Topic: bitfinex WEBSITE BACK TO LIFE - page 2. (Read 3060 times)

Goldman Sachs is dealing with millions, billions per client while Apple store is dealing with max. thousands.That's why the refund is quicker

Regulation brings more responsibility on any market. The exchangers will know that they are responsible for everything is going wrong. Also, it's required by laws(almost all the countries) that a forex, exchangers to have a license.
There are few exchangers who got it. They paid a lot of money, insurance, compliance, they hired staff, rent, lawyers,audits and so on.  The other ones like Bitfinex, Kraken, BTC-e do not own anything even the legislation from their countries requires that.   Is it fair? I guess not....

the strife has just begun. have they provided proof of reserves so everyone knows that they've received a justifiable haircut?

i havnt hoarded in an exchange since 2013 im just giving advice to general population

oversight??

please read some regulation documents.. regulators are not watching and auditing businesses pre-emptively.. they react AFTER THE FACT.
the SEC do not create policies personalised for every business, the sec does not create monthly statements yearly tax reports for businesses.they just receive documents from the company.
when the SEC receives a complaint then the sec investigates. if there is no complaint the sec just takes the businesses word that they are following their obligations and have a policy(the business created themselves) in place.

for instance..
imagine a criminal put funds into an exchange..
the exchange cannot:
inform the suspect that the exchange is filing a suspicious report
freeze the account themselves without a court order.. so the funds have to continue to move (you can spot a phony exchange because they freeze accounts when no crime was committed, just to pretend they are licenced)
record any and all information possible about where it came from and where it is going to, again without suspects knowledge

however by being regulated
if LATER the funds are truly linked to criminal behaviors, the exchange is obsolved of any personal connection to the crime. if they file a suspicious report

however by not being regulated/not filing a report
if LATER the funds are truly linked to criminal behaviors, the exchange can be classed as a money launderer on behalf of a criminal.

and all of this is about reacting to info AFTER the fact..

regulations are a laughing stock.. no one should ever be promoting regulations... HOWEVER.. consumer protection is advantageous

As far as was known from the statement of administration, that if the company will be able to find good investors that all customers will be able to compensate for the losses, with the exception of 36 per cent. If I'm not mistaken.

@franky, regulations do not stop theft, that is true. But oversight and regulations if applied to btc exchanges would mean someone would ay least pay for the crime and detour future attempts of inside jobs.

Fact is when your btc is stolen for real or not from some exchange in Asia, to bad so sad? That is NOT advancement for a new financial system that is going backwards. Right now your btc is not safe on these exchanges and until that changes you are a fool for leaving anything on them.

regulations are about exchanges creating THEIR OWN policy for identifying their customers, to do KYC on them to look for AML and report suspicious activity.. that is like 90% of what regulations concentrate on..

you can easily separate the small 10% consumer protection stipulations of regulations. and instead do a full consumer protection scheme without the regulation.
put it this way.. Apple inc refund unsatisfied customers much faster then Goldman Sachs.. yet apple is not regulated, Goldman Sachs was.. the difference is apple inc concentrates on consumer protection. goldman sachs concentrates on their own creation policy to ward off customers

if you actually seen the difference between the two. and se how small the consumer protection requirement is in regulations you would laugh at how useless regulations are and how things like the financial crises was able to happen

if you think regulations are a saviour for consumers.. thats a lie.

the only reason wall street love regulations is because if they are transferring funds between other regulated exchanges.. the first exchange doesnt ask any questions simply because the mindset is. 'oh the other exchange is regulated, they can do their own checks and audits, so we are safe to just let the money roll"

It's a flaw because it would defeat the purpose of an anon system.

The flaw is essentially without regulation or oversight then criminals/exchanges are free to set up shop outside US and basically steal away with little to no punishment. There is no way if within the US or fell under exchange regulation and oversight we would see such a brazen theft by exchange operators.

Ask yourself why these exchanges like to set up in the countries they do, it is a license to steal.

What gives them this license and support/deposits is the belief bitcoin is anon and outside US control etc, rage against the machine, be a rebel , anti big gov. etc. These exchanges prey on this belief and use it to steal.

THIS is the BTC flaw, the anon use and anti gov angle sets up its supports to be robbed.

Well this just has wrong written all over it.

How is that a flaw in Bitcoin?

Not sure about that.  Probably isn't true in US

by the way regulations are not about protecting customers funds from the exchange..
its about protecting the exchange from criminal customers..

there is, separate from regulations.. the consumer protection part. which is about insuring funds.. which.. bfx faked.. bitgo were not insuring bfx's losses.
even without regulations. consumer protection is still a thing. and a separate crime if the exchange exploits this.

in short you dont need regulation to protect users. just consumer protection.. which is still not perfect when a scammer defrauds users by faking their insurance and reserves.

yap bitfinex dot com on again
but is balance client customer I heard and be informed, that they bitcoin balance is reduced by about 36%
not good information but not bad because balance not all gone

To me it sounds like an exchange that answers to no one decided to just steal 30%+ of it's customers deposits and replace it with a made up garbage coin and an iou. Likely no hack ever occurred for real.

Nice, no regulation you say, now you pay for it! Bitcoin has it's flaws, huge one's and this a perfect example. You either want regulation or you don't but you cannot have your way and feel the gov. or authorities owe you something as well.

to those wondering about BFX liquidity and the mindset of the spread 36% loss.. i wrote this elsewhere but orth repeating as most people seem to still not know what to expect

If you saw the news:
http://themarketmogul.com/bitcoin-hack-victims-to-suffer-36-haircut/

you will know that the people that were incompetent and weren't able to secure their client bitcoins, are now going to make the client's pay with a 36% of their holdings. This is worse than banks. I cant believe Bitfinex didn't file for bankruptcy instead, would have been a better ending than coming back. I mean who will use their service now?

correct ! more than that, many of their clients say "Thank you !"  is it not amazing? LOL

Yeah, i also think so it was an inside attempt to get free funds. If all the bitcoins are stolen, why they cut 36% of each users. Are they paying from their pocket ?
No, they grabbed people Bitcoins and now saying they will cut 36% each. Wow..

I think your right its not a good thing to deposit and use their service again after giving and recover loses.
It will start again because i think they are not hack and maybe they are no holding a lot of bitcoin..
For now better to stay away and trade to other exchange site.

Well, just waiting for the another story from bitfinex, and I can say it's just a scenario to snatch the bitcoin of their users. and until this time they always believe the bitcoiners is always been a stupid person.

Hope, they were US-based, would have been seriously fucked up bad.