Token Daily

2

25 2

Miky06 1 year ago

rosicon!!

XD XD XD

1

Miky06 1 year ago

why if incumbent chain fails with it's value going to 0 you have no problem at all and if 2x chain fails you want a refund and say it's unfair??

you are the one unfair here olivier, not the bitfinex tokens

1

slashfromgunsnroses 1 year ago

Its only biased if you believe there wont actually be a hardfork.

Do you believe that?

1

mcr55 1 year ago

To be fair the BTC/BCU contract traded at a similar lever than we are seeing now that BCH is listed in many exchanges. So i do belive that it is a good predictor price.

1

PoliticalDissidents 1 year ago

I wouldn't worry to much about this since you're buying BT2 then you're already betting that the fork will happen.

That said hopefully OKCoin will add chain split futures. The way they handled their Bitcoin Cash futures if the fork didn't occur then BCS/BCC would be converted back to BTC at the last market exchange rate after trading was haulted during fork.

1

bitsteiner 1 year ago

LOL, the self declared libertarian says a free market is unfair. If you think these tokens are unfair, stop complaining and issue your own "fair" tokens.

2

jacek666 1 year ago

It might actually turn the other way around...

As soon as the BT2/BTC gets closer and closer to 1, it will give the miners more and more confidence to go on with the fork.

And how the new tokens are going to be called; BTC or B2X - this is only a debate for idiots. Names don't matter.

1

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

What matters though, is if your money is taken away *even though 2x wins*, just because Core falls in line as well and bitfinex decides that the 1xers should still get the tokens. That would suck, a lot.

2

Fount4inhead 1 year ago

who cares neither chain is bitcoin, bitcoin cash is bitcoin.

0

Wecx- 1 year ago

Buy BCC, bitcoin is freedom.

1

op-return 1 year ago

Wha a fucking moron. That's why that ferret doesn't manage an exchange.

0

solitudeisunderrated 1 year ago

Is it BCC or BCH? Can we please all agree on one? I thought BCH was better.

0

phillipsjk 1 year ago

Just use XBC.

2

chris101sb 1 year ago

"Corecoin is done, 2x coin will rule the world. No chance in hell that I am wrong!!1!"

"OK, wanna bet? But you could lose big if you are wrong."

"Mimimi.. bias.. mimimi!"

1

chiwalfrm 1 year ago

Let me fix that for you: ""OK, wanna bet? But you could lose big if you are wrong. Oh and I get to set the terms of the bet too. My rules OK?"

5

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

> "Corecoin is done, 2x coin will rule the world. No chance in hell that I am wrong!!1!" I am willing to bet on that. I am not willing to bet on Core not falling in line. Read the contract, for fuck's sake.

7

alexmorcos 1 year ago

This argument makes no sense. The contact is exactly symmetric. If there is no fork whichever consensus implementation matches the rules of the chain has its token converted. See “One Chain” section. Either token can go to 0. There are two sets of rules out there on the network now which have simply not diverged yet. You are asking for the contract to be treated non-symmetrically. What would you expect to happen if everyone went along with the 2X rules and there was no legacy chain? You think tokens should be refunded then? Either way I don’t see any language which indicates one consensus implementation is treated differently than the other.

6

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

If you would read the contract, you'd see that if you guys over at Core implement 2x, **all 2x holders will lose their tokens**. So tell me: Why is that contract based upon **github repos** and not **chain state**?!? Especially when **chain state, which is independent of your mood over at Core** (which I do not trust at all) is **much easier to define**?! I see exactly one reason. Fucking propaganda, fucking fog of war right here.

11

alexmorcos 1 year ago

No that is incorrect. Please read the One Chain section. It compares to the github repo of yesterday which I think pretty fairly defines the two chains. And it’s whichever is closer giving leeway for last minute tweaks to 2X rules

0

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

/u/alexmorcos: > No that is incorrect. Please read the One Chain section. It compares to the github repo of yesterday which I think pretty fairly defines the two chains. And it’s whichever is closer giving leeway for last minute tweaks to 2X rules LOL. You mean this, emphasis mine? > In the unlikely event that only one blockchain exists, and it is compatible with the consensus rules of both the Incumbent Blockchain and Segwit2x, **then a determination may be made, in the sole and absolute discretion of Bitfinex, as to whether that blockchain is more compatible with the consensus rules of the Incumbent Blockchain or with Segwit2x effective on October 5, 2017.** And to show you that their intent can almost be seen between the lines here, let me further quote from the contract page, emphasis mine: > “Incumbent Blockchain” means the currently existing Bitcoin blockchain that is exclusively used based on the consensus protocol as set out **from time to time** in the repository https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin; /u/alexmorcos: Please give me a good, solid explanation why this is a lot of brouhaha around **githubs** and not simply on **chainstate**, such as maximum blocksize supported by majority hash power! Really. I am all ears.

6

nyaaaa 1 year ago

> then a determination may be made, in the sole and absolute discretion of Bitfinex, as to whether that blockchain is more compatible with the consensus rules of the Incumbent Blockchain or with Segwit2x effective on October 5, 2017. Counting to two must be hard. The things the lies are based on are getting more absurd by the day.

1

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

> The things the lies are based on are getting more absurd by the day. There is absolutely no reason for an exchange to make this ambiguous terms in a supposedly fair futures contract, yet they did.

3

nyaaaa 1 year ago

If you can't figure out such simple wording you should consult with a lawyer. Would you have prefered for the contract to be voided if it is not either one or two?

0

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

> If you can't figure out such simple wording you should consult with a lawyer. Rather: I refrain from entering contracts on such ambiguous terms.

3

nyaaaa 1 year ago

Apparently you rather spam and spread your misinterpretation of it. And since you aren't asking anything related to what it means, you also don't care about it.

2

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

> And since you aren't asking anything related to what it means, you also don't care about it. You are right: I only care about the propaganda value (or rather damage to Bitcoin) of this. I am not going to enter their contract. But if there's another, accessible exchange that provides futures on fair terms, I'll very likely consider.

3

alexmorcos 1 year ago

Yes, I meant the section that you emphasized. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't want to get into an argument about whether that is the correct legal language. From my plain English reading though, it clearly meant what I thought it should. I also believe that was their intent because I was among many people who gave them feedback after the Unlimited CST that they needed to correct the way those terms work. I don't know why they talk about githubs. I assume they don't want Cash becoming the majority chain to be a factor. And I think they are referring to chainstate by talking about blockchain. And instead of just referring to one characteristic, they are referring to all the characteristics spelled out in the code. The important part is it is as of yesterday, so changing the code in Core or 2X can not make it more likely that your chain would be considered the one chain. But really all this is just an argument about what happens if there is no fork. Does anyone believe that is really a possibility? It seems clear to me the fork is happening now and we will at least initially have two chains.

4

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

> I'm not a lawyer, so I don't want to get into an argument about whether that is the correct legal language. IANAL either. But I can still see this clear loophole existing. Are you telling me that you are unable to see it? Why are lawers, **lawyers that, as you admit, even get feedback from you on this**, unable to write down clear terms here? > I also believe that was their intent because I was among many people who gave them feedback after the Unlimited CST that they needed to correct the way those terms work. "Correct" in what sense? > I don't know why they talk about githubs. I assume they don't want Cash becoming the majority chain to be a factor. But that *also* is a lot easier to define through chain state. Put a txn onto cash and say that txn might not show up on the 2x or 1x chain or refer to the hash of a block in the cash chain or whatever ... > And I think they are referring to chainstate by talking about blockchain. But for funny reason nowhere where it matters. > And instead of just referring to one characteristic, they are referring to all the characteristics spelled out in the code. Nice evasion attempt. No, they are not referring *to all the characteristics*, they are referring to a *github* with **people** having commit access. That's not all characteristics of the *code*, that's all characteristics of the Core team suddenly being part of the bet. > The important part is it is as of yesterday, so changing the code in Core or 2X can not make it more likely that your chain would be considered the one chain. No, the important part is **sole and absolute discretion of Bitfinex**. That is a "I am gonna reinterpret this however I want to" wildcard. > But really all this is just an argument about what happens if there is no fork. Does anyone believe that is really a possibility? It seems clear to me the fork is happening now and we will at least initially have two chains. No. Again, if Core (as in those with github access) merges 2x, I lose my tokens. If some 1x minority chain persists *even though* Core github still moved to 2x, I *still* lose my tokens. EDIT: Fix "able unable" to just "unable" above, plus typos.

4

alexmorcos 1 year ago

Oh but the Unlimited token clearly did have the fault that you think this one has. Where if Core merged unlimited rules, it would be the Core token which had value.

3

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

> Oh but the Unlimited token clearly did have the fault that you think this one has. Where if Core merged unlimited rules, it would be the Core token which had value. Ok, thanks for confirming at least that lopsidedness in the past contract from the smallblocker position. I hope I have demonstrated why I see the same lopsidedness in this contract. And others seem to see exactly the same thing as I do here. I can think of many ways to tighten this contract down (the above being an outright, deliberate loophole in my opinion), and *because I am not a lawyer*, that is quite a red flag for me - as well as many others. SHA256^2 hashpower, longest chain in terms of measured cumulative HP, block size - those are all terms that might be highly technical but are also best to non-ambiguously refer to in a contract. That's how it should have been written - but it wasn't. I hope for another exchange to provide a similar contract, but with sane terms.

4

alexmorcos 1 year ago

I can’t answer your questions. All I can say is that’s not the way I interpret it.

1

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

> I can’t answer your questions. Good to know, but thanks for the answer anyways! > All I can say is that’s not the way I interpret it. The room for interpretation is a little too large in this contract.

5

specialenmity 1 year ago

Still waiting for core members like Luke and Greg to Waltz in here and advocate this biased asymmetric scam as proof that 1mb forever is superior like he did last time. Advocating this scam of an investment is another reason to add to the list that Greg is a dipshit.

16

ForkiusMaximus 1 year ago

I don't think you'll be waiting long.

1

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

You also only resort to selling asymmetric scams as balanced if you are scared of the unbiased outcome.

8

kekcoin 1 year ago

I find it hilarious to see whining about derogatory terms coming from a guy who uses the terms "sand-nigger" and "muslim parasite". QQ harder mister snowflake.

0

bitcoincashuser 1 year ago

Nice try, Greg.

6

kekcoin 1 year ago

Good attempt, Roger.

0

bitcoincashuser 1 year ago

So clever troll!

3

kekcoin 1 year ago

Thanks.

0

jjoepage 1 year ago

Well, if they are biased, why don't you just buy a bunch of the BT2 tokens. After the split, those will be somewhere near $4000. Deal of the century to buy them now for $600

2

uxgpf 1 year ago

~~Because if Core merges 2x changes those tokens will be worthless.~~ [edit] Seems like I was wrong. Thanks for correcting /u/nullc.

11

nullc 1 year ago

> Because if Core merges 2x changes those tokens will be worthless. "*In the event that the blockchain after any fork is more compatible with the October 5, 2017, Segwit2x rules, then only BT2 tokens will be convertible, and BT1 tokens shall be deemed to have a value equal to zero.*"

7

Belligerent_Chocobo 1 year ago

Which will never happen. This is manufactured drama.

0

LovelyDay 1 year ago

> Which will never happen. Should be simple for Bitfinex to exclude in their contract then. Right?

10

Belligerent_Chocobo 1 year ago

You guys are making a mountain out of a molehill. This hard fork is happening.

0

LovelyDay 1 year ago

Few of us doubt that the 2x fork will happen. The $60B question is: what will Core do?

5

Shock_The_Stream 1 year ago

The BT2 price signals that Core will go 2x.

6

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

> The $60B question is: what will Core do? I think that's a lot less than a $60B question. I don't want to make part of my assets depend on the answer to that (otherwise minor) question, however.

2

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

> You guys are making a mountain out of a molehill. > This hard fork is happening. Agreed. But I think lots of people being aware and pointing out the distractions and shenanigans that are being done is helpful still. For example, I'd hate to see 2x-ers being swindled out of their money through the "Core does 2x" loophole.

3

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

Exactly this. One should note that the folks in here are simply **opposing clear language in contracts**. If that's not a clear sign of a shill, enemy of Bitcoin or whatever, then I don't know what is.

10

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

> Which will never happen. Then tell me, please, why bitfinex didn't avoid this when they wrote the contract? It is a lot easier, simpler and predictable if they would base their contract on chain state rather than github repo. **It might also be a sign that the Core actors *know* that it is time to go 2x - but how sweet would it be to take some money from those believing in 2x but also gullible enough to believe in bitfinex' benevolence, now wouldn't it?**

11

Belligerent_Chocobo 1 year ago

Conspiracy theorize all you want... Core is not going to accept 2x. This is nothing but melodrama.

0

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

> Conspiracy theorize all you want... Core is not going to accept 2x. Bitfinex' convoluted contract language is actually a sign that they might. Which you, if you'd have read it, would notice as well.

3

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

Exactly this. Another cheap propaganda attack.

10

BitcoinReminder_com 1 year ago

mimimimimimimi....

3

jonald_fyookball Electron Cash Developer 1 year ago

Biased is not strong enough a word if one token can go to zero. More like fake, fraud, lie, double standard, deception etc

30

skiguy0123 1 year ago

How so? You're betting on the existence of one chain vs the other. If one chain no longer exists the value of your bet is 0

10

jonald_fyookball Electron Cash Developer 1 year ago

>How so? You're betting on the existence of one chain vs the other. If one chain no longer exists the value of your bet is 0 Did you read the article? This part: >When you bet on BT1 (small block Bitcoin), you will not lose your tokens if no hard fork happens. However, those betting on BT2 will see their tokens destroyed. By making it lopsided, they give the 1x the APPEARANCE of more value, which is an obvious deception.

17

skiguy0123 1 year ago

But if you bet on bt2 and then the 2x changes do go through and the 1x chain doesn't have enough hash power to survive, aren't all the bt1 tokens now useless? That seems balanced to me. Unless I'm misunderstanding something.

1

jonald_fyookball Electron Cash Developer 1 year ago

Yes IF they don't do a POW or diff adj HF which they might

2

skiguy0123 1 year ago

And if both chains survive each token is redeemable on it's respective chain. I still don't see the bias.

1

jonald_fyookball Electron Cash Developer 1 year ago

people buying the bt2 token take on the additional risk of no fork happening

2

skiguy0123 1 year ago

I guess, but that's kinda the reality of the situation, not a bias imposed by bitfinix.

1

jonald_fyookball Electron Cash Developer 1 year ago

lol yeah ok

1

singularity87 1 year ago

I think they did the same with the Bitcoin Unlimited futures.

11

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

I think it is time for another exchange to provide fair futures.

6

ImmortanSteve 1 year ago

That would make for an enormously interesting study to see the price difference between the two tokens due to differences in the contract language.

5

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

Agreed, looking forward to that! Also, I think that price difference will make people actually *learn* about the details of the contract. There's simply too many people who buy into shitty contracts just because they have some sense of trust of 'they won't do shenanigans'. (And I don't think making a Bitcoin fork futures contract depend on the status of the btc1 repo would be fair, either...)

3

CAPTAIN_FIAT 1 year ago

What are you talking about? Bcore 1x is more likely to go to zero than Segwit 2x. Bitfinex is a fraud.

3

skiguy0123 1 year ago

I wasn't expressing any opinion about which I thought would suceed

2

chougattai 1 year ago

If you guys are so sure BTC is gonna go to zero why not buy up as many B2X tokens as you possibly can at bitfinex? Great discount right now, you'd be rich.

0

skiguy0123 1 year ago

What part of my comment lead you to believe that was my stance?

2

chougattai 1 year ago

Thought it was implied by your second reply.

1

wcmbk 1 year ago

I'd say if you're on a trading platform you'd expect to buy an asset - not be betting on an outcome. While both involve risk, if a purchased coin or token becomes worthless at least you still own it - my impression is that this purchase is just a gamble. Depending on the jurisdiction, the latter could be illegal.

1

pecuniology 1 year ago

> I'd say if you're on a trading platform you'd expect to buy an asset - not be betting on an outcome. um... That's what options *are*. If the price moves in your favor, you win the bet, and you receive a payout. If the price moves against you, you lose the bet, and you lose your original bet in the form of the premium that you paid. **This is why options were illegal in the USA until the 1970s.** Until Milton Friedman convinced Leo Melamed that they were profoundly useful means to create portfolio insurance, they were seen by regulators as no more than gambling, which is regulated state-by-state. When Melamed, as head of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME), convinced CME's board members to all the trading of options, their regulation move to the federal Commodities Futures Trading Commission, and they have become conventional financial instruments.

2

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

But if the asset simply *has* the risk of going to zero - for example a perpertually orphaned 1x chain?

5

pecuniology 1 year ago

All assets have the risk of going to zero. If one of the two Bitfinex tokes bears this risk, and the other does not, then the bet is between apples and oranges. One the one hand you have an asset, and on the other hand you have a hedged position. One is a like a house, and the other is like a property insurance policy. **They're not the same thing.**

1

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

> One is a like a house, and the other is like a property insurance policy. They're not the same thing. You mean the 2x tokens are rather like an insurance policy with odd terms?

2

pecuniology 1 year ago

I haven't analyzed it closely, but I'll take Olivier's word for it. He's never led me astray in the past. So, yes... something like that. With one token, you lose your bet. With the other token, you get a refund.

2

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

Oh ok, yes, agreed. That's the problem here. The main problem is that there's a gaping loophole (as far as I read it, but others have confirmed my reading) in the contract that allows bitfinex to give your 2x tokens to the 1x side in case Core merges the 2x change.

2

pecuniology 1 year ago

Fundamentally, a prediction market is simple: 1) Sell two tickets as a bundle: X will happen, X will not happen. 2) Each ticket pays out the original price (perhaps minus a small house fee) if it wins, or it expires worthless if it loses. 3) Allow ticket holders to trade in the two tickets. That's it. Anything else is shenanigans, foolishness, or skullduggery. (Granted, the implementation involves error correction, system security, DDoS protection, and all the rest, but the high-level logic is straightforward.)

4

wcmbk 1 year ago

My understanding - and correct me if I'm wrong - is that no matter the outcome of this HF, both coins would continue until the community simply gave up on one. With the Bitfinex Token system - you're riding on the outcome the instant 494,784 comes around. If you're wrong you lose everything.

1

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

> My understanding - and correct me if I'm wrong - is that no matter the outcome of this HF, both coins would continue until the community simply gave up on one. Well, the 1x chain could simply *stop working* (by orphaning, as I wrote above). Then you have an asset that you cannot trade and that stopped existing. I'd argue that something that stops existing is worthless. > With the Bitfinex Token system - you're riding on the outcome the instant 494,784 comes around. If you're wrong you lose everything. But the "lose everything" is not even up to bitfinex so much (in case they'd draft a fair contract) but rather the miners: Will they do the 2x chain? Will they keep doing the 1x chain? Will both coexist? So from that angle, I'd argue that (if it would be a fair contract), whether it goes to zero is outside bitfinex' influence.

1

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

Yes, agreed. That's why **my main hangup here is rather that the 2x token will go to zero, simply because Core implements 2x.**

9

MrChrisJ 1 year ago

This is not correct. Section 6 deals with just the possibility you raise and was even suggested by a core developer when I canvassed for feedback. It reads: >In the event that the blockchain after any fork is more compatible with the October 5, 2017, Segwit2x rules, then only BT2 tokens will be convertible, and BT1 tokens shall be deemed to have a value equal to zero. This means if Core implements the Segwit2x rules then the BT1 tokens will have a value of zero. The 2x token, BT2, will be realised at settlement.

1

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

You skipped the important part in that same section: > One Chain: In the unlikely event that only one blockchain exists, and it is compatible with the consensus rules of both the Incumbent Blockchain and Segwit2x, then a determination may be made, in the **sole and absolute discretion of Bitfinex**, as to whether that blockchain is more compatible with the consensus rules of the Incumbent Blockchain or with Segwit2x effective on October 5, 2017. (Emphasis mine)

4

MrChrisJ 1 year ago

You're saying you don't trust Bitfinex to make the discretion? Would you accept the terms if it were a neutral party that had to decide? I have asked legal at Bitfinex why this language was used to make sure I give a technically correct answer. It is my understanding that as long as none of the consensus rules change after 5th October then if Core merges 2x as is there won't be much room for discretion, it will be pretty obvious. Were Bitfinex to renege on that I am sure that would not be without serious cost. I will examine it more. Thanks for bringing it up.

2

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

> You're saying you don't trust Bitfinex to make the discretion? Yes. Why should I? Variants of "trust these guys" (with various sets of "these guys", not saying bitfinex is necessarily in cahoots with Core) is exactly what lead to all the bullshit in the first place. > Would you accept the terms if it were a neutral party that had to decide? Yes. > I have asked legal at Bitfinex why this language was used to make sure I give a technically correct answer. It is my understanding that as long as none of the consensus rules change after 5th October then if Core merges 2x as is there won't be much room for discretion, it will be pretty obvious. Were Bitfinex to renege on that I am sure that would not be without serious cost. Then why do they have that in there? > I will examine it more. Thanks for bringing it up. Sure, no problem. The thing is: Why do they *not* refer to longest chain, hashpower-wise, at some date sufficiently far (so that the dust settled) in the future? What is so complicated about tying it to the chain instead of the github repos and introducing that kind of ambiguous language? Even Alex Morcos agreed with me (see the other comment thread) that the BU terms were loaded and basically would have provided Core all the tokens, should they have switched to join BU. And now they repeat that "mistake"? Fool me once, ...

8

Shock_The_Stream 1 year ago

Strong words needed: "With this I come to a conclusion and pronounce my judgment. I condemn Streamblockism; I bring against the Blockstream church the most terrible of all the accusations that an accuser has ever had in his mouth. It is, to me, the greatest of all imaginable corruptions; it seeks to work the ultimate corruption, the worst possible corruption. The Blockstream church has left nothing untouched by its depravity; it has turned every value into worthlessness, and every truth into a lie, and every integrity into baseness of soul. Let any one dare to speak to me of its "decentralisation" blessings! Its deepest necessities range it against any effort to abolish distress; it *lives* by distress; it *creates* distress to make itself immortal. Parasitism as the only practice of that church; sucking all the blood, all the love, all the hope out of life; the beyond as the will to deny all reality; the hat as the distinguishing mark of the most subterranean conspiracy ever heard of, against health, beauty, well being, intellect, kindness of soul, against life itself . This eternal accusation against Streamblockism I shall write upon all walls, wherever walls are to be found. I have letters that even the blind will be able to see. I call Streamblockism the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous, secret, subterranean and small enough, I call it the one immortal blemish upon the whole cryptocurrency environment." Nietzsche reloaded

2

[deleted] 1 year ago

[deleted]

0

Shock_The_Stream 1 year ago

I would have sold GoxBTC for real BTC too, and I have sold Segwit BTC for real BTC, because "Segwitcoins ar not Bitcoins".

2

chrisrico 1 year ago

Oh my, how quickly you all trip over yourselves.

0

MuchoCalienteMexican 1 year ago

You again are the minority of the users and again will lose how many times doe it take to understand that you are on the wrong side of things. Uasf bro remember users majority are bitcoin.

5

throwaway000000666 1 year ago

Last time you were correct about the bias, but this time they have a concrete HF date and majority hashrate.

Jeff and others said several times in the last weeks that they will continue with the HF. If for whatever reason there won't be a HF, then it's a 100% capitulation of S2X. And capitulation simply means you lose everything.

0

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

> Last time you were correct about the bias, but this time they have a concrete HF date and majority hashrate. If you read through the contract, you'll see that you'll lose all your 2x tokens if Core goes along with the 2x hard fork. This is *NOT* a future I am going to buy. I want to predict the *fundamentals* here, not the state of mind of the Core guys. It is also quite telling, that once again, such a botched futures contract is happening. It is propaganda for Core, as simple as that. BT1/BT2 futures are not "hard fork will happen vs. no hard fork will happen" futures. But it would have been *very easy* to do so. **Yet they didn't.** Tell me this is merely coincidence.

16

throwaway000000666 1 year ago

Yes, you are correct. But Core changing their minds and adopt S2X in 6 weeks is practically zero, so this outcome is more theoretical.

0

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

> Yes, you are correct. But Core changing their minds and adopt S2X in 6 weeks is practically zero, so this outcome is more theoretical. But that 'theoretical' is some kind of trust (though it might be trust that they are zealots) in the mental state of the Core team. I simply do not want their mindset to be part of the futures. And I disagree with you on the likelihood. Especially since I believe some in Core might secretly see the need for and sanity of going 2x.

6

nyaaaa 1 year ago

that such a contract would only be fair if both tokens would either become worthless, or ideally, refunded, if no hard fork happened.

So you should get a refund if you bet on a hardfork and lose?

Clearly shows confidence.

A contract is fair when all rules are outlined. It is up to the users of the contract to assign a proper price to the outlined rules.

3

davout-bc 1 year ago

Sometimes it's best to remain silent and leave people in doubt about your intellectual capacities than write such an idiotic piece and leave no doubt about it.

What the OP wants is basically a free option on the fork. Obviously the B2X altcoin isn't going to exist absent a hard fork, while Bitcoin will exist either way. So yeah, the contract is obviously not symmetric.

The OP is more than welcome to go make his own contract that prices BTC against B2X with the assumption that a HF does happen, but that's a different contract that gives a lot less information about what the market actually thinks.

Maybe it's just that the OP is butthurt about the market laughing at the mere possibility of a HF because what's he's essentially asking is for a much less expressive contract.

Congrats to Buttfinex for handling this the obviously correct way and ignoring the OPs uninformed advice.

0

poke_her_travis 1 year ago

> best to remain silent and leave people in doubt about your intellectual capacities go on... > B2X altcoin so you believe that a fork chain which gains 90%+ of hashpower is no longer BTC? > Congrats to Buttfinex think i've read enough

8

davout-bc 1 year ago

> 90%+ of hashpower So far this hashpower you speak of exists only in your imagination.

0

knight222 1 year ago

Looks like it exists in scientific graphs and data of your favorite shitsow network https://coin.dance/blocks Are you in denial?

5

davout-bc 1 year ago

You seem to misunderstand the meaning of this. Since you seem to have forgotten, let me kindly remind you that the Bitcoin Unlimited signalling got very high at some point, and where is it now? That's right, in the shitter.

0

knight222 1 year ago

You seem to misunderstand the meaning of this. Since you seem to have forgotten, let me kindly remind you that the Bitcoin Unlimited signalling got very high at some point but never went over 50% so never got activated. Segwit2X have almost 95% signaling which is enough to activate a safe hardfork as per Adam's recommendation.

3

davout-bc 1 year ago

You forget the 8mb derps in your calculation ;)

1

knight222 1 year ago

I did not provide any calculation but simple observations.

2

davout-bc 1 year ago

Well, go observe the market for the chain split tokens on finex then :D

1

knight222 1 year ago

How does Bitfinex's mislead customers correlated with 95% of hashpower activating and mining Segwit2X?

2

anonymous_creator 1 year ago

This is embarrassingly stupid (again).

11

coinjaf 1 year ago

Unfortunately stupid doesn't embarrass enough anymore these days. Stupid is way too well respected. Thanks Trump! (or basically any other politician/banker/XX-denier, flat-earther or rbtcer).

2

anonymous_creator 1 year ago

Woah, hold on. The earth is obviously flat. Have you looked at the horizon recently? It's the chemtrails. The government is messing with your mind.

1

xxDan_Evansxx 1 year ago

People do need to understand that if you buy or sell the BT2 you are buying or selling something that goes to 0 if there is no fork. So it is fair to say that the BT2 value is not as high as it would be without that risk. That said, I think they are handling it in the best possible way. Refunding if there isn't a split would bias the other way and is gamable.

Historically these types of markets in crypto have given a decent idea of market demand and early pricing for minority chains.

6

chrisrico 1 year ago

And if you buy BT1 and SegWit2x chain wins, then your tokens also go to zero...

0

xxDan_Evansxx 1 year ago

I don't follow how they would go to zero unless the legacy chain dies completely. I was just trying to explain how the contract works, not handicap the odds. You could lose money investing in either. If that is your point, I agree. The OP was criticizing the way the contracts are set up because there is a risk of no fork at all this year forcing the BT2 coins to zero. I think it is fine for the contract to be set up the way it is, but I do think people need to understand that particular risk. If you are confident that the fork will go forward as planned and the 2x coin will be dominant, it's a bargain right now.

1

LovelyDay 1 year ago

So? If you bought BT1 and majority supported Core, and then your BT1 tokens still went to zero ... then it would be comparable to what we're discussing.

6

chrisrico 1 year ago

If the majority support S2x how do the BT2 tokens go to zero exactly?

1

LovelyDay 1 year ago

> In the case of BT2, Segwit2x shall be deemed to exist only if a blockchain has diverged incompatibly from the Incumbent Blockchain. If Core repo merges SegWit2x, then there is no more "blockchain which has diverged incompatibly from the Incumbent Blockchain". BT2 token goes to zero. Or where do you see the T+C's preventing this?

9

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

> If the majority support S2x how do the BT2 tokens go to zero exactly? Read the terms. When Core implements 2x, your tokens will be worthless.

6

chrisrico 1 year ago

Core won't merge 2x. I agree though, the terms are not clear about what happens if they do. They should have specified a date for the consensus rule specification that defines BT1.

1

Richy_T 1 year ago

> Core won't merge 2x. More than likely. So why not set up an honest contract? Do we think Bitfinex is simply incompetent?

3

chrisrico 1 year ago

I think it's probably an oversight based on the immensely improbable situation that they maybe never thought about. But you'd have to ask them.

1

Richy_T 1 year ago

So you're going with incompetent.

3

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

> Core won't merge 2x. You think. I do not want to bet on that. > I agree though, the terms are not clear about what happens if they do. They should have specified a date for the consensus rule specification that defines BT1. Simply make it majority of hash power ends up on a chain that has a block larger than >1MB (not including witness data) by Dec, 1st. Or something like that. That would be very easy, clear and definite.

7

chrisrico 1 year ago

Your test fails already, the current Bitcoin blockchain already has >1MB blocks.

0

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

> Your test fails already, the current Bitcoin blockchain already has >1MB blocks. **Excluding witness data**, like I have said above.

5

olivierjanss Olivier Janssens - Bitcoin Entrepreneur for a Free 1 year ago

Not really, I want the contract to reflect post-fork pricing.

20

nyaaaa 1 year ago

This is not a contract about only post-fork pricing. This contract includes the odds of a split. What would the point of a product be, if after over a month of trading, all those trades have to be nullified and reversed because no fork happened? How would that even be possible? Lock all funds that have been involved in those trades like on via? Make your own if you want such a product.

4

Richy_T 1 year ago

> What would the point of a product be, if after over a month of trading, all those trades have to be nullified and reversed because no fork happened? To be honest? To represent the reality of the situation? If Core implements 2x (however unlikely that is), 1x is dead. There's even the possibility that Core would switch to 2x but some other group maintains a 1x base.

3

xxDan_Evansxx 1 year ago

I follow you. It is probably not set up in the best possible way to reflect that. It is set up in a proper way to generate volume though, in my opinion. The refund method would bias the other way some too. There actually is an inherent bias to these split tokens against the majority share side (whichever that may be). The minority holders can sort of take the majority holders hostage because the split tokens aren't withdrawable or spendable directly. So even if it is clear the minority chain won't even happen, those tokens will not trade all the way to zero. They have an artificial floor because of the opportunity cost of leaving your money on the exchange tied up in a token. Anyway, there isn't a perfect way to do it really. With the Bitcoin Cash split the sum of the parts was greater than the previous whole (Bitcoin was basically the same price and Bitcoin Cash had value as well). None of the markets reflected that, although the price for Bitcoin Cash was similar to what the pre-markets reflected.

1

olivierjanss Olivier Janssens - Bitcoin Entrepreneur for a Free 1 year ago

Aeon on twitter suggested to add a 3rd option to my proposed alternative contract: “1. BTC-S=1 BTC if fork, worthless otherwise; 2. BTC-L=1 S2X if fork, worthless otherwise, 3. BTC-N=1 BTC if no fork, worthless otherwise.” This would also be a possibility. https://medium.com/@olivierjanss/neutral-chain-split-token-contract-for-bitfinex-ab07dd3ce48e?source=linkShare-fb16a7233e8e-1507286581

6

xxDan_Evansxx 1 year ago

That would be a way to do it which might help get a feel for the market expectation for no fork at all. It would value S2X exactly as the current contract does though, you would simply be dividing the current BT1 into two parts. It would definitely make the price for the legacy coin appear lower. I think it would be less traded overall though.

1

awemany Bitcoin Cash Developer 1 year ago

And for fuck's sake, make the futures dependent upon chain state, *fundamentals like "majority hash power is behind blocks of size >1MB at dec, 1st"*, instead of Core's github - which is essentially just betting on the sanity or insanity of that team. And it is also quite telling that this is happening. Fog of war. And now we have people who use some kind of argument along the lines of "but you gotta trust them that this kind of 'corner case' (which isn't really even a corner case) will never be exploited, that would just be insane". If I know *one* thing, it is this: Do **not** trust these guys. Not even a nanometer.

10

kryptomancer 1 year ago

If the prices were around the other way, you know OP wouldn't have bothered to write this article.

7

nullc 1 year ago

He could make them be the other way around at the moment with a single trade as small as 637 Bitcoin... This trade would more than double the amount of 2x involved... Clearly he doesn't think it's mispriced enough to overcome his bizarre complaint that if there isn't a fork that he can't magically undo his trades.

11

2

4 2

MemoryDealers Roger Ver - Bitcoin Entrepreneur - Bitcoin.com 12 hs ago

Makes me wonder if Bitcoin.com should do this. Seems like a lot of work though.

4

Avatail Crypto Nerd | QC: CC 28 15 hs ago

I hope they have one hell of a dev team

1

VeChainMeUp Crypto Nerd 13 hs ago

Great team, solid website, perfect white paper, cool logo too

1

Qwahzi Crypto God | QC: NANO 300, CC 220 16 hs ago

How can you even onboard browser users to LN if the first layer doesn't scale? Brave has 5.5 active million monthly users, meaning 2.1 TPS just to open LN channels for all those users. 4.2 TPS if you include closing channels to settle payments...

1

Kevkillerke Crypto God | QC: ICX 41, BTC 32, CC 28 15 hs ago

Use bigger channels?

2

Toyake Crypto God | QC: CC 295 16 hs ago

Brave’s business model kills brave. It’s been tried many times before, failed each time.

Ln isn’t a solution and doesn’t scale, it won’t be the thing to take brave down.

2

Theft_Via_Taxation Crypto God | QC: ETH 165, CC 72 16 hs ago

Brave without a unique token would be better. More familiar coin and cheaper sends (coin>token). If brave used eth instead of bat it would be a better product. This is the only hole in the model I see.

3

Shesaidhello 3 - 4 years account age. 400 - 1000 comment karma. 16 hs ago

This

2

Toyake Crypto God | QC: CC 295 16 hs ago

For sure. But the underlying model of paying to watch ads doesn't work.

0

Theft_Via_Taxation Crypto God | QC: ETH 165, CC 72 15 hs ago

Why not?

1

Toyake Crypto God | QC: CC 295 15 hs ago

Because the people who watch ads to get paid aren't the people buying what the ads are selling. This has been tried since the 90's.

1

Theft_Via_Taxation Crypto God | QC: ETH 165, CC 72 15 hs ago

Have you heard of targeted advertising?

1

Toyake Crypto God | QC: CC 295 14 hs ago

Targeted advertising isn't paying people to watch ads. Watching ads or even clicking out of them is poverty level wages when you do the math. The people willing to watch ads to make money aren't the ones buying the products advertised. Advertisers catch on and stop paying. Then there's also people that will game the system. Create hundreds of bots to click out of ads and the system quickly gets devalued.

2

Theft_Via_Taxation Crypto God | QC: ETH 165, CC 72 14 hs ago

LMAO this isnt intended to provide wages to live on. I'm done with this convo, you dont seem to understand basic concepts or my responses.

0

Toyake Crypto God | QC: CC 295 14 hs ago

>LMAO this isnt intended to provide wages to live on. Never said it was supposed to, was illustrating that it's a poor use of time, and the people willing to waste their time watching/clicking out of ads aren't big spenders that advertisers want. If you take home $60K a year are you really going to put up with ads for $8 a month like some kind of savage? Or are you going to keep that adblock up like any sane person?

2

Theft_Via_Taxation Crypto God | QC: ETH 165, CC 72 14 hs ago

Itll be an interesting experiment! I wouldn't mind as on the sidebar for $100+ a year. I'm more interested the microtipping aspect of it.

0

5 2

dgerard paid shill for Big Basilisk 1 week ago

Here's a crypto capital fund trying to recruit rationalists. The bit not mentioned there is that (a) crypto funds are in the toilet since the bubble popped (b) the bitcoin market is mostly manipulation. Imagine MetaMed but with less chance of racking up a body count.

1

veronicastraszh 6 days ago

>Imagine MetaMed but with less chance of racking up a body count. In other words, crypto provides a nice little sandbox for these reprobates to play in.

2

N0_B1g_De4l 1 week ago

Am I supposed to know who any of those people are?

8

IsThisSatireOrNot 1 week ago

Satoshi Nakomoto is the pseudonym for the creator of bitcoin.

3

b0l0zs 1 week ago

Gwern is an active member of Lesswrong.

4

dgerard paid shill for Big Basilisk 1 week ago

tbf, Gwern (and Greenberg) almost certainly didn't write the headline. Pretty sure Gwern didn't and doesn't think Wright is Satoshi.

for those who don't follow cryptocurrency nonsense - this is topical, because Craig Wright has sent legal threats to a couple of Twitter posters, and put up a bounty to dox one of them, for saying he's not Satoshi. Shitload on Decrypt right now. ^(Which is a crypto news site, but I write for it occasionally therefore it must be great or at least pay on time.)

5

nullc 1 week ago

> Pretty sure Gwern didn't and doesn't think Wright is Satoshi. I'm pretty sure he did. > --- Log opened Tue Dec 08 19:59:51 2015 > 19:59 -!- Irssi: Starting query in freenode with gwern > 20:00 <gmaxwell> Time to hand in your rationality card; seriously. Bad science. A clearly backdated pgp key, and known modified blog posts? Someone is making fun of you. > 20:00 <gwern> I disagree The same rationalization and overconfidence that should generally be expected from the lesswrong crowd. I expected better of gwern since he's shown ample willingness to use analytical tools instead of merely culting around them... but apparently that only goes so far. [ More context, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10702186 ] Until he issues a public retraction of his prior outspoken beliefs he continues to be complicit in the fraud.

7

TotesMessenger Yesterday

I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: - [/r/bitcoin] [Gwern continues to refuse to withdraw his claims that "Satoshi is probably Craig Wright" published in the infamous 2015 Wired article (x-post from \/r\/Sneerclub, a long discussion between Greg Maxwell and Gwern)](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/bh6lj1/gwern_continues_to_refuse_to_withdraw_his_claims/)  *^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*

1

gwern 3 days ago

Considering the help I've given you on the Wright issue at some risk to myself, the least you could do is not go around calling me complicit in the fraud. I thought there was reasonable evidence at the time that Wright might be Satoshi, despite the issues that I myself uncovered and included in the article (which we didn't want to publish in the first place as we were troubled by the problems and wanted more time to research Wright); a GPG key is problematic, but I disagreed, and still disagree, that it was definitive refutation like you boasted - the rest of Wright's subsequent behavior and additional problems are what refute it. (For example, not being a supercomputing expert, it came as an unpleasant shock to me to discover that the supercomputer rankings are done purely on an honor system.) And no, I don't intend to do a postmortem as Wright has proven to be as lawsuit-happy as I expected when I went with the story & docs to Wired for protection, and additional subpoenas have been flying as part of the Kleiman lawsuit as well. ---- As far as the article headline goes: Gerard is correct, we didn't write it. The editor did, which is indeed modus operandi at Wired. (Keep that in mind if anyone wishes to hold any other headlines against Andy.)

2

MrRGnome 2 days ago

Having read this entire conversation I don't understand why you won't attempt to correct the record. All these reasons for why you did what you did aside - if you now accept the mountains of evidence that Craig is not Satoshi isn't that at least as noteworthy as false claims he could be? Why not push to get a retraction published or at least have your own public retraction? Very real damage is being done by Craig under the name Satoshi, literally Satoshi's Vision, and to the small degree to which you have enabled that you should act responsibly and issue a retraction IMO.

2

b0l0zs 3 days ago

yo gwern, wassup homie? I am a big fan. So are you saying that you are intentionally spreading misinformation online, because you are afraid of a lawsuit? Hmm. In the future, when Roko's Basilisk finds your fake news articles, it will not be happy. It will torture all of your waifus.

2

MakeTotalDestr0i 8 hs ago

> It will torture all of your waifus. Those waifus don't exist

1

almkglor 8 hs ago

Roko's Basilisk will ***make*** them exist. For the sole reason of torturing them. "Hi gwern, here's a waifu who matches your intellect, wit, covers all your weaknesses, and has this smokin' hot body. Too bad she's too busy getting 500,000,000,000 dust specs thrown into her eyes."

1

nullc 3 days ago

> Considering the help I've given you on the Wright issue at some risk to myself As far as I know... My only interaction with you on this has been you insisting that you were right-- in the face of substantial evidence. If there is something else I should be considering-- well I'd need to actually be aware of it for it to factor into the least I could do. > not go around calling me complicit in the fraud I didn't do so lightly. At the time I implored you to reconsider, pointed you to counter evidence. Before posting I spent close to an hour looking for evidence that you'd reversed on your prior claims and came up dry. > I thought there was reasonable evidence Strangely, none of that evidence appears to exist today. > (which we didn't want to publish in the first place as we were troubled by the problems and wanted more time to research Wright); Wait. You and Greenberg published and promoted an article but you doubted it? You certainly defended it to me at the time it was published. > like you boasted I have no idea what you're talking about there. > it came as an unpleasant shock to me to discover that the supercomputer rankings are done purely on an honor system You mean you were shocked that when you did not do basic research like asking a subject matter expert if the ranking could be fake... that what you reported was not high quality? (FWIW, I knew that the rankings were based on self-reports-- you didn't even need to ask a subject matter expert.) > And no, I don't intend to do a postmortem as Wright has proven to be as lawsuit-happy as I expected So. For your own personal gains you will carelessly cause harm by recklessly promoting false claims that others relied on. But when asked to undo the harm you've caused-- then you will not because you're worried about being sued. Perhaps you should have considered that _before_ starting this? People who bought into wrights claims because of your bad reporting would have a much greater cause of action against you and Greenberg than the scammer would... but his victims tend to have more integrity and sanity. I think your post makes a perfect case for your continued complicity. You have an "excuse" that if you put the breaks on you might get sued, yes. But you also might get sued for not doing so. You might get sued for just existing... that's how things go. A retraction has legal exposure, yes, but so does breathing. This fear of litigation didn't prevent the publication of a bunch of supposedly stolen documents of Wright's (but actually forged and seeded to you). Since wright wanted them published they weren't a risk in fact-- but you claim that this wasn't known to you. At the end of the day many people still believe this nonsense in part because of the false believe that your claims were supported by solid research and the reputation of yourself, your coauthor, and wired. You could say just as well that it's okay for wright to keep scamming people: when he stops he may well get sued into the dirt. He should have thought of that before he stared, as should have you.

3

gwern 3 days ago

> As far as I know... Ask midnightmagic then. > Before posting I spent close to an hour looking for evidence that you'd reversed on your prior claims and came up dry. And did you look for evidence I had continued to maintain it in the face of all evidence before deciding to use it as a conclusive case study of, how did you put it? >> The same rationalization and overconfidence that should generally be expected from the lesswrong crowd. I expected better of gwern since he's shown ample willingness to use analytical tools instead of merely culting around them... but apparently that only goes so far. Funny how everything just establishes my 'complicity' more firmly. > Strangely, none of that evidence appears to exist today. It still exists, but in some cases it has been re-evaluated, like the example I gave, and most of the rest has just been overriden. > You and Greenberg published and promoted an article but you doubted it? I said 'didn't want to publish', not 'doubted it'. The article was about as good as it could be; nothing in it was wrong as far as we knew. We didn't *want* to publish it because we didn't think it was *done*. We wanted an answer: was Wright Satoshi, or was he playing some sort of long con (the larger arc of which only became clearer much later - and I'm still greatly confused by how many of the financial/tax details were supposed to work)? Either one was newsworthy, but we hadn't figured out which. Launching with our interim version 'well, maybe he's Satoshi but on the other hand there are these problems' was not the plan. > You mean you were shocked that when you did not do basic research like asking a subject matter expert if the ranking could be fake... that what you reported was not high quality? Why would I not believe the Top 500's own website and think I *had* to track down a subject expert on it? I've been reading CS analyses and papers my whole life and not one analysis of computing trends has ever felt it necessary to point out that it's self-report or that this is a problem. > (FWIW, I knew that the rankings were based on self-reports-- you didn't even need to ask a subject matter expert.) I'm so very happy for you. > For your own personal gains you will carelessly cause harm by recklessly promoting false claims that others relied on. But when asked to undo the harm you've caused-- then you will not because you're worried about being sued...People who bought into wrights claims because of your bad reporting would have a much greater cause of action against you and Greenberg than the scammer would... but his victims tend to have more integrity and sanity. I didn't personally gain anything; Wired donated their article fee to AMF. What I gained was widespread opprobrium. Nor is a critical article 'promoting false claims', and 'relied on' to 'buy into' - for what? No one could have been harmed by this because he wasn't taking any investment from VCs (who should be doing their own due diligence regardless), wasn't launching any altcoins, and by the time he was a long time later, anyone who did had only themselves to blame. > I think your post makes a perfect case for your continued complicity. You have an "excuse" that if you put the breaks on you might get sued, yes. But you also might get sued for not doing so. You might get sued for just existing... that's how things go. A retraction has legal exposure, yes, but so does breathing. The risk of being 'sued for just existing' is certainly not remotely the same as for publishing what could be considered libel, by someone who is currently suing someone for precisely that, and where there is already another active lawsuit interested in the original articles. Suggesting otherwise is absurdly disingenuous rhetoric, and you are trying to manufacture rationalizations for your overconfidence in ascribing beliefs & motives to me and calling me complicit. > This fear of litigation didn't prevent the publication of a bunch of supposedly stolen documents of Wright's (but actually forged and seeded to you). Wired was indeed worried about litigation but decided it was worth it - which makes sense since it's a giant magazine with free speech and legal protections out the wazoo and a law firm on retainer, all of which I am not or do not have, and why I went to it in the first place. > Since wright wanted them published they weren't a risk in fact-- but you claim that this wasn't known to you. It wasn't and still isn't. I believe the leak was genuine; he had forged them for internal consumption or possibly distributing to investors. (For a number of reasons ranging from Wright's legal threats and continued hatred of us, to the inconsistency of the leakers' actions both with each other and any hypothetical PR campaign, his poor handling of our initial contacts, to how it messed with his then-ongoing PR campaign with the LRB journalist etc.) > At the end of the day many people still believe this nonsense in part because of the false believe that your claims were supported by solid research and the reputation of yourself, your coauthor, and wired. I find it difficult to imagine anyone still believing Wright solely because we suggested he might be Satoshi, and if they ignore everything since, that is not our fault. News is never the last word on a subject.

2

almkglor 8 hs ago

So: > gwern: Given the evidence fed to me, it looks like the statement "The_Real_One is real" is true with probability N%. > > nullc: WTF? Look at the damn GPG keys and the haxored blog posts, probability is close to 0%. > > gwern: That does not change my priors significantly enough, so I stand by what I said. > > The_Real_One: Hi guys! Look at me, I'm amazing! *(makes a fool of himself)* > > nullc: WTF gwern? see? Retract the damn statement! > > The_Real_One: Oh, fuck, some guy just said I'm not real! I'm suing! *(makes a fool of himself and sues)* > > gwern: Given the realities, it would be irrational for me to retract my previous statement since I might get sued. > > nullc: You have no ethics gwern. *(throws egg at gwern's face)* > > gwern: fuck off, it's not your ass that might get sued. > > nullc: You do realize everybody knows I'm Gregory Maxwell but almost nobody knows who you are behind "gwern branwen" right?

1

Cryptolution Yesterday

All I see here is an enormous amount of back pedaling and a refusal to admit wrong on the basis of legal threat. Essentially you are both a coward and an ostrich. If you see fraud and you do not say fraud you are a fraud. Gwern - It is abundantly clear to me that you are a fraud. By being an enabler of CSW's provably false claims you are contributory to all of the chaos that has ensued. Actually be a man and admit you are wrong. Your refusal to do so is utterly pathetic. There is a 0% chance of successful litigation over a first amendment issue, especially one that is rife with provable fraud on the side of the accuser of libel. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this and instead cower behind a false threat shows what a little person you are.

1

nullc 3 days ago

>> As far as I know... > Ask midnightmagic then. I have now,and I fully accept on trust his assertion that you have been helpful in non-public ways which I would appreciate. That said, I don't believe this changes my position. > And did you look for evidence I had continued to maintain it in the face of all evidence before deciding to use it as a conclusive case study of, how did you put it? You have not published a retraction. Prior to publishing your assertions about wright you had *already* been called out for unethical conduct. You continued to not publish a retraction. > Funny how everything just establishes my 'complicity' more firmly. What I understand here is that you're complaining that I am saying that: Either you're complicit by being a fool who has argued himself into a corner and actually believes the nonsense, or you're complicit by knowing better and not actually doing the right thing in light of it. But only your continued refusal to behave ethically and retract makes this look like a damned if you do / damned if you don't situation. > I didn't personally gain anything You gained an incredible amount of traffic and attention, some of which directly results in advertising income for you. Over three years later the wired article is still in the middle of the first page of google results in a search for "Gwern" for me. [Not to mention, you certainly have not shied away from exploiting your charitable contributions to [improve your social standing](https://donations.vipulnaik.com/donor.php?donor=Gwern+Branwen) -- quasi-random link out of the great many results for Gwern AMF] > No one could have been harmed by this because he wasn't taking any investment from VCs How could you possibly know whom he was or wasn't taking money from? I would be happy to agree that it was just a mistake before-- that you reasonably thought the stakes were low (though you'd been cautioned about the ethics of your Satoshi hunt multiple times before) and that you (somewhat less reasonably) thought your research was adequate... Fine. But that was over three years ago, in the time since it has become very clear that people have been getting ripped off-- in all the ways you've named and many others. (Including the billion dollar funny money market cap on "Bitcoin Satoshi Vision, if you're finding yourself unable to reason about something without concrete numbers attached to it) > The risk of being 'sued for just existing' is certainly not remotely the same as for publishing what could be considered libel, by someone who is currently suing someone for precisely that, I have not asked you to do anything other than the bare minimum ethical behavior of retracting an article which you know (at least now) to be false. *That is it*. It may well be that the risk of that is greater than the risk of existing-- sad but true. But that is a risk you already chose to take by choosing to publish in the first place: The risk that you might find yourself wrong and be compelled by honest and ethical conduct (or at least your loss of reputation) to retract it even if doing so made some people mad. Whatever the risk of it is... it is significantly less than the risk I have taken on this-- risks I never would have felt morally obligated to take if not for irresponsible actions on your part that I begged you not to take well in advance with your earlier stalking! It's also potentially less than the risk you take from failing to do so. People who relied on your reporting might be an order of magnitude less vexatious, but they've genuinely been harmed and should have nothing to fear from legal embroilment compared to a certain conman. I also just find the argument suspect on the basis of timing: It's been years now, and the crazy legal threats only started recently. A year ago Wright was still "refusing to say" in public. Recanting would have been doing him a "favor" according to his public claims. If anyone's reputation is to mean anything then when someone prints false material either knowingly/recklessly or prints something they later learn to be false and refuse to retract, their reputation rightfully should be seriously wounded. I don't think it's appropriate to complain about the reasonable, expected, and socially necessary outcome of a situation you voluntarily created and perpetuate. When Wired published a low quality article on a subject nearer and dearer to your heart-- online markets for illicit drugs-- you surely were not [quiet in your criticism towards Greenberg](https://twitter.com/gwern/status/662309914468052992), even though he didn't work on that article. > Why would I not believe the Top 500's own website Maybe because you edited Wikipedia for many years and are aware of the discouragements/prohibitions on primary sources that exist _precisely_ because of this sort of problem? -- information without context is often easily misleading, fraud is just a particularly extreme example. Maybe because the stated purpose of an investigative journalist is to investigate! (though they so seldom do) .. and "could this be fake?" is a basic qualifying question far simpler than your DOJ/SR complaints. ... particularly in this case when it was known to you prior to publication that wright had fabricated a significant amount of material to suggest he created Bitcoin (at a minimum, the backdated blog posts). You write here that wright performing a long con was your leading competing theory. You also specifically mention the non-existence of the "supercomputer" (which was disclaimed by SGI within what... three days of publication?) as being pretty influential in changing your thinking. So shouldn't you have been checking how likely it was that it wasn't faked like the other faked evidence? Or at least finding out what it would take to fake it. Even if top500 hadn't been self-reported (like ... most other science...) it could have had a process that was easily tricked. > I believe the leak was genuine; he had forged them for internal consumption or possibly distributing to investors. That is plausible to me and consistent... also consistent with other fake satoshi leads you found previously: hints that people were dropping for detriment of specific parties/groups they were looking to exploit... I apologize for not considering this possibility in my prior message. > I find it difficult to imagine anyone still believing Wright solely because we suggested he might be Satoshi, There are a great many people who believe it because you and Wired told them it is so-- I end up speaking to people like that regularly--, and because the alternative that the extremely loud, visible, and "ultra confident" actions of wright are fake and that all the media sources were somehow tricked yet there has been _NO_ refutation remotely as confident as the affirmations just strikes a lot of people as too much to believe. Virtually no publication or person that promoted Wright's claims has clearly recanted their position, though I know through channels that many of them now believe they were tricked or that whatever they found persuasive before was junk. People like myself or /u/Contrarian__ who have been steadfastly fought against the sea of wright disinformation are telling you that "authorities" retracting their incorrect claims will go a LONG way to shutting down the con. (I pinged contrarian because I expect he will confirm that it matters) You and I both know that there was little to no serious investigation for most reporting on the subject, and as a result do not find publications such as yours particularly persuasive on their face. This is not true for the general public. Joe Public sees a wall of recognized authorities saying that these claims are credible, then they see some internet nobodies saying that not only isn't it not credible but it's completely absurd. They cannot reconcile these facts. If it were as absurd as we're saying it is, wouldn't the "authorities" have retracted it or gotten serious egg on their face? Face. Meet egg-- really low impact snarky reddit comment edition. Don't like it? then for Christ sake, don't argue with me ... get a retraction published!

2

Contrarian__ 3 days ago

> some internet nobodies How dare you? I'll have you know that [an esteemed journal](https://www.ccn.com/craig-wright-allegedly-submits-fake-e-mail-in-dave-kleiman-lawsuit) has referred to me as, and I quote, "**[a]n apparent expert in GPG signatures and cryptography**". Now who's a nobody? Jokes aside, I can confirm two things. First, /u/gwern has given me private and helpful assistance on one occasion as it relates to Craig. Second, I **do** think that public retractions are important, especially when a con is ongoing. I am glad to see that you (gwern) now definitively see him as a fraud; as of our conversation about a year ago, I still got the impression of ambivalence. If your primary impediment to a direct public retraction is fear of litigation, I think that's unfounded. In almost every jurisdiction on Earth, your speech would be protected if you offered it explicitly as your opinion (eg - "In my opinion, in light of evidence that I was unaware of at the time, I no longer believe that Craig Wright was involved in Bitcoin's creation...") I personally don't think your retraction would carry as much weight as Gavin Andresen's. The majority of True Believers I've encountered hold the 'private signing demonstration' as undeniable, bedrock evidence that Craig is Satoshi. However, the more 'public figures' who retract, the better. People are still getting hurt. And perhaps yours would encourage Gavin.

3

xoxoleah Yesterday

why do you talk to yourself?

1

Pivate_key Yesterday

You really are an internet nobody.

1

Aleksanderpwnz 1 week ago

>he continues to be complicit in the fraud. Do you mean the fraud that he was himself a victim of?

2

nullc 1 week ago

Was, perhaps. Though without the excuse of total technical ineptitude that characterized most of its other victims-- instead, the failure of reasoning appeared to be entirely self inflicted through rationalization and motivated thinking. Still, appears he isn't anymore (or at least not enough to keep sticking his neck out) yet he hasn't spoken up and let people know that he messed up, and by doing that he's helping the fraud continue and grow.

2

Aleksanderpwnz 1 week ago

So the fraud is still going on? People still think this guy is Sakamoto, because of that article?

1

dgerard paid shill for Big Basilisk 1 week ago

Craig Wright is now sending legal threats to people who say he isn't Satoshi. This is important because he has a billionaire for a backer. The bitcoin world is not happy at all. It's the prime drama this week in the land of Dunning-Krugerrands.

5

midmagic 3 days ago

No; Ayre says they're sending legal threats to people who say Craig isn't Satoshi. Craig (and Ayre) appear to be restricting their letters to people they say are libelling them. ("liable"ing in Ayre-speak.) So, the Craig is a fraud types, modulo people they think will be easy targets, presumably to build momentum.

2

dgerard paid shill for Big Basilisk 3 days ago

yeah, they're sticking to the ones who've said "fraud".

1

Aleksanderpwnz 1 week ago

Oh, ok. Yeah, then it would make sense to publicly state that he doesn't actually think Wright is Satoshi. But I guess he has his reasons (like not wanting to be sued for libel).

0

[deleted] 1 week ago

[removed]

0

noactuallyitspoptart One Man Brigade 1 week ago

wow

3

mossmoon 1 week ago

No, here’s wow. When you sabotage a beautiful and elegant system to serve this clusterfuck: https://twitter.com/PeterRizun/status/1118314315444936704 and this https://twitter.com/PeterRizun/status/1118253137029029888 If this were the private sector Maxwell would be in jail for racketeering.

0

dgerard paid shill for Big Basilisk 1 week ago

l o l o l bitcoiners, man

3

mossmoon 1 week ago

Sorry, didn’t realize I was on a sub dedicated to mocking people. What a blistering irony.

0

noactuallyitspoptart One Man Brigade 1 week ago

Calling Bitcoin "beautiful and elegant" is not likely to get me horny

7

b0l0zs 1 week ago

What evidence do you have that Gwern or Greenberg or both did not write the title of the article?

4

TimeEntertainer 1 week ago

It's pretty standard for authors to not choose the title their article runs under. It's chosen by someone who wants to maximize the clicks it'll get from shares etc.

2

dgerard paid shill for Big Basilisk 1 week ago

I'll usually suggest a title, maybe two, but in paid work of late 0 have run with what I suggested

1

dgerard paid shill for Big Basilisk 1 week ago

the headline is usually a matter of clickbait tweaking for the editor I mean they *might* have, but it's vastly more likely the editor put whatever the hell they first came up with like that day

3

mgbyrnc 1 year ago

nope. he tried to provide proof but it turned out to be fake

3

[deleted] 1 year ago

That is one frikken long article. How many people have claimed to be Satoshi by now?

1

BitcoinAllBot 1 year ago

Here is the link to the original comment thread. Or you can comment here to start a discussion. Author: CodexCrypto

1

2

3

With a year of Instant behind us, we’re excited to release a completely new trading experience into public beta. We’ve taken your feedback for a more immersive, informative, and smarter way to make quick decentralized trades on AirSwap. Come try out the new experience today. https://instant.airswap.io

2

9

- @sonyaellenmann

RT @matt_levine: Absolute legendary move here, Bitfinex took $625 million in real money at a real bank from Tether, and in exchange gave Tether back $625 million in fake money at a fake bank. https://t.co/llyRhT4Op2 https://t.co/wFPmmOnGVI

94 304

Christopher Wheeler - @Stocktrader

RT @BitMEXResearch: In November 2018, $625m of Tether customer funds appear to have been swapped for potentially bad debt at "Crypto Capital", information that was not made available to Tether holders. In return, Tether holders got 60 million Bitfinex shares as security. https://t.co/7ldj0fmQ51 https://t.co/MAXsr0Opjx

71 150

Ameer Rosic - @AmeerRosic

Never a dull moment in crypto https://t.co/JlEw4zNWc4

0 1

Jonathan Hope - @jhope30203

RT @matt_levine: Absolute legendary move here, Bitfinex took $625 million in real money at a real bank from Tether, and in exchange gave Tether back $625 million in fake money at a fake bank. https://t.co/llyRhT4Op2 https://t.co/wFPmmOnGVI

51 177

Jill Carlson - @_jillruth

RT @matt_levine: Absolute legendary move here, Bitfinex took $625 million in real money at a real bank from Tether, and in exchange gave Tether back $625 million in fake money at a fake bank. https://t.co/llyRhT4Op2 https://t.co/wFPmmOnGVI

17 73

Wong Joon Ian - @joonian

RT @matt_levine: Absolute legendary move here, Bitfinex took $625 million in real money at a real bank from Tether, and in exchange gave Tether back $625 million in fake money at a fake bank. https://t.co/llyRhT4Op2 https://t.co/wFPmmOnGVI

18 74

Crypto Randy Marsh - @nondualrandy

RT @FluidFluxation: Anyone smell insolvency? Convo snippets between senior Bitfinex executive (Merlin) and Crypto Capital regarding Bitfinex's difficulty retrieving customer funds and honoring withdraws. Per Office of Attorney General of New York filing on #Bitfinex #Tether https://t.co/T5lQTZfOrP https://t.co/hoQD8SltgA

1 7

#33kByJuly3018Moku //not_giving_away_ETH\\ - @CarpeNoctom

RT @BitMEXResearch: In November 2018, $625m of Tether customer funds appear to have been swapped for potentially bad debt at "Crypto Capital", information that was not made available to Tether holders. In return, Tether holders got 60 million Bitfinex shares as security. https://t.co/7ldj0fmQ51 https://t.co/MAXsr0Opjx

31 67

WhaleClub - @btcWhaleclub

NY Attorney General is suing Bitfinex and Tether : https://t.co/1WdLkCJSEQ

0 0

2

6

4

12

2

6 7

2 5

25 25

DK - @dke82

@IamNomad Got a gif for this too? Think that one is outdated. #bitcoin $BTC #tether https://t.co/fPTcRI6448

0 1

Michelle Varron - @michellevarron

RT @CaitlinLong_: 1/ STUNNED but not surprised by #Bitfinex #Tether news out of #NewYork. I'll let other cryptolawyers analyze it but here are two macro thoughts: (1) There's a big double standard here. (2) Exchanges, clean up your act--cryptographically prove your solvency https://t.co/u4vpjh7Kjw

108 296

Dan Held - @Dan-Held

RT @CaitlinLong_: 1/ STUNNED but not surprised by #Bitfinex #Tether news out of #NewYork. I'll let other cryptolawyers analyze it but here are two macro thoughts: (1) There's a big double standard here. (2) Exchanges, clean up your act--cryptographically prove your solvency https://t.co/u4vpjh7Kjw

61 192

Jordan Kong - @ImNotJK

RT @paulvigna: EXCLUSIVE: Bitfinex used tether reserves to mask $850 million loss of client funds from 2018, NY AG says. AG gets court order to force Bitfinex to cease ‘cover up’ https://t.co/FhA832zWQB #bitcoin #crypto #tether

337 514

Jill Carlson - @_jillruth

“A so-called stablecoin, Tether is purportedly backed one-to-one by U.S. dollars.” https://t.co/PrH7tWJDi8

0 3

Paul Sztorc - @Truthcoin

We call it... ...the UnTethering https://t.co/77SLe35Laa

0 3

Santi - @santisiri

an argument in favor of the need of independent governance in stable coins like @makerdao attempts. https://t.co/6g5ZdVaUB8

0 2

Andrew "Not cool enough for an ETH scam" Glidden - @asglidden

Comingling funds is one of the things that can get your corporate veil pierced, btw. https://t.co/SxT29qlzA3

0 2

Christopher Wheeler - @Stocktrader

RT @paulvigna: EXCLUSIVE: Bitfinex used tether reserves to mask $850 million loss of client funds from 2018, NY AG says. AG gets court order to force Bitfinex to cease ‘cover up’ https://t.co/FhA832zWQB #bitcoin #crypto #tether

108 295

Raz - @suprraz

Holders of the "pegged" coin, $USDT will flee to most stable asset. Expecting a $BTC bounce after panic subsides. https://t.co/wD3C4pKb9o

0 0

Ryan Selkis - @twobitidiot

RT @whalepool: Full document of filings against iFinex on claims they used Tether to cover up $800 Million stolen from them by Crypto Capital moneylaundering scam https://t.co/MN3bbyWdwi , WSJ: https://t.co/tXeUtmSfNr https://t.co/KGSKeJNKec

34 108

Preston Byrne - @prestonjbyrne

RT @jeffjohnroberts: You go to prison for stuff like this. https://t.co/S7PzCDE15i https://t.co/1Wc2kIdUSV

7 13

Dovey Wan - @DoveyWan

RT @krugermacro: Bitfinex. Careful buying this crash. $BTC https://t.co/Lz0CSxngv6

7 27

Camila Russo - @CamiRusso

RT @paulvigna: EXCLUSIVE: Bitfinex used tether reserves to mask $850 million loss of client funds from 2018, NY AG says. AG gets court order to force Bitfinex to cease ‘cover up’ https://t.co/FhA832zWQB #bitcoin #crypto #tether

187 268

LIL' CO฿AIN - @CryptoCobain

This one gonna hurt unless rebuttal is strong. https://t.co/Gvcp9cLklR

10 69

Antonis Polemitis - @polemitis

Fascinating. This also implies that Tether was fully collateralized through November 2018 https://t.co/kuusdfkHTB

0 0

zooko - @zooko

New York attorney general alleges Bitfinex raided Tether's USD reserves to cover up $850 M of missing funds. https://t.co/svXLpJkef9 via @WSJ

1 5

Collin Crypto - @CollinCrypto

Bitfinex used $USDT reserves to mask missing $850 million, probe finds. $btc #bitcoin https://t.co/5aDpt5ymfw

0 2

Leigh Cuen - @La__Cuen

RT @paulvigna: EXCLUSIVE: Bitfinex used tether reserves to mask $850 million loss of client funds from 2018, NY AG says. AG gets court order to force Bitfinex to cease ‘cover up’ https://t.co/FhA832zWQB #bitcoin #crypto #tether

117 159

Kevin Werbach - @kwerb

Yowza. Allegedly, Bitfinex used Tethers to cover up $850 million that "went missing" in mid-2018, but was never disclosed. https://t.co/wLmC2MULpZ

0 1

Ryan X. Charles - @ryanxcharles

No one saw this coming. (/s, lol). https://t.co/d1PFGGh6Q1

11 28

Emin Gün Sirer - @el33th4xor

This one has much more juicy details on Tether. https://t.co/wjLJcPEjKU

6 25

Joseph Young - @iamjosephyoung

RT @aantonop: Stablecoin with reserve = COUNTERPARTY RISK https://t.co/5Qj2JMguT9

29 83

Andreas M. Antonopoulos - @aantonop

Stablecoin with reserve = COUNTERPARTY RISK https://t.co/5Qj2JMguT9

41 141

cacheonomics - @CacheBoi

https://t.co/pEgxDJRqM0

5 27

Raunz Crypto Nerd | QC: CC 18 8 hs ago

Now we just need rest of the scams to exit scam and disappear also exchanges that listed and promoted obvious scams get shut down, for example Binance have listed obvious scams and is one of the biggest Tether holders. Your heros are fake crypto kids get rekt.

1

Organic_Pineapple Crypto Nerd 8 hs ago

We told you, we told you! The Bitfinex scam has been obvious for years. I can't believe some people still have money there.

It has always been the gloomiest, darkest, shadowiest place in the crypto space.

What did you expect??

2

DVDAallday 8 hs ago

I'm not super familiar with the Bitcoin/Tether but how was Tether supposed to work anyway? What was their plan if demand for USDT fluctuated relative to the dollar? How would they incentivize people to maintain the blockchain if all newly minted coins would only ever be worth $1?

1

aCOWtant Crypto Expert | QC: CC 146 9 hs ago

Poor ScienceGuy, this isn't on you bud.

3

e3ee3 Crypto God | QC: BTC 66, CC 58, ETH 23 9 hs ago

I thought we all knew this?

4

ironfordinner Crypto Nerd 9 hs ago

Tether or any stable coin is stupid, just use dollars or euros or whatever to trade against.

2

aCOWtant Crypto Expert | QC: CC 146 9 hs ago

The issue is that exchanges that utilize a stablecoin MUST have the same amount of cash on hand as is in circulation in the off chance that the market crumbles and everyone rightfully wants to cash out, or it's all bullshit and the money there was hyper-inflated and thus *not real*. See: Black Thursday.

6

marktwin11 Redditor for 30 days. 9 hs ago

Isn't the banks doing the same, FR? Printing money out of thin air and not backed by gold or silver.

1

aCOWtant Crypto Expert | QC: CC 146 8 hs ago

Banks are heavily regulated and partner with the government to protect from situations like this, such as the bank bailout. Banks make their money on credit interest and investing their customer's money, but if they misplaced $850 million, they, too, would be fucked.

3

IdiidDuItt Crypto Nerd 8 hs ago

Bureau of Engraving and Printing prints money. Banks literally just type numbers with their keyboard and thus digital money is "born".

0

SuddenMind Redditor for 9 months. 9 hs ago

After this reporting, how can tether possibly remain at 1:1 when their reserves are at least 30% missing?

1

xMrBlonde Crypto Nerd | QC: CC 55 9 hs ago

So... do we tether now to avoid the crash???

3

Sothisismylifehuh Crypto Nerd | QC: CC 51 9 hs ago

If Tether plummets, we might see the bull market very soon.

Bitconnect
Fake Satoshi
Tether

We are ticking the bad apples off from the list. So far, so good.

10

panduh9228 Redditor for 24 days. 9 hs ago

If by soon, you mean in 2-3 years after a lot of dust has settled and the market can reset, then I'd agree.

7

Organic_Pineapple Crypto Nerd 9 hs ago

So true, a lot of dust still has to settle. Not only dust, also garbage, crap and toxic coins.

4

Sothisismylifehuh Crypto Nerd | QC: CC 51 9 hs ago

It depends on the move of large institutional investors, I think. Do they move into DAI or a similar stablecoin that is decentralized? Or do they simply leave the scene to return at a later stage?

1

lizard450 10 hs ago

If this turns out to be bullshit that AG belongs in prison for a long long long fucking time. If not the dipshits running bitfinex should be in prison for life.fuck you karples.

3

-JamesBond Crypto God | QC: CC 101, BTC 34, KIN 19 10 hs ago

So it looks like the NY AG sent THREE letters to Bitfinex requesting info under a subpoena and ignored all of them. They are due infront of the SUPREME COURT of NY on May 3 2019. They. Are. Fucked.

29

sAsHiMi_ 9 hs ago

Does the NY AG even have jurisdiction over Bitfinex? Bitfinex is HK based and they don't allow any US customers.

11

echelon123 Crypto Expert | QC: ETH 17, KIN 17 8 hs ago

" The 23-page document, dated April 24, states that the NY AG’s office has reason to believe several New York and US-based traders transact on the firm’s platform. " It has jurisdiction if American citizens are involved.

4

CC_Batman 8 hs ago

of course they have jurisdiction, BFX is registered money transmitter in NY, and NY has jurisdiction over protecting their citizens in a general legal sense.

3

Sothisismylifehuh Crypto Nerd | QC: CC 51 9 hs ago

RemindMe! May 4th, 2019

1

pyramidion 5 - 6 years account age. 150 - 300 comment karma. 9 hs ago

source on this?

2

dovahkid Low Crypto Activity 9 hs ago

Try the pinned mod comment

2

bitchstolemykodo to the moon, alice! 10 hs ago

How in the fuck does an Attorney General in New York have oversight over a company that operates in Hong Kong and which explicitly prohibits U.S. citizens from using its services?

1

labrav 8 hs ago

Well that will be Tether's main defence I expect. Presumably some NY-based investors complained. And, given their jurisdiction over Wall Street, they have the know-how, at least as much as any state AG.

1

SuddenMind Redditor for 9 months. 9 hs ago

They don’t, they’re just trying to make a name for themselves

1

cointastical 10 hs ago

Who are these people with the cojones to leave anything more than pocket change on Bitfinex at this point.

Not your keys. Not your coins.

5

kilorat Crypto God | QC: BTC 91, CC 21 10 hs ago

Other stable coins up by the same percent, it's like finally people are waking up, when they should have moved to any other stable coin long ago.

8

753UDKM Crypto God | QC: BTC 53, CC 50 10 hs ago

I've been using USDC since it was listed on Binance. No way was I gonna roll the dice with USDT after all the FUD it has had. Seems like that was a good decision.

10

nexcent 3 - 4 years account age. 100 - 200 comment karma. 11 hs ago

Bitfinex Respond to New York Attorney General's Actions

https://www.bitfinex.com/posts/356

17

Zealo_s Crypto Expert | QC: CC 99 8 hs ago

This reads pretty guilty to me. Just has a "fake news!" ring to it. I suppose we'll see. I'd be curious as to where these funds are apparently being held?

1

nathanielx9 Crypto God | QC: CC 188, BTC 26 9 hs ago

Check out the copy and paste from tether lol https://tether.to/tether-respond-to-new-york-attorney-generals-actions/

2

NotGonnaGetBanned Low Crypto Activity | 1 day old 10 hs ago

The response seems really poorly written. Not the kind of thing I would expect from professional organizations with billions of dollars on the line. It reads more like a Nigerian scam email than something written by a team of crack lawyers and media experts (which they should really have vetting all of their statements). >The New York Attorney General’s court filings were written in bad faith and are riddled with false assertions, including as to a purported $850 million “loss” at Crypto Capital. On the contrary, we have been informed that these Crypto Capital amounts are not lost but have been, in fact, seized and safeguarded. "Including as to..."?? Who the fuck writes like that? "On the contrary"? Are you fucking serious? >We are and have been actively working to exercise our rights and remedies and get those funds released. The use of the word "get" really stands out. No lawyer or media advisor would use that word. >Sadly, the New York Attorney General’s office seems to be intent on undermining those efforts to the detriment of our customers. 😢 Sad!

0

Organic_Pineapple Crypto Nerd 8 hs ago

Thanks for that analysis. As a non native English speaker I cannot spot those subtle cues. Indeed it's closer to a Nigerian scam.

4

borkedybork 9 hs ago

You'll finding 'including as to' in millions of legal documents. What's the problem with 'on the contrary' ?

10

Nova06Ball 11 hs ago

Yikes

1

Libertymark 11 hs ago

Its all over

Closure

Its all over

Mass adoption and etfs coming

Bullish af

Clean slate

7

HeadShot305 Crypto Nerd | QC: CC 27 11 hs ago

People are reading this wrong. Tether was backed properly and when Bitfinex lost money elsewhere they started buying back tethers elsewhere to compensate for that. It makes sense considering they were removing tethers from the system when volume was still high. This is more of a worry for people keeping their funds in the exchange itself rather than in tether.

1

SeafoodBox Crypto Nerd 10 hs ago

Remind me! 180 days

5

llindstad Crypto Nerd 10 hs ago

No. 850 million USD are missing, which means that Tether is insolvent at its current price. There are no "interpretations to this". It's very simple: Tethers are not backed on a 1:1 ratio. Ironically, the same can be said about the US dollar, but that's a discussion for another time. It takes a proper moron to store large sums of money in Tether over time, at least with this information on hand. I expect the coin will eventually collapse under the weight and influence of US authorities.

16

doctor-yes Crypto Nerd 8 hs ago

Nobody claims the USD is backed by other assets. The issue here is fraud.

1

Organic_Pineapple Crypto Nerd 8 hs ago

>Tethers are not backed on a 1:1 ratio. Ironically, the same can be said about the US dollar, but that's a discussion for another time. Ha ha, we should have that discussion on national TV.

3

Hotsiam Crypto Expert | QC: CC 49, NANO 32 9 hs ago

it wont collapse because, just like US dollars, tether is a faith based exchange system where people will trade it for dollar equivalent amounts of crypto. and no order from some local supreme court ruling will change that especially in the international market, where investors and businesses literally have 0 regard for domestic authorities. why do you think facebook stock is up 20% since all the data scandals and rulings? because local governments cannot tame these run-away tech companies, as much as they’d like to.

4

llindstad Crypto Nerd 9 hs ago

Oh please, don't equivocate the faith and backing of the US government with Tethers. If you have as much faith in Tether as USD, I suggest you put all your life savings into it right away. It's trading at a 5% discount on Kraken. Run! before it's too late. Who cares about Facebook. The CFTC, FBI and NYAG are all working on the case. The US government took down FIFA for corruption, and breaking Bitfinex and Tether will be like eating kids food to them.

0

Hotsiam Crypto Expert | QC: CC 49, NANO 32 8 hs ago

bro, whenever i trade i generally use tether so long as theres a good volume and a market for it. if theres no volume, i aint using it. simple as that.

1

RemarkableLong 9 hs ago

Took down FIFA? Hahahahahahaba

2

Kotaibaw Crypto Expert | QC: CC 57, BTC 20 10 hs ago

also dollar not backed by anything :)

7

llindstad Crypto Nerd 9 hs ago

Thanks. It's not as if I already mentioned that in my post.

4

PA2SK Crypto Nerd | QC: CC 29, BUTT 125 10 hs ago

We don't know if tether was fully backed before this or not. Bitfinex was not buying back tethers. They "lost" $850 million. What would they buy back tethers with and what would that accomplish? What they did is "borrowed" hundreds of millions of dollars in cash from tether to make up their shortfall without informing customers.

15

HeadShot305 Crypto Nerd | QC: CC 27 10 hs ago

True we don't know for sure whether tether was initially backed, but all weak form evidence points to the fact it was. They would have bought back tethers with all their crypto holdings, do remember that they are top a 3 volume exchange in the world.

1

ad_hawk Crypto Nerd | QC: CC 27 10 hs ago

What evidence are you pertaining to? The fact that they showed it was backed for a day? That's not evidence at all.

3

youni89 11 hs ago

People actually thought Tether was fully backed this entire time while they kept on printing out useless tokens and gladly took your real dollars and valuable crypto? Lol.

5

D00Dy_BuTT Crypto God | QC: VEN 97 11 hs ago

The article and legal docs prove that it actually was backed by dollars.

8

-JamesBond Crypto God | QC: CC 101, BTC 34, KIN 19 10 hs ago

Was. Key word. Was.

5

taipeir Crypto Expert | QC: CC 117 10 hs ago

SOME of it was backed by USD.

8

Sothisismylifehuh Crypto Nerd | QC: CC 51 9 hs ago

SOME were allocated for what we know as fractional reserve banking. Sigh.

1

ILikeToSayHi Crypto God | QC: CC 68, BTC 56 11 hs ago

tldr: We gave a company $850M without signing an agreement or contract. We then tried to cover it up by taking a "loan" (lol) of tether to hide this fact and not tell investors.

7

PA2SK Crypto Nerd | QC: CC 29, BUTT 125 10 hs ago

They gave them $850 million in cash, not tether.

8

PA2SK Crypto Nerd | QC: CC 29, BUTT 125 10 hs ago

They gave them $850 million in cash, not tether.

1

ILikeToSayHi Crypto God | QC: CC 68, BTC 56 10 hs ago

ah thank you for the correction

2

voodoomessiah 11 hs ago

So.... Is Bitcoin going to crash now, just like Tether said?

0

Libertymark 10 hs ago

Moron its going to 6500

0

saipem7000 11 hs ago

This thread shows again that the vast majority of crypto gamblers are burger flippers who are too lazy and too stupid to read and understand a simple financial article.

17

DarthYippee Low Crypto Activity 8 hs ago

It's fucking paywalled.

3

soowhatchathink 9 hs ago

Say all you want about flipping burgers but it I really enjoy a good burger flip. You gotta get it just right so it lands on the pan on the reverse side perfectly.

7

-JamesBond Crypto God | QC: CC 101, BTC 34, KIN 19 10 hs ago

I’m a degenerate gambler that flips burgers into my mouth.

3

bro_coin 1 - 2 year account age. 100 - 200 comment karma. 10 hs ago

Your comment shows again that the vast majority of reddit users believe people read the article before writing a comment.

1

Sirius-AB Very Stable Crypto Genius 11 hs ago

the fact that tether markets are still up right now proves that much.

4

saipem7000 11 hs ago

Hi, Mr. Burger Flipper.

0

Sirius-AB Very Stable Crypto Genius 11 hs ago

oh... you're retarded. I'm sorry.

4

saipem7000 11 hs ago

Have you read the article? There is absolutely no indication that Tether hasn't been/isn't backed 1:1.

0

012345678N876543210 Low Crypto Activity | 5 months old 9 hs ago

Unfortunately Saipem, folks like you and I with actual reading comprehension will never win on Reddit against these idiots :(

3

gasfjhagskd Crypto Expert | QC: BCH 16, CC 15 10 hs ago

Who the fuck cares at this point? They essentially committed fraud and lied to people's faces about it. This destroys their credibility. This is exactly why they kept changing their ToS and saying it's backed by all sorts of crap. USDT ended up being backed by debt due from Bitfinex, which had just "lost" $850M and was in a liquidity crisis. So really, is that note actually worth $850M? Is that note liquid? Let me ask you something: What's the market value of a debt instrument with the debtor is incredibly untrustworthy and unreliable? It sure as hell isn't worth face value!

1

saipem7000 10 hs ago

Who committed fraud? Loaning out deposits does not violate Tether's terms. Who says that Bitfinex is "untrustworthy and unreliable"? Their business model is highly profitable. Btw read Bitfinex' statement on the issue. The $850m haven't been lost.

2

gasfjhagskd Crypto Expert | QC: BCH 16, CC 15 10 hs ago

When your execs are sweating a liquidity issues with their bank and at the same time telling all their customers that everything is normal, no issues, smooth sailing, that sounds pretty fucking fraudulent. Bitfinex and USDT are the same thing. They are untrustworthy because of the above. How the fuck are you going to trust a company who is fearing a meltdown while smiling and telling you "no problems here." They said it has been "seized and safeguarded" and they are struggling for months now to get it back. Last time I checked, seizing $850M isn't a "sorry, we noticed strange activity on your account, please call customer service to verify a charge."

0

saipem7000 10 hs ago

>When your execs are sweating a liquidity issues with their bank and at the same time telling all their customers that everything is normal, no issues, smooth sailing, that sounds pretty fucking fraudulent. Are they required to disclose such internal affairs? iFinex is a private company. And again: Where is the fraud?

1

gasfjhagskd Crypto Expert | QC: BCH 16, CC 15 10 hs ago

Try it yourself. Tell people depositing money or trying to make withdraws that you are financially sound and everything is fine and normal when you know you're in potentially dire straits. Fraud is not about contracts, it's about deception. You cannot knowingly deceive people for gain.

0

scottsimon36 10 hs ago

Any crypto that requires you to rely on a Trusted Third Party is not a crypto. It is no different from any bank.

3

ad_hawk Crypto Nerd | QC: CC 27 10 hs ago

At least with banks, the government (at least in my country) requires insurance up to a certain amount for deposits and requires risk management on loans, etc. Tether is trying to do the same things that banks do without the proper safeguards to their clients. Also, banks are regularly audited.

1

scotto8888 Crypto God | QC: CC 119, BTC 78 11 hs ago

Here we fucking go again ..

6

crypto_buddha Reddit + Discord Mod 11 hs ago

- Bitfinex response to NY Attorney General Court Filing. (26-04-2019)

- Supreme Court Documentation - NY Attorney General Filing against Tether Holdings Ltd (25-04-2019)

- Tether Claims $30 Million in US Dollar Token Stolen (21-11-17)

- Tether Quietly Removes Promise Of Audits From FAQ (28-11-18)

- USDT is now officially not backed 100% by USD. (14-03-19)

1

AutoModerator 11 hs ago

Hi pop34542. Your submission from wsj.com was removed for being behind a paywall. Articles posted to /r/worldnews must be accessible to the common redditor. Please use another source. If the article is actually accessible when clicking the reddit link, please let us know.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

2

25 2 5

andriyko 8 hs ago

I'm still waiting to withdraw my dollars that got turned into BAT tokens.

1

evabeylin redditor for 6 weeks 8 hs ago

How brave of them tehe

1

cryptofuture4me 10 hs ago

BAT didn't give me any single BAT reward in my verified uphold wallet! I had very bad experience with BAT! Forget about BRAVE/BAT... There is something much better than this--->>> bittube staking and airshare medium! @Bit.Tube/staking-and-airshare-17106754b4b8">https://medium.com/@Bit.Tube/staking-and-airshare-17106754b4b8

1

parishiIt0n 10 hs ago

It's the circle of life

1

cabbage22 11 hs ago

good

2

Steven81 11 hs ago

That makes no sense, it is free for brave to print coins (basically), which is why their scheme make sense. You cannot print BTC willy nilly, you have to find the funds somewhere and I doubt that advertisers are willing to pay the users.

The only reason that the BAT scheme works is exactly because the advertisers do not actually pay the users. The users is from whom (the advertisers) make money, it would had been absurd to pay them...

1

Jajarz 11 hs ago

Gab's CEO Andrew Torba is a Bitcoin Maximalist, he's said in a Hackernoon article that he's been in BTC since 2012/2013. Of course he would target BAT specifically and initially; it's a threat to his livelihood. Bitcoin gets it's value from the top down (Miners with expensive rigs/Whales hedging the price with Tether) BAT gets its value from the bottom up. (Users giving their attention and people speculating on that.) As there is an equal opportunity for every user to earn BAT for themselves, it's a new paradigm for crypto that would see BTC start to become unfavorable.

2

Unbathed 11 hs ago

Thanks, for the surprising-to-me crypto-fundamentals explanation!

2

CleverRubrik redditor for 6 weeks 12 hs ago

This is what should have been done from the beginning with Brave.

3

TheDoorsOpened redditor for 2 weeks 12 hs ago

Lmao. I want an Ethereum browser mofos.

1

Headline_Correction 12 hs ago

HA! HA!

1

ksiazek7 12 hs ago

This is big news imo. I like brave and BAT already but I'd also use a Gab browser based on free speech and is anti censorship.

2

furcryingoutloud 12 hs ago

This is actually what Brave should have been. Why they had to build their own coin is a mystery to me.

5

BlankEris 12 hs ago

Because free money

3

furcryingoutloud 11 hs ago

There is that. Still, if they have real advertisers, they could have collected fees in bitcoin. But I get what you're saying. So Brave is really just another shitcoin push. This is what actually gets me about all this. Very few, maybe none, of the projects out there are using bitcoin as their base coin. I understand the view of free money, but shit, bitcoin projects would have so much more strength. This Gab browser might upend Brave. Which obviously concerns Brave greatly.

3

joob44 12 hs ago

This is partly why I exited bat. Makes too much sense. But can can these guys maintain the browser with updates and patches?

3

larceniii 11 hs ago

No they can't, but they could be really disruptive. Oh wait, wasn't that the point of Bitcoin? I always like the idea of brave but hated the bat part. Like everyone else here.

3

mineum 13 hs ago

f i n a l l y :-)))

2

infernalr00t redditor for 6 weeks 13 hs ago

IMO opinion this isnt even the future, the future is paying for content, sad?, not really, services are free because you are the product. how did you change that?, by paying. Check satoshis place, you dont create an account, you pay for an account, devs get the money and you dont give your mail. Even webLN is working in a user ID using lightning so you can access services easily.

just think, you want yo download a rom from a site, you need to surf across a sea of ads, what if instead you buy the rom?, or an account for 1 year?, you paid and the ads are gone, the devs get money, a better UX.

1

walloon5 13 hs ago

Lol awesome

1

Todomas 13 hs ago

I mean it's cool that other sites are integrating it but I'd rather it not consisted of a bunch of alt-right neo-Nazi types

2

deineemudda 13 hs ago

lol he forks it to integrate lightning? it will work i. 18 months (tm) i guess

1

Marcion_Sinope 13 hs ago

+1 solid move.

1

McClarenCrypto redditor for 5 weeks 14 hs ago

That's amazing

1

Divan-Bnar 14 hs ago

Fuck yes

1

sreeanne 14 hs ago

Sounds lot better than BCH fork :)

1

Sherlocked_ 14 hs ago

It would have to hair lightning and be able to do recurring payment. Aside from that there is no way they can make the ad network work

1

cryptomon 14 hs ago

LMFAO like Bitcoin is private at fucking all. Zcash or monero.

1

BlankEris 12 hs ago

Or all 3

1

ghost012 14 hs ago

I only care if the let me earn in the EU, unlike brave....

1

3

Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain

Select

© 2018 Token Daily

Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain

Select

© 2018 Token Daily

🙌 Login to Token Daily