Their security claim appears to revolve around signing up with "Trust Guard":<p><a href="http://www.trust-guard.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.trust-guard.com/</a><p>I can sum up my take on this by saying I've never heard of "Trust Guard".
Goals aren't results. Ruxum has the <i>goal</i> of bringing "Wall Street-level" security to BitCoin trading. We won't have a good idea of whether they've <i>succeeded</i> until they've come under sustained attack by intelligent hackers for long periods of time, and stood up. (And note I said "good idea" even so, not "proof".)<p>I also read the security policy at <a href="https://x.ruxum.com/security" rel="nofollow">https://x.ruxum.com/security</a> . It's nice and all, and does sound to be off on a better track, but being really, really secure is hard. I'm not saying they haven't succeeded, I really don't know (or much care). I'm just commenting on how phrasing it as if it's a done deal, rather than a <i>goal</i>, is cognitively hazardous.
"Wall Street Level" means insured against loss. Bcrypt is good security practice. Taking responsibility for the money you hold for people is "Wall Street Level".
I'm building my own Bitcoin Exchange as we speak and I can tell you, these security measures are nice (we had most of them planned too, plus some) but real Wall Street level security is only affordable in a more mature market.
Another centralized institution profiting from the decentralized-ness of Bitcoin. Perhaps it's the direction Bitcoin will have to grow in, in order to stay alive/popular.
This is the second new Bitcoin exchange I've seen recently. The first was CampBX: <a href="http://campbx.com/" rel="nofollow">http://campbx.com/</a><p>(Don't ask me why a business that's trying to get itself taken seriously as a financial exchange would choose a name containing the word "camp".)<p>Anyway, for the moment, as far as security goes, these new exchanges don't necessarily need "Wall Street-level" security; they just need to be perceived as probably being more secure than Mt. Gox, which, given recent events, shouldn't be difficult.<p>But to attract traders, they also need liquidity, which they don't have much of yet.
Assuming that their claim is true it wouldn't protect the value of bitcoins in the event of a similar incident to Mt. Gox occurring in a different exchange, would it? The value would still crash dramatically.
Contrast this with TradeHill which recently announced a two-factor login option powered by DUO Security. I'll take a guess and say that tptacek at least knows who runs DUO :-).<p><a href="https://www.tradehill.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.tradehill.com/</a><p><a href="http://www.duosecurity.com/about" rel="nofollow">http://www.duosecurity.com/about</a>
You can sign-up using the invitation code "techcrunch", but there are only five hundred open spaces.<p><a href="https://x.ruxum.com/users/sign_up" rel="nofollow">https://x.ruxum.com/users/sign_up</a>