I guess it's just wishful thinking on my part.
Bitfinex seems to always lead the rest of the markets in price movements, even though they are the shadiest exchange, especially for how large they are.
Them being down for a few days would force people to use other exchanges, which I believe would be a good thing for the crypto ecosystem.
Don't forget, Blockstream loves Bitfinex, Bitfinex funded BS in the seed round. Plus all this other shit:
1. If it was down for a few days, people would start trading elsewhere.
2. How do you know they're the leading exchange? Their volume data could be faked.
3. They use a fake dollar token which they themselves created, and have failed to provide a single audit of, despite promising regular audits.
4. One of their senior executives had alluded to using idle customer funds as margin to trade with.
Edit: You can tell by the way they talk in public that it's a scummy exchange:
It's called Tone at the Top:
Dude, y'all need to stop this, please. I'm a QASH fan too, I have some in my portfolio and I'm seriously considering buying more while it's low. But come on, can y'all stop shilling this in every damn thread? I get that you wanna see gains, so do I, but hyping the shit out of it to make it spike isn't sustainable. Just let the team quietly do their business and let the news do all the shilling for you, and in the meantime let's accumulate while it's low.
without losing a cent of their own funds (i suppose collecting fees generates a flow)... because fuck you... this is not socialization (since earnings are not socialized) it's unfair preference in bankrupting (using only OPM)...
Exchanges are for trading. Cold wallets are for storage.
Here's one of many examples where this has been discussed - this one six months old: [https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/47unzd/insanity_of_ether_holders/].
But when you state "what the hell are you doing in a trading sub" you seem to be also trying to make a point about off-exchange storage being incompatible with "trading". My point is that it's not.
It's not tough to move your funds off the exchange when you are not trading. If you are trading with your entire bank roll every time you trade or if you need to post 100% of your assets as collateral to cover your shorts, you either don't know how to manage risk or you've accepted the high-risk.
Based on the conversations here, it's the former and not the later.
You get fucked if all your coins weren't taken. You get saved if your coins were taken. Let's not act like we're discussing what's right and wrong here and be open about how we only care about what's in our best interest.
I didn't even have BTC in Bitfinex. Lots of folks kept USD in bitfinex it sounds like. Man, I get it, this is probably the easiest solution that doesn't destroy everyone or any one person... but holy crap they turned my decision to switch to them from Polo the night before into a reaaaaallllllly bad decision.
I wish there was some way to audit these companies. They're handling way too much of other people's money not to be regulated. This is Full Tilt Poker all over again.
This is why we need decentralized exchanges. BitSquare is one such exchange, as I understand it, and OpenLedger distributes the risk somewhat by separating the interests holding the tokens (called "gateways") from the actual exchange, which is itself also decentralized. (Not sure how BitSquare does it.)
Call it what you like, but 100% of the people who risked their capital trading on a fallible crypto exchange are losing equally. That is a whole hell of a lot more equitable than a government bailing out wealthy idiots who took insane risks with the apparent correct expectation that they would not be allowed to fail (or lose their annual bonus).
This is just another gox, and it sucks. However, technically, everyone who uses a platform like bitfinex forfeited the control over his/her property (bitcoins) and "only" got a claim to this property in return. It's still sad that it has to come to this, though.
After much thought, analysis, and consultation, we have arrived at the conclusion that losses must be generalized across all accounts and assets. This is the closest approximation to what would happen in a liquidation context. Upon logging into the platform, customers will see that they have experienced a generalized loss percentage of 36.067%. In a later announcement we will explain in full detail the methodology used to compute these losses.
Nah we're celebrating a 36% loss to all Bitfinex account holders, surely this will herald Bitcoins next bull run and not just cement the idea that Bitcoin is inherently unsafe
Bitfinex users : skullfucked.
Yeah you're right....this is probably the end of bitcoin...because the problem was with bitcoin and not the security at the exchange...its weird how whenever there is a bank robbery everyone gives up on cash and credit cards and goes back to the barter system...
The problem was with Bitcoin you since, it's because the assets are in Bitcoin that there's no reversing the transaction or effectively finding the hacker.
By the way whenever there's a bank robbery nobody loses a penny because banks have FDIC insurance and don't socialize losses like Bitcoin pseudo-banks. Sorry for your loss
lol - Yeah nobody lost anything in 2008...Banks are honest, awesome and totally safe - have fun with the next round of skull fuckings, beginning when this zero interest rate bubble pops and cums so hard in your dome, we'll be able to see the geyser shooting out of the top of your head from our moon base.
For once, you're right...not a single penny of FDIC insured earnings were lost in 2008. You've been wrong, what, dozens of times in the past few weeks about a pending ATH? and now a Bitcoin exchange loses millions, is smeared in major newspapers and you're still deluded enough to think the mainstream is going to be buying in soon? lololol.
Enjoy your haircut.
Every time you post the price shoots up another 3 bucks lolz. It's funny watching you guys sitting there with a tampon in one socket, pulling your hair screaming.. "HOW THE FUCK ARE THESE FUN BUCKS STILL FUCKING AROUND??!!?? ITS BEEN....SEVEN....FUCKING....YEARS!!! -- On a side note - who do you thinks gonna win the Diaz /McGregor fight? I got Diaz winning TKO 3rd round.
> The security model of Bitcoin rests on the economic incentives which prevent miners from working on large reorgs. Those economic incentives go away when the possible gain is many times larger than the miner's normal income. This is a fully known property -- is discussed in the original Bitcoin whitepaper.
I appreciate the apt use of the neutral term "property" by Mark here. The word "fatal flaw", which some might have used instead to describe that feature, would have require an external value framework, in which e.g. the miners executing double spend of 60 million dollars when offered a 30 million dollar bribe would be considered a bad thing. Such spurious valuations, that smell of ethics and justice, should have no place in a *really* trustless math-based payment system.
Hmm somehow people were able to make payments of that size at least sort -of work even in a system with no public verifications ever on any transaction. So if you could consider such a fiat system to in any sense be "alive" then it would be impossible to argue that the potential for bribing miners is a fatal flaw.
All depends on what you consider important constraints to be. The fiat system has extensive regulation and legal system which is supposed to make sure those transactions work fine. The crypto system relies basically entirely upon its code. So when the crypto system doesn't have a way to prevent double spends which are larger than the normal rewards, it's got no other way to resolve that.
The solution as I see it is combining ethics with cryptocurrency. I believe the best cryptocurrency communities will develop their own ethical standards and means of monitoring, rewarding, and enforcing their adoption. Not supporting "malicious double-spends" (for the most part, any double spend) seems like a key aspect.
> The solution as I see it is combining ethics with cryptocurrency. I believe the best cryptocurrency communities will develop their own ethical standards and means of monitoring, rewarding, and enforcing their adoption.
Those concepts are called "government", "laws", "regulations", and "law enforcement".
It is heart-warming to see the butters rapid progress in their discovery of civilization. Maybe it will take them only 50 years to go through the the next 5000 years of history...
Right. I agree with you. I like you. But I find it disappointing how you have to be condescending about it. I'm advocating exactly what you are, but you have to make it into yet another opportunity to just be a snarky asshole about how stupid everyone who is trying to make cryptocurrency better is.
You're better than that. The rest of this sub may not be, but you are.
I started following the bitcoin forums in Nov 2013. At the time it was taken for granted that bitcoin was going to disintegrate all governments and replace laws by the logic of blockchain. That is still the assumption of many bit-coiners. And it almost must be, because the only significant advantage of bitcoin over other payment systems is its relative (or mythical) ability to bypass legal barriers and protect users from law enforcement.
> I started following the bitcoin forums in Nov 2013.
I don't believe that, because I believe you're Satoshi.
> At the time it was taken for granted that bitcoin was going to disintegrate all governments and replace laws by the logic of blockchain. That is still the assumption of many bit-coiners.
Yeah, I won't by any means try to deny that there are plenty of Bitcoiners who live up to the stereotype. I don't see why you should treat me like I'm saying anything like that when I never have.
> And it almost must be, because the only significant advantage of bitcoin over other payment systems is its relative (or mythical) ability to bypass legal barriers and protect users from law enforcement.
No, as you know full well, that simply means Bitcoin doesn't have any obvious advantage as a payment system over the current competition. It doesn't mean that governments will or have to fall as a result.
You've made plenty of serious posts and comments about cryptocurrency. Yes, satire is certainly a useful and fun tool. But I don't see why you should treat every person who thinks cryptocurrency might have a use like they're a strawman Butter.
>I'm advocating exactly what you are, but you have to make it into yet another opportunity to just be a snarky asshole about how stupid everyone who is trying to make cryptocurrency better is.
Heightened emotional states tend to result in awkward run-ons, have you noticed that at all?
Sounds good :) It's also important to note that, as Schneier says, "commerce is highly resistant to security vulnerabilities" (I paraphrase). If I want to pay you a sum of money worth a few dozen homes, the deal probably includes you knowing who I am, and my wanting to actually pay you as part of the deal. Malicious double-spends are not in any way a part of such an arrangement, any more than the possibility of armed robbery doesn't prevent all commerce. Similarly, the fact that eat-and-run is a possibility at restaurants is not in any way a "fatal flaw" in the order-first restaurant payment model. Malicious double spends are something to keep in mind and understand, and of importance especially in shitcoin exchanges with anonymous customers, but are in no way a fatal flaw.
Yeah, I agree with that. It's important to be forthright and reasonable about what the limitations are in a given cryptocurrency (or anything), but having limitations doesn't mean the thing is worthless. And agreed that honesty is the typical case.
I actually use this routinely in a way: basically the only use I have for BTC is buying on Coinbase and sending to the exchange I use to trade for alts. That transaction goes remarkably quickly because although Coinbase is cheap on their transaction fees, the exchange recognizes the transaction and knows they aren't going to do anything fucky with it, so they accept it with zero-conf at this point I think (haven't watched closely, but it's 1 conf at most with how fast it goes, and I think it really is taking zero conf).
Obviously that's risky and a security vulnerability, but if it's managed correctly it can definitely be an acceptable risk (and certainly they think so). All about cost-benefit analysis. There's no such thing as perfect security.