Topic: Bitfinex - FRAUD, price manipulation, fake transactions - page 8. (Read 4933 times)

Quote from: romani245 on August 12, 2017, 02:51:10 AM

Quote from: mayax on August 12, 2017, 06:10:44 PM

It looks like you think that the US is the only pebble on beach or it is the major pebble there. While the latter may certainly be true (to a degree), you should understand that while some countries (in fact, many countries) are ready to lick the boots of Uncle Sam, this is not a universal practice by any means. In other words, the claims of some US agency about money laundering is surely not something to be discarded as a non-event, but they still remain only the claims of just one country (though highly influential). You would need to pass the US Security Council resolution to make it binding to the rest of the world (at least, to most of the world)

The UN has no power to enforce anything, and no power to stop the US from robbing people blind all over the world. Maybe an exchange declared illicit by the US can hide in Iran or Somalia or the like, but I don't see why anyone would use it. Russia -- YES -- but Russia is very unfriendly to crypto exchanges. I guess there's China, but their government has recently taken a very keen interest in Bitcoin and its exchanges too...

You may want to read more about the UN Security Council

Decisions and resolutions unanimously accepted by the permanent members of the UN Security Council are binding to all UN member states. And it is basically the same as US doing anything on their own (what they typically do anyway), but in this case their actions would be agreed upon by all major world powers like China and Russia. So if, say, the latter two support a proposal to universally ban Bitcoin, that would mean that the US has essentially got a carte blanche to do everything they see appropriate in this regard everywhere in the world

The UN (and Security Council) are irrelevant here. Could you point out otherwise? The US will not pass any resolution that will inhibit its abilities to coordinate globally to take down what it perceives as illicit or nefarious actors. If the UNSC does nothing, the US can continue as always. Otherwise, the US can just veto any resolution

You miss the whole point of my posts here

I'm not saying that the US can't veto any UNSC resolution that they don't quite like. What I'm saying is in fact goes beyond that. I specifically made it clear that if a resolution would be accepted unanimously, that would mean the US accepting it as well (can you read?), and it will be binding to the whole world. Otherwise, no country is obliged to follow whatever the US asks them to do (unless they have bilateral agreements, of course). Indeed, the governments that are eagerly licking the boots of Uncle Sam will do anything anyway, but this would still be a far cry from the whole world. If you can't really read it (and understand what you read), China and Russia are in no way going to follow the directions or proposals of the US government unless these are accepted as a UNSC resolution. In other words, if the US really wants "to coordinate globally to take down what it perceives as illicit or nefarious actors", it should receive a UNSC resolution for that. As simple as it gets, hope this helps

MAbtc

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 508

Quote from: MAbtc on August 12, 2017, 05:25:20 PM

Quote from: romani245 on August 12, 2017, 02:51:10 AM

Quote from: MAbtc on August 12, 2017, 05:25:20 PM

It looks like you think that the US is the only pebble on beach or it is the major pebble there. While the latter may certainly be true (to a degree), you should understand that while some countries (in fact, many countries) are ready to lick the boots of Uncle Sam, this is not a universal practice by any means. In other words, the claims of some US agency about money laundering is surely not something to be discarded as a non-event, but they still remain only the claims of just one country (though highly influential). You would need to pass the US Security Council resolution to make it binding to the rest of the world (at least, to most of the world)

The UN has no power to enforce anything, and no power to stop the US from robbing people blind all over the world. Maybe an exchange declared illicit by the US can hide in Iran or Somalia or the like, but I don't see why anyone would use it. Russia -- YES -- but Russia is very unfriendly to crypto exchanges. I guess there's China, but their government has recently taken a very keen interest in Bitcoin and its exchanges too...

You may want to read more about the UN Security Council

Decisions and resolutions unanimously accepted by the permanent members of the UN Security Council are binding to all UN member states. And it is basically the same as US doing anything on their own (what they typically do anyway), but in this case their actions would be agreed upon by all major world powers like China and Russia. So if, say, the latter two support a proposal to universally ban Bitcoin, that would mean that the US has essentially got a carte blanche to do everything they see appropriate in this regard everywhere in the world

The UN (and Security Council) are irrelevant here. Could you point out otherwise? The US will not pass any resolution that will inhibit its abilities to coordinate globally to take down what it perceives as illicit or nefarious actors. If the UNSC does nothing, the US can continue as always. Otherwise, the US can just veto any resolution.

As was mentioned, Russia or China could provide BTC-e cover, but why would they? The bigger question is why would a prospective customer use an exchange that is under indictment from the United States (i.e. the world police)? That's asking to get your shit seized. Anyone with a brain would just use a different exchange.

as you can notice, there are not too many with a brain

they are like the sheep. how can someone use an exchanger like BTC-e , Bitfinex, Kraken, Poloniex? it's amazing

Well, I had some funds on BTC-e, so I suppose I was a sheep, too. There were reasons to do so, and I won't go into the details. Tongue

My position has always been the unregulated exchanges could be taken down at any time. If you were to use them, always spread around the risk to multiple exchanges, and minimize time holding funds on them. The BTC-e seizure makes things more urgent now for users on exchanges like Bitfinex, Kraken, etc. to get their funds out while they can.

mayax

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1004

Quote from: romani245 on August 12, 2017, 02:51:10 AM

It looks like you think that the US is the only pebble on beach or it is the major pebble there. While the latter may certainly be true (to a degree), you should understand that while some countries (in fact, many countries) are ready to lick the boots of Uncle Sam, this is not a universal practice by any means. In other words, the claims of some US agency about money laundering is surely not something to be discarded as a non-event, but they still remain only the claims of just one country (though highly influential). You would need to pass the US Security Council resolution to make it binding to the rest of the world (at least, to most of the world)

The UN has no power to enforce anything, and no power to stop the US from robbing people blind all over the world. Maybe an exchange declared illicit by the US can hide in Iran or Somalia or the like, but I don't see why anyone would use it. Russia -- YES -- but Russia is very unfriendly to crypto exchanges. I guess there's China, but their government has recently taken a very keen interest in Bitcoin and its exchanges too...

You may want to read more about the UN Security Council

Decisions and resolutions unanimously accepted by the permanent members of the UN Security Council are binding to all UN member states. And it is basically the same as US doing anything on their own (what they typically do anyway), but in this case their actions would be agreed upon by all major world powers like China and Russia. So if, say, the latter two support a proposal to universally ban Bitcoin, that would mean that the US has essentially got a carte blanche to do everything they see appropriate in this regard everywhere in the world

The UN (and Security Council) are irrelevant here. Could you point out otherwise? The US will not pass any resolution that will inhibit its abilities to coordinate globally to take down what it perceives as illicit or nefarious actors. If the UNSC does nothing, the US can continue as always. Otherwise, the US can just veto any resolution.

As was mentioned, Russia or China could provide BTC-e cover, but why would they? The bigger question is why would a prospective customer use an exchange that is under indictment from the United States (i.e. the world police)? That's asking to get your shit seized. Anyone with a brain would just use a different exchange.

as you can notice, there are not too many with a brain

they are like the sheep. how can someone use an exchanger like BTC-e , Bitfinex, Kraken, Poloniex? it's amazing

MAbtc

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 508

Quote from: romani245 on August 12, 2017, 02:51:10 AM

Quote from: romani245 on August 12, 2017, 02:51:10 AM

It looks like you think that the US is the only pebble on beach or it is the major pebble there. While the latter may certainly be true (to a degree), you should understand that while some countries (in fact, many countries) are ready to lick the boots of Uncle Sam, this is not a universal practice by any means. In other words, the claims of some US agency about money laundering is surely not something to be discarded as a non-event, but they still remain only the claims of just one country (though highly influential). You would need to pass the US Security Council resolution to make it binding to the rest of the world (at least, to most of the world)

The UN has no power to enforce anything, and no power to stop the US from robbing people blind all over the world. Maybe an exchange declared illicit by the US can hide in Iran or Somalia or the like, but I don't see why anyone would use it. Russia -- YES -- but Russia is very unfriendly to crypto exchanges. I guess there's China, but their government has recently taken a very keen interest in Bitcoin and its exchanges too...

You may want to read more about the UN Security Council

Decisions and resolutions unanimously accepted by the permanent members of the UN Security Council are binding to all UN member states. And it is basically the same as US doing anything on their own (what they typically do anyway), but in this case their actions would be agreed upon by all major world powers like China and Russia. So if, say, the latter two support a proposal to universally ban Bitcoin, that would mean that the US has essentially got a carte blanche to do everything they see appropriate in this regard everywhere in the world

The UN (and Security Council) are irrelevant here. Could you point out otherwise? The US will not pass any resolution that will inhibit its abilities to coordinate globally to take down what it perceives as illicit or nefarious actors. If the UNSC does nothing, the US can continue as always. Otherwise, the US can just veto any resolution.

As was mentioned, Russia or China could provide BTC-e cover, but why would they? The bigger question is why would a prospective customer use an exchange that is under indictment from the United States (i.e. the world police)? That's asking to get your shit seized. Anyone with a brain would just use a different exchange.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Thatstinks on August 08, 2017, 09:37:04 PM

It looks like you think that the US is the only pebble on beach or it is the major pebble there. While the latter may certainly be true (to a degree), you should understand that while some countries (in fact, many countries) are ready to lick the boots of Uncle Sam, this is not a universal practice by any means. In other words, the claims of some US agency about money laundering is surely not something to be discarded as a non-event, but they still remain only the claims of just one country (though highly influential). You would need to pass the US Security Council resolution to make it binding to the rest of the world (at least, to most of the world)

The UN has no power to enforce anything, and no power to stop the US from robbing people blind all over the world. Maybe an exchange declared illicit by the US can hide in Iran or Somalia or the like, but I don't see why anyone would use it. Russia -- YES -- but Russia is very unfriendly to crypto exchanges. I guess there's China, but their government has recently taken a very keen interest in Bitcoin and its exchanges too...

You may want to read more about the UN Security Council

Decisions and resolutions unanimously accepted by the permanent members of the UN Security Council are binding to all UN member states. And it is basically the same as US doing anything on their own (what they typically do anyway), but in this case their actions would be agreed upon by all major world powers like China and Russia. So if, say, the latter two support a proposal to universally ban Bitcoin, that would mean that the US has essentially got a carte blanche to do everything they see appropriate in this regard everywhere in the world

Samarkand

sr. member

Activity: 658

Merit: 282

Quote from: Beerwizzard on August 08, 2017, 09:31:53 PM

Still havent seen a real evedence that Bitfinex is making fake volumes. Thats bight be one of the disadvantages of unregulated crypto exchanges. Have no idea what to do with this but i'm afraid some people may insist on adding some kind of moderation (what is usually also not good).

Just 1 or 100 reasons BTC can NEVER be a world currency. It is just not possible to have a decentralized unregulated currency when the "bad" guys game it like this. Not saying BTC should be regulated, no no no but simply exhibit A why it will never be THE crypto for mainstream.

Bitcoin doesn´t need to become a world currency.
Bitcoin´s main use case is savings!

It has outperformed any other liquid asset class over the past 8 years since its inception!

mayax

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1004

Quote from: manchester93 on August 12, 2017, 01:33:30 AM

Seizing a domain name is not a big deal, any domain, for that matter. But seizing domains that don't officially sit in the US jurisdiction will be another violation of sovereignty (as far as I understand it). And while technically it might not be difficult, it could be next to impossible politically. What prevents Bitfinex from registering a new domain in some US-hostile country, say, Iran? As I see it, domain names should be Bitfinex' least concern.

Seizing the domain is about making a statement. The banking world would shut them out (well, already done in Bitfinex's case), and they would forever have a target on their back and risk of seizures.

Further, Bitfinex is a whole lot larger than Btc-e, and they had tensions with the CFTC in the past, so, first, they are more tasty than Btc-e, so to speak, and, second, they should be prepared to the US "law enforcing" agencies to go after their servers (and even more so now that Btc-e servers got seized). So the real question is whether the US already tried that but failed or they are yet to try. Besides, Bitfinex has already been blacklisted by the US banks (see Wells Fargo), so there likely was (is) something going on behind the scenes, and it kinda looks that this exchange is far better prepared to the kind of attack that Btc-e fell victim to

I think it's more just a matter of time. The feds take years to build these cases.

maybe not more than 6 months from now on.

romani245

sr. member

Activity: 267

Merit: 255

Quote from: squatter on August 12, 2017, 02:04:10 AM

It looks like you think that the US is the only pebble on beach or it is the major pebble there. While the latter may certainly be true (to a degree), you should understand that while some countries (in fact, many countries) are ready to lick the boots of Uncle Sam, this is not a universal practice by any means. In other words, the claims of some US agency about money laundering is surely not something to be discarded as a non-event, but they still remain only the claims of just one country (though highly influential). You would need to pass the US Security Council resolution to make it binding to the rest of the world (at least, to most of the world)

The UN has no power to enforce anything, and no power to stop the US from robbing people blind all over the world. Maybe an exchange declared illicit by the US can hide in Iran or Somalia or the like, but I don't see why anyone would use it. Russia -- YES -- but Russia is very unfriendly to crypto exchanges. I guess there's China, but their government has recently taken a very keen interest in Bitcoin and its exchanges too...

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: deisik on August 12, 2017, 01:53:10 AM

Quote from: manchester93 on August 12, 2017, 01:33:30 AM

Quote from: deisik on August 12, 2017, 01:53:10 AM

Seizing a domain name is not a big deal, any domain, for that matter. But seizing domains that don't officially sit in the US jurisdiction will be another violation of sovereignty (as far as I understand it). And while technically it might not be difficult, it could be next to impossible politically. What prevents Bitfinex from registering a new domain in some US-hostile country, say, Iran? As I see it, domain names should be Bitfinex' least concern.

Seizing the domain is about making a statement. The banking world would shut them out (well, already done in Bitfinex's case), and they would forever have a target on their back and risk of seizures

This statement is meaningless

In fact, I'd rather say that it is even detrimental to the whole initiative aimed at shutting down an exchange. When did we see that scary to every trader picture at the Btc-e site? When everything was essentially over for Btc-e, right? In this manner, seizing the domain only and placing the seizure note is futile and in fact counterproductive if they, at the same time, fail to reach out and touch servers as well as wallets. The exchange will likely fire up another domain and users will took their coins away. Mission failed

I don't get it. Aren't you just ignoring the BTC-e case? Sure, the crypto should be encrypted. But due to fiat bank accounts being frozen, BTC-e is saying 45% of the money is gone. (I think they are probably pocketing a lot more than that if they do come back, given this talk of KYC)

I don't get your idea either

It looks like you think that the US is the only pebble on beach or it is the major pebble there. While the latter may certainly be true (to a degree), you should understand that while some countries (in fact, many countries) are ready to lick the boots of Uncle Sam, this is not a universal practice by any means. In other words, the claims of some US agency about money laundering is surely not something to be discarded as a non-event, but they still remain only the claims of just one country (though highly influential). You would need to pass the US Security Council resolution to make it binding to the rest of the world (at least, to most of the world)

squatter

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1196

STOP SNITCHIN'

Quote from: manchester93 on August 12, 2017, 01:33:30 AM

Quote from: manchester93 on August 12, 2017, 01:33:30 AM

Seizing a domain name is not a big deal, any domain, for that matter. But seizing domains that don't officially sit in the US jurisdiction will be another violation of sovereignty (as far as I understand it). And while technically it might not be difficult, it could be next to impossible politically. What prevents Bitfinex from registering a new domain in some US-hostile country, say, Iran? As I see it, domain names should be Bitfinex' least concern.

Seizing the domain is about making a statement. The banking world would shut them out (well, already done in Bitfinex's case), and they would forever have a target on their back and risk of seizures

This statement is meaningless

In fact, I'd rather say that it is even detrimental to the whole initiative aimed at shutting down an exchange. When did we see that scary to every trader picture at the Btc-e site? When everything was essentially over for Btc-e, right? In this manner, seizing the domain only and placing the seizure note is futile and in fact counterproductive if they, at the same time, fail to reach out and touch servers as well as wallets. The exchange will likely fire up another domain and users will took their coins away. Mission failed

I don't get it. Aren't you just ignoring the BTC-e case? Sure, the crypto should be encrypted. But due to fiat bank accounts being frozen, BTC-e is saying 45% of the money is gone. (I think they are probably pocketing a lot more than that if they do come back, given this talk of KYC)

Money laundering charges are a lot more serious than listing torrent trackers or even offering US-facing online gambling. Would you take the risks to run such an exchange? You can't step foot in most of the world for risk of extradition. And the bigger question is, why would anyone trade there? Given that they are under indictment from the US? Seems like a no-brainer to just go somewhere else.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Seizing a domain name is not a big deal, any domain, for that matter. But seizing domains that don't officially sit in the US jurisdiction will be another violation of sovereignty (as far as I understand it). And while technically it might not be difficult, it could be next to impossible politically. What prevents Bitfinex from registering a new domain in some US-hostile country, say, Iran? As I see it, domain names should be Bitfinex' least concern.

Seizing the domain is about making a statement. The banking world would shut them out (well, already done in Bitfinex's case), and they would forever have a target on their back and risk of seizures

This statement is meaningless

In fact, I'd rather say that it is even detrimental to the whole initiative aimed at shutting down an exchange. When did we see that scary to every trader picture at the Btc-e site? When everything was essentially over for Btc-e, right? In this manner, seizing the domain only and placing the seizure note is futile and in fact counterproductive if they, at the same time, fail to reach out and touch servers as well as wallets. The exchange will likely fire up another domain and users will took their coins away. In two words, mission failed

manchester93

sr. member

Activity: 251

Merit: 257

Seizing a domain name is not a big deal, any domain, for that matter. But seizing domains that don't officially sit in the US jurisdiction will be another violation of sovereignty (as far as I understand it). And while technically it might not be difficult, it could be next to impossible politically. What prevents Bitfinex from registering a new domain in some US-hostile country, say, Iran? As I see it, domain names should be Bitfinex' least concern.

Seizing the domain is about making a statement. The banking world would shut them out (well, already done in Bitfinex's case), and they would forever have a target on their back and risk of seizures.