24 votes

Bitcoin firm CEO found dead

Autumn Ratke a 28-year-old American CEO of bitcoin exchange firm First Meta was found dead in her Singapore apartment on Feb. 28.

Local media are calling it a suicide, but Singapore officials are waiting for toxicology test results.

Ratke formerly worked with Apple and other Silicon Valley tech firms on developing digital payment systems.

Ratke’s death brings the number of questionable financial sector deaths this year to eight.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

it appears this company has nothing to do with BitCoin


Here is the site:


I don't see any BitCoins for sale.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Bitcoin Boss's 'Unnatural' Death Probed By Police

Bitcoin Boss's 'Unnatural' Death Probed By Police

Police have confirmed they are investigating the "unnatural death" of a Bitcoin exchange chief executive - the latest setback for the troubled virtual currency.

Autumn Radtke, 28, an American, was found dead at the base of a Singapore apartment block on February 26.

Officers say it is unclear how the boss of First Meta died, but they have ruled out foul play amid unconfirmed reports linking her with depression.

Her death was announced as the virtual currency community attempts to shore up its future after the collapse of Tokyo-based Mt Gox, one of the longest-established Bitcoin exchanges, due to a suspected theft worth nearly half a billion dollars.

Canada-based Flexcoin was also forced to shut down, saying that someone attacked its systems and stole nearly $600,000 worth of Bitcoins.


Michael Nystrom's picture

Apparently she jumped

Startling new information has come to light in the death of 28-year-old Autumn Radtke, the CEO of First Meta, a Singapore-based virtual currency exchange.

The former Silicon Valley whiz-kid jumped from a nearby 25-story apartment building about 7 a.m. last Wednesday, according to a neighbor.


He's the man.

Well gee we really need that toxicology report now.

Will it be toxic levels of gravity? As usual the answers just raise more questions.

Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.

people on the dailypaul "we

people on the dailypaul "we need sound currency, like from the teachings of Menger, and mises, and etc...Bitcoin is the next sound currency we need crypto-currencies!!!" lol what a joke.

Get ready for a long game of Whac-A-Mole

I have no idea if anything nefarious occurred or not. There's one thing however that I'm 100% damn sure of, is that there will be an increasing number of hardships (i.e. occurrences of untimely or mysterious deaths, political obstructions and internet vulnerabilities etc.) surrounding crypto-currencies as time passes.

It's a simple fact of life, when you own the goose that lays golden eggs there is nothing, and I repeat NOTHING, you wouldn't do to maintain control of that all-encompassing power.

It's all pointless however. That's because the game has already been decided and the people of this world have already won. I have strong faith that crypto-currencies will win in the end because THEY MUST WIN. I say this because the very liberation of humanity depends on it. To put it bluntly, those who control a currency controls the rest who are subjected to it. With that in mind, the decentralized currency that can fly under the radar and never be confiscated or stolen by simply keeping ones mouth shut will rise to the top.

I compare crypto-currencies to a game of Whac-A-Mole because it is one with the internet, and that's never going away. As certain as the sun rises, we will find ways to proliferate the web, ensure privacy of our online communications, and liberate our currency, regardless of any obstacles in our path by the powers that be.

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

First off, my respects

Next, kinda interesting that a bitcoiner is picked up as part of the "financial death" or any kind of financial community.

Moving on, the last one was, no disrespect intended, some old dude and my response was good heavens, don't tell me bankers are dying of natural causes now!

Well now we have a 28 year old. One thing I can tell you for sure is she'll stay that way. No indication of how she got that way, no indication of medical condition, no nothing to go on but I guess a toxicology report on the way.

Finally to fulfull my role as a coarse and dirty smudge pot, what we basically have here is a dead person who among their varied and accomplished past was into bitcoins. A buddy of mine saw a dead cat by the side of the road the other day. Unsettling and disconcerting to be sure. Yet another reminder that we could be that bitcoiner or that kitty and some day almost assuredly will be. Until they come out with an immortality app for your hand held.

Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.

regulating bitcoin is like trying to regulate E=MC2

Or trying to regulate gravity. Can't be done. Genie is out of the bottle.

The Red Coats are coming!

Garan's picture

Legislative Fiat Math is a Reality ;) ..no really.

For a very brief time, it was illegal to form complete circles.

The infinitely long Value of PI has been determined once and for all, by an Indiana legislation.

It's called the Indian PI Bill.


More laws please.

Of course it can be done

Bitcoin isnt' a force of nature, it's software. And a lot of bitcoin proponents who think of bitcoins as a way of making more FRNs *want* the regulation. Winklevoss for example:

"The Wild West attracts cowboys," he said. "A sheriff is a good thing."

Or here:
There's quite a bit of pro-regulation sentiment in there, including from the bitcoin side.

Also see the whole CoinValidation controversy, and note who among the bitcoin proponents is lining up on the side that favors it. You've got the Winkles and Matt Mellon (of the banking family) and a bunch of others getting behind the idea. Some big names within the Bitcoin Foundation have been behind it too. I don't know what's going on with that particular effort at the moment, but the point is to see that there are people who are promoting bitcoin in a big way who eagerly want this kind of control.

For people who want to use bitcoins to maximize the number of FRNs they have, this makes perfect sense. It also means that the people who want the regulation tend to be the ones with a lot of FRNs, and those tend to be people with powerful connections. If in addition those with big money investments in ASIC mining hardware are motivated by maximizing the FRNs per bitcoin, rather than by libertarian goals, then there are no barriers to the kind of regulations the Winkles and others are pushing for.

It would be nice to see those who value cryptocurrencies for things other than making lots of FRNs realize that putting all your eggs in the bitcoin basket isn't good for libertarian goals. Having lots of cryptocurrencies using lots of technologies, and de-centralized exchanges (that would allow exchanging *independent* cryptos via a common API), would make it easy to stay ahead of the regulators as well as letting the free market decide what features and what technologies are best among the competing cryptocurencies.

ecorob's picture

List bitcoin as a competing currency...

make it reliable, and I will buy it.

(But not at such a risky rate fluctuation.)

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

At least it fluctuates! Today anyway. Can it compete?

Free includes debt-free!

bitcion is taking on aspects of spiritual battle.

dark forces are at work.

Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.

And now, this

Japan to Regulate and Tax Bitcoin


The Diamond Dog is a real cool cat. | Reporting on the world from an altitude of 420.

Another great Bitcoin success story

Bitcoin can't go away soon enough.

Garan's picture

Someone Died. That's Success?

You may have responded too quick.

Did you know that regulators tried to force tech companies to add back doors to data encryption.
Bill Gates had to tell them that it was impossible.
It is solid math.
How do you put a back door into 1+1?
It's the same thing with BitCoin.

I wish I could find that Bill Gates Video. It was hilarious.

1+1 ? Got oversimplification

Since you are an expert, you undoubtedly know that public key encryption relies on the difficulty of factoring extremely large numbers - in particular numbers that have only 2 factors (other than itself and 1). Do you know what this implies? Do you know why the processes of working with these numbers is asymmetrical? It's solid math. Show us you know what you are talking about.

Just want to separate the knowledgeable from the poseurs.

Leges sine moribus vanae

Garan's picture

1+1 is definitely over simplified

Yes. Comparing addition to the computation of a hash is a very gross thing to do.

The thrust of the idea is that hash computation relies on solid mathematical fundamentals. I don't know how to explain the solidity of the fundamentals of mathematical constructions to just anyone, and I assume anyone making a misplaced, non-technical, dismission of a technical subject (bitcoin), probably doesn't even begin to understand what is necessary to trust the bitcoin system. So I use a simple analogy.

Regarding the computation of hashes, my mind used to go fuzzy when wondering how it is done, mainly because I did study a fair amount of math beyond high-school and didn't see how such a thing could be done. It wasn't until later that I learned that the math involved is not normally taught, even to engineers. My mind wouldn't accept that data could be encrypted with a key known to everyone, yet not decrypted by everyone; using the known key. It turns out that there exists a fundamental mathematical basis for doing such a thing. However, I don't think your explanation will help most people. I didn't trust what went against my learning until I read about the answer (I say "read about" because I only read enough to trust the math, not to recite it to others).

Admittedly, I've looked into the bitcoin math enough to trust the claims, yet not to fully understand the math. As far as I can tell, the math involved is beyond what is normally required for an engineering degree.

I think the biggest problem with people's lack of faith in bitcoin is that the knowledge required to fully understand and trust the system is beyond the reach of most people, mainly because they haven't become math majors, so to speak (or studied on their own).

It would probably be of benefit to help others have a better understanding of things, which I tried to do by teasing the poster with a less technical, yet comparable subject, security hashes.

However, the context of their gross statement (characterizing a death as a failure of bitcoin) prompted me to say something. This anti-bitcoin ignorance is pervasive and beyond reason.

I'm still wondering if the poster was just being extremely sarcastic, and if I fell for it.

The only other thing I will add that might be of benefit is that it might be dangerous for a person to believe that they are their knowledge. Debates can become vicious and sometimes lethal when a persons sense of self is too closely tied to knowledge.
I think there is a saying that goes something like: the more you learn, the more there is to know.
I would add, that no matter how much you know, there is always someone who knows something that you don't.
One little pin of knowledge may just be able to burst the biggest of bubbles.
Now I've got to go deflate mine.

I don't know why you would think I am an expert.
I think you may be putting your mathematical "member" on the table.
It must be easy pickings on a political website.

IOW You don't know what you are talking about

check. I am not holding myself out as an expert. I just took an interest public key cryptography many years ago. For the following reasons, I do not trust it absolutely.

Ppublic key cryptography is essentially based on the fact that while very large numbers can (relatively easily) be checked to see if they are prime (have no other devisors aside from the number itself and 1), factoring large numbers is orders of magnitude more difficult (time-wise). Encryption revolves about identifying large prime numbers and creating a key that is another large number that is the product of 2 large primes. It needs to have no other factors than these two. 'Cracking' the code involves factoring this key. Much more difficult (with today's know algorithms).

Carl Pomerance estimated in 1988 that it would cost $10 million to factor a number with 144 digits, and $100 billion to factor a 200-digit number. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoprime

Here is a good explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography

If you follow the links in the article, you will see that there is a great deal of high level work going on to improve factoring algorithms. Should a very speedy one be discovered (or already been discovered), your cryptocurrency is toast.

Also I have fruitlessly searched many websites trying to discover exactly WHAT 'mathematical puzzles' the mining software is supposedly solving. The thought occurred to me - what if the originators of BitCoin have a better algorithm (than the one they distribute to their miners).

Anyway, even if it IS as scam, that doesn't mean you can't make money.

To paraphrase H. L. Mencken: "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

Leges sine moribus vanae

Garan's picture

Actually. We're almost on the same page.

Thanks for the reply.

I prefer something informative rather than tit-for-tats.
..and so that I am not mis-read, I'm saying yours was informative.

I think there may be something that you have "read in" to my original post.

I did not make any claims of public key encryption being unbreakable.

I only mentioned what Bill Gates spoke of with [one of the houses of government] which boiled down to Bill trying to explain that you can't put a back door into the math that is used in encryption.

The government wanted a back door into (essentially) public key encryption, which, of course, is ridiculous.

I wasn't trying to imply that encryption is unbreakable because it uses math. I was trying to convey the idea that the hashing algorithms used for encryption are based on solid mathematical concepts. Which I illustrated in the most dumbed down thing that came to mind. 1 + 1

I'm with you on looking into things for yourself with things as important as security. I even shared my story about how I came to terms with public key encryption.

I'd say the only thing I don't have is a solid understanding of the math used for public key encryption. I just read enough about it (and looked at the equations) to determine that I didn't need to do that.

I think an important thing people should know about encryption is security through obscurity. If a person doesn't know the method used for encryption, they won't know where to begin. Also, if you create your own method or your own tweaks to an encryption algorithm, and those tweaks are kept private, it is much less likely someone will decrypt your message.

So, yeah, if it is very important for nobody except the intended recipient to decrypt your message, don't use what everyone else is using and don't let anyone know what you are using. It's best if nobody knows if there is a secret in the first place, otherwise a physical intervention might be necessary by those who must know.

Maybe some new photos on an insignificant site contain an encrypted message. Who would know?

Maybe, because of this, the NSA will help outlaw baby pictures. :)

Well...three points

I remember when Clinton was calling for a 'skeleton key' with which the government could decrypt all communications. Or was it that you had to keep your key in 'escrow' with the government? I don't quite remember, but I do remember thinking the whole brouhaha was misdirection - that they all ready HAD a key/backdoor. Of course, I am a bit paranoid (however I might note that this mental paradigm works well where government is concerned).

Secondly - Do you really want to keep your fortune where its safety is dependent on no mathematician discovering an factoring algorithm fast enough to make cracking the encryption practical?

and finally a piece from my previous DP incarnation (I got booted for dissing Rand Paul). A digital currency is what THEY want. Forget the independence from government or central bank control. They ain't gonna allow it.


Gold, guns, ammunition, paid sex, privacy, recreational drugs - priceless..
For everything else, there's TCUYA*

*The Chip Up Your Ass.

Leges sine moribus vanae

completely uncalled for.

completely uncalled for.

Homeland security statement: patriotism is now considered terrorism.
I love www.isidewith.com shared it with everyone I know. If anything they realize its not just a red and blue idiot running for reelection.

A liberty hater, wants no competing currencies.


Free includes debt-free!

On the contrary, I welcome competing currencies

I just don't think bitcoin is better than gold, silver or even the lowly dollar at this point.

There are simply too many risks associated with it and I hate seeing people evangelizing the benefits without acknowledging the pitfalls.

Of course, if it can compete it won't survive.

Marketing is about finding a markets.

Using cryptocurrencies suggests that one treat them like hot potatoes.


Free includes debt-free!