.&lt;p&gt;The reference client certainly doesn&amp;#x27;t do this on spends.  Why would gox have implemented it in this way?  It doesn&amp;#x27;t make any sense &lt;i&gt;at all&lt;/i&gt;.</text></comment>
<story><title>Silk Road 2 Hacked, All Bitcoins Stolen</title><url>http://www.deepdotweb.com/2014/02/13/silk-road-2-hacked-bitcoins-stolen-unknown-amount/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>sillysaurus2</author><text>&lt;i&gt;If SR was re-issuing coins automatically, it&amp;#x27;s because they were being intentionally stupid.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;MtGox was re-issuing coins automatically.  Due to this, Gox has lost money.  Possibly a huge amount.  Were they being intentionally stupid, or just stupid?&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7222690&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&amp;#x2F;item?id=7222690&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;This transaction malleability flaw is certainly a convenient excuse.  But if these people implemented their wallet software in the same manner as Gox, then they would&amp;#x27;ve suffered the same fate: a loss of thousands of coins, which is exactly what they claim happened.</text></item><item><author>blhack</author><text>This is almost certainly hogshit, and anybody who has been paying even a little bit of attention over the last week can probably smell it.&lt;p&gt;The &amp;quot;hole&amp;quot; in MtGox&amp;#x27;s security was a social one.  You could contact customer support and claim that you had not received your coins, and they could re-issue you new ones if they chose to.  There is also no evidence that this ever happened.&lt;p&gt;This wasn&amp;#x27;t, and isn&amp;#x27;t, a flaw in the underlying architecture, it&amp;#x27;s just a way to convince a customer service rep that you weren&amp;#x27;t lying.&lt;p&gt;If SR was re-issuing coins &lt;i&gt;automatically&lt;/i&gt;, it&amp;#x27;s because they were being intentionally stupid.&lt;p&gt;--&lt;p&gt;They&amp;#x27;re using this as a scapegoat.  Either somebody ran off with the coins, or something otherwise hacked them and they&amp;#x27;re using this as an explanation.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>blhack</author><text>Maybe I just haven&amp;#x27;t had enough coffee today, but: where does it say there that gox was re-issuing coins automatically?</text></comment>