People have a dislike for Mark not because he took risks but because he didn't let other people solve the problems they clearly had, which is dangerous. The reason there are so many conspiracy theories about him is because he's made the line between stupid and malicious near impossible to differentiate.
>> People have a dislike for Mark not because he took risks but because he didn't let other people solve the problems they clearly had
I met Mark at the time of mtgox's (first?) public hack in 2012. Shortly after they'd moved to Cerulean Tower in Shibuya.
He seemed to realise what mtgox were up against, but they were ill-equipped to face it. Considering the immediate problems mtgox had then, he gave me more time than I probably deserved.
In hindsight, I believe Mark was hoping for a Hail Mary. Put another way, I believe that if I'd had the skill to get on top of those problems, he'd surely have hired me. Yet I just doubt that many of the necessary talents were around at that time.
It's easy to imagine that we would know how to do things right under exceptional circumstances. Mark was then the man in the ring, and he may become so again. Bonne chance.
I'm not sure if that is the right way to interpret it.
For example, every single exchange out there is holding people's assets, in trust, and thus, are also making it difficult to distinguish the line between stupid and malicious.
Society is still learning and it's having growing pains. But, these pains, are leading to stronger, more resilient systems.
I think we'll soon start seeing non-custodial exchanges, the way it was meant to be.
>"Sure, but at the same time, someone who is unwilling to give second chances to the pioneers who took risks before them -- that's more toxic"
Sorry but taking calculated entrepreneurial risks is not at all the same as being careless. The contempt stems from the latter type of risk not the former. Conflating the two is also toxic.
By your theory every single exchange is simply careless then right? Every intelligent computer user knows that ALL THINGS get hacked.
Practicing Defense in Depth is the only solution.
All the exchanges hold your assets in trust, usually in just a few “cold storage” wallets. This is carelessness. They saw what happened to MtGox and are still operating like that.
>"By your theory every single exchange is simply careless then right? Every intelligent computer user knows that ALL THINGS get hacked."
I wasn't positing any theory.
The "carelessness" referenced also had nothing to do with being hacked.
Carelessness is misplacing 200,000 bitcoins. Carelessness is not even knowing that 200,000 coins are unaccounted for. Carelessness is hiring quiche and pastry chefs for your cafe instead of hiring security personnel for your exchange.[2]
"Shuttered bitcoin exchange MtGox has found almost 200,000 bitcoins which it believed were lost, according to the company's CEO Mark Karpeles.
The money was sitting in a wallet which the firm thought no longer held bitcoins. However, following the application for civil rehabilitation (a Japanese legal procedure analogous to bankruptcy), "these wallets were rescanned and their balance researched," says Karpeles, and one wallet was found to hold a balance of 199,999.99 bitcoins."[1]
I want this society to work. And I refuse to let such a chilling effect of fear of failure stop our society from progressing.
We all know that you learn best from mistakes. And we, as a society, have gotten much stronger and more resilient.