I suspect that the bitcoins have been exchanged for something else and are back circulating around. The beauty of the heist is that any bitcoin in circulation invariably passes through transactions where the parties have a compelling interest in not being attached to the transaction.
After finding a stolen bitcoin, unravelling its history back to the Mt. Gox Heist is likely to meet a wall of resistence - e.g. if it passed through Silk Road the parties on both sides will be reluctant to come forward and provide information.
In terms of a tort, is it civil or criminal? Was the loss of the coins by Mt. Gox simply an unsatisfactory business transaction? Supposing there was a theft, how should the bitcoins be valued? By the amount of storage space they consume, by the cost of the resources required to create them? If by some market price, which one - some average at the time of their creation, at the time of their loss, at the time of their recovery, or at the time of the prosecution? Many of those values are zero.
Finally, how many of Mt. Gox's customers are going to come forward and claim ownership if such claims are accompanied by a risk of being asked "And how came you to acquire these bitcoins?"
Unlike fiat currency, no government has an interest in supporting the agreed upon fiction that bitcoins are not a fiction. Stealing cash is a crime because the government has an interest in cash being an asset.
The problem with cryptocurrency is the proportion of black and grey market interests it attracts. With bitcoin, they were there first and good citizens second. Separating good citizens from their money was always going to be an attractive option, probably more attractive than separating participants in the black and grey markets from theirs given the greater potential for more serious reprisals which might accompany theft.
It's been over since the first Bitcoin story on NPR.
After finding a stolen bitcoin, unravelling its history back to the Mt. Gox Heist is likely to meet a wall of resistence - e.g. if it passed through Silk Road the parties on both sides will be reluctant to come forward and provide information.
In terms of a tort, is it civil or criminal? Was the loss of the coins by Mt. Gox simply an unsatisfactory business transaction? Supposing there was a theft, how should the bitcoins be valued? By the amount of storage space they consume, by the cost of the resources required to create them? If by some market price, which one - some average at the time of their creation, at the time of their loss, at the time of their recovery, or at the time of the prosecution? Many of those values are zero.
Finally, how many of Mt. Gox's customers are going to come forward and claim ownership if such claims are accompanied by a risk of being asked "And how came you to acquire these bitcoins?"
Unlike fiat currency, no government has an interest in supporting the agreed upon fiction that bitcoins are not a fiction. Stealing cash is a crime because the government has an interest in cash being an asset.
The problem with cryptocurrency is the proportion of black and grey market interests it attracts. With bitcoin, they were there first and good citizens second. Separating good citizens from their money was always going to be an attractive option, probably more attractive than separating participants in the black and grey markets from theirs given the greater potential for more serious reprisals which might accompany theft.
It's been over since the first Bitcoin story on NPR.