Quote:
Originally Posted by MindBomber
what's to prevent a company feigning being "good guys" to develop a userbase and then dropping the guise and exploiting it? or conversely, the "good guys" developing a userbase and then being exploited by hackers or the like? It would appear the former happened with Silkroad 2.0 and the latter with Mt. Gox, no?
|
That's where trustworthiness and transparency come into play. Not to sound insensitive, but only an idiot would put a lot of money into "Silkroad 2.0" without knowing anything about it. I won't call people who dealt with Gox idiots, but the warnings were there.
The "good guys" build up trustworthiness simply over time, and being open and honest about how they run things. Probably the best company for this in bitcoin right now is Blockchain.info. In fact they are hosting a statement by themselves and others regarding
this issue.
My advice is, if you don't trust a company but still want to use their services, don't invest too much into them. Keep your funds in a secure place that you have control over.
If you want to buy some E on silkroad 2.0, go ahead and put $50 worth on there and buy your E. Don't put thousands worth in there, because when it's gone, it's gone. If you want to make a few bucks buying and selling BTC as the price goes up and down, put whatever you are willing to risk on that exchange. Don't leave your entire wallet on there.
This "hack" never would have taken place on any other exchange (in fact, it didn't). It took an epic amount of idiocy to allow it to happen (even their OFFLINE FUNDS WERE STOLEN) and in fact part of me wonders if this was simply an inside job, using maellability as an excuse. I am almost certain that's the case with silkroad (perhaps it's the same people, too)