I wish they could just put themselves back online with the ~60% of users' bitcoins that they still have and just let us all withdraw them. Let us fight in court over the remaining 40%, right?
As soon as the company knows it has 60% of the needed funds, then it is required to not allow anyone to withdraw their money. Instead, the insolvency process tries to treat everyone equally, so that they would pay out everybody 60% of their share, instead of some people getting all their money and some losing everything.
It is not optional, and not a choice that the company is allowed to make - they can affect the process on how exactly that happens (i.e., liquidating, restructuring as a running business, etc), but they can't simply pay out money to arbitrary debtors, that would open up many trivial ways of looting all the remaining money by insiders.
No, there are a number of parties that get their money first, like the liquidator, the tax man, privileged creditors, etc. Which usually means that the concurrent creditors should be happy to get a few percent of their claims (the average here in the Netherlands is 3%).
Not disagreeing with your point, in fact reinforcing it - the proposal of the GP is preposterous under the law, and a flagrant violation of bankruptcy law across the world.
For a case the size of Mt.Gox the average is higher. Remember DSB Bank? They even got above 100%, just took a long time to sort it all out.
Rather than attempting to rebuild value to return a higher proportion of cash/goods to all customers, or paying debtors according to contractual priority.
I think you're unlikely to get your wish.
Certainly they are not telling the truth about the transaction malleability. They have now dug their feet in on that explanation but it does not make sense given what we know about transaction malleability (the kind they are talking could not possibly have cause 850,000 bitcoins to disappear from allegedly cold storage without them noticing, and probably not without some social engineering.)
It seems likely that if the bug was involved somehow, it was because an intruder performed an attack from inside Gox . How else would they also be able to get fiat deposits out of Mt. Gox? Wouldnt that require initiating bank transfers?
It doesn't make sense as an explanation, especially given that we now know that some Russian clowns also had database access.
If you had a verified account you could ask for any limit you wanted up to 10k BTC, with a trusted account I think there was no maximum— I've talked to people who say they had 50k limits.
There was a 200 BTC maximum per withdraw however, at least in recent times.
> as the consistent Gox bug was only triggered by 0.8.0 being released
Even that wasn't consistent, only ~1% of signatures were invalid DER encodings with their code.
Wsn't aware of that, I only ever saw 200BTC being mentioned. Did Mt Gox seriously keep 10,000BTC+ in their hot wallet for this to work, or were manual withdraws like a bank where you make a cash request for the next day?
That's certainly believable. My limit was 10k, IIRC, and I haven't used Mt. Gox since 2011.
Big Red Shoes, Inc.? ClownCarDB?
Clowns.
At what point, given normal business conditions, would you need to hold 100% of deposits? You only need enough to cover withdrawals; ignoring the MtGox issues 60% seems quite reasonable.
The only time you'd need to worry about 100% is if you're anticipating a total run on deposits or you're going to close the bank.
At the point where you're not a lending bank, which Gox is not. They shouldn't have been running a fractional reserve at all.
See http://two-bit-idiot.tumblr.com/post/77988833128/the-final-g... for a link to the document and for more information.
They are crazy to think it will work. But that's what they want.