BITSTAMP IS TRADING NOW
Topic: Bitstamp issues statement and temporarily suspends service (Read 8053 times)
If bitstamp goes down, the prices will fall so hard on bitcoin.
I hope there were more stronger exchanges..
I hope there were more stronger exchanges..
Some new details on the story:
http://www.coindesk.com/analysis-bitstamp-hacker-stolen-additional-1-75-million/
Quote
Analysis: Bitstamp Hacker Almost Stole Additional $1.75 Million
Bitstamp narrowly avoided losing an additional $1.75m in bitcoin during its recent hack, according to a blockchain analysis by an independent researcher.
In the final hours of a $5.1m heist that took place at the exchange five days ago, the $1.75m in bitcoin was quickly moved to an address thought to be used for cold storage by Bitstamp, analyst Danno Ferrin has found.
...
Bitstamp narrowly avoided losing an additional $1.75m in bitcoin during its recent hack, according to a blockchain analysis by an independent researcher.
In the final hours of a $5.1m heist that took place at the exchange five days ago, the $1.75m in bitcoin was quickly moved to an address thought to be used for cold storage by Bitstamp, analyst Danno Ferrin has found.
...
Talk about some serious pay day.
You think a hack like this can happen again? if so, I`m sure on buying bitcoin from bitstamp...
many people forget that Bitstamp "reserve" it's the client's Bitcoin.
Pretty much this. People forget customer's money is NOT a Bitstamp asset. They have to cover up the losses from their income, which is based on trading fees.
I may add...and not only on trading fees. You cannot make millions from 0.03%. This is like free so they have other source of making money from this biz; maybe the price difference...
Fees are from 0.4 to 1% at bitstamp (buyer and seller pay from 0.2-0.5%), they generate majority of the profits, check volume and you will see, so they can cover loss with that.
let's not forget that they reported a profit of about 800k USD in 2013....
even we double it because Bitstamp may report fake numbers in order to avoid possible taxes....it's 2 mil USD per year net profit roughly.
we can say they need 2 years to recover the loss (IF they will have the same amount of clients; clients who will run away ones the Bitstamp will open the withdrawals).
in the mean time, they have to open their pockets and hoping that everything will be as in 2014.... very hard to believe that,
Dunno what they reported, but calculate by yourself, accounting tricks exists in this world, also they moved business from slovenian company to uk company in 2013
They've just updated their whois data to an anonymous whois protector:
Whois Record ( last updated on 2015-01-09 )
http://whois.domaintools.com/bitstamp.net
Whois Record ( last updated on 2015-01-09 )
Quote
Domain Name: BITSTAMP.NET
Registry Domain ID: 1665186950_DOMAIN_NET-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.tucows.com
Registrar URL: http://tucowsdomains.com
Updated Date: 2014-10-01T17:45:23Z
Creation Date: 2011-07-04T12:09:15Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2024-07-04T12:09:15Z
Registrar: TUCOWS, INC.
Registrar IANA ID: 69
Registrar Abuse Contact Email:
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.4165350123
Reseller: Domenca d.o.o.
Reseller:
Reseller: +386 4 5835 444
Reseller: http://www.domenca.com
Domain Status: ok
Registry Registrant ID:
Registrant Name: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0128129599
Registrant Organization: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0128129599
Registrant Street: 96 Mowat Ave
Registrant City: Toronto
Registrant State/Province: ON
Registrant Postal Code: M6K 3M1
Registrant Country: CA
Registrant Phone: +1.4165385457
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email:
Registry Admin ID:
Admin Name: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0128129599
Registry Domain ID: 1665186950_DOMAIN_NET-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.tucows.com
Registrar URL: http://tucowsdomains.com
Updated Date: 2014-10-01T17:45:23Z
Creation Date: 2011-07-04T12:09:15Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2024-07-04T12:09:15Z
Registrar: TUCOWS, INC.
Registrar IANA ID: 69
Registrar Abuse Contact Email:
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.4165350123
Reseller: Domenca d.o.o.
Reseller:
Reseller: +386 4 5835 444
Reseller: http://www.domenca.com
Domain Status: ok
Registry Registrant ID:
Registrant Name: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0128129599
Registrant Organization: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0128129599
Registrant Street: 96 Mowat Ave
Registrant City: Toronto
Registrant State/Province: ON
Registrant Postal Code: M6K 3M1
Registrant Country: CA
Registrant Phone: +1.4165385457
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email:
Registry Admin ID:
Admin Name: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0128129599
http://whois.domaintools.com/bitstamp.net
No, you misread the date format for the date the domain name registration was last updated. You can see below it's 01 October, not the 10 January. My source is https://who.is/whois/bitstamp.net
The raw data is below
Raw Registrar Data
Domain Name: BITSTAMP.NET
Registry Domain ID: 1665186950_DOMAIN_NET-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.tucows.com
Registrar URL: http://tucowsdomains.com
Updated Date: 2014-10-01T17:45:23Z
Creation Date: 2011-07-04T12:09:15Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2024-07-04T12:09:15Z
Registrar: TUCOWS, INC.
Registrar IANA ID: 69
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: Email Masking [email protected]
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.4165350123
Reseller: Domenca d.o.o.
Reseller: Email Masking [email protected]
Reseller: +386 4 5835 444
Reseller: http://www.domenca.com
Domain Status: ok
Registry Registrant ID:
Registrant Name: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0128129599
Registrant Organization: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0128129599
Registrant Street: 96 Mowat Ave
Registrant City: Toronto
Registrant State/Province: ON
Registrant Postal Code: M6K 3M1
Registrant Country: CA
Registrant Phone: +1.4165385457
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: Email Masking [email protected]
A lot of talk about previous profits: If the owners cashed it out in their own pocket (absolute legit), then they would think twice to throw their own money back into the exchange. If they reopen, I expect a cashout run. This will last till their reserves are empty and thats it, bankruptcy.
Might have happened, but in their first period of trading (up to 31 Oct 2013) they left some $0.8m P&L reserve, they could've paid it out to themselves straight away.
It proves nothing, but may indicate that they've seen importance of holding a reserve.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitstamps-first-annual-statements-785256
A lot of talk about previous profits: If the owners cashed it out in their own pocket (absolute legit), then they would think twice to throw their own money back into the exchange. If they reopen, I expect a cashout run. This will last till their reserves are empty and thats it, bankruptcy.
Some new details on the story:
http://www.coindesk.com/analysis-bitstamp-hacker-stolen-additional-1-75-million/
Quote
Analysis: Bitstamp Hacker Almost Stole Additional $1.75 Million
Bitstamp narrowly avoided losing an additional $1.75m in bitcoin during its recent hack, according to a blockchain analysis by an independent researcher.
In the final hours of a $5.1m heist that took place at the exchange five days ago, the $1.75m in bitcoin was quickly moved to an address thought to be used for cold storage by Bitstamp, analyst Danno Ferrin has found.
...
Bitstamp narrowly avoided losing an additional $1.75m in bitcoin during its recent hack, according to a blockchain analysis by an independent researcher.
In the final hours of a $5.1m heist that took place at the exchange five days ago, the $1.75m in bitcoin was quickly moved to an address thought to be used for cold storage by Bitstamp, analyst Danno Ferrin has found.
...
Forfeiture of balances?
If true...then wow!
Not sure if that is legal anywhere on the planet to just take shit because they didn't get verified in a certain time frame.
From my understanding they sent out various warnings over a ~1 year period about verifying accounts. After the period was up, accounts that were unverified had to give up their identity before any transactions are processed. I guess if you refused to verify and did not withdrawal within the given time, then you would have to verify or lose you balances.If true...then wow!
Not sure if that is legal anywhere on the planet to just take shit because they didn't get verified in a certain time frame.
Can anyone estimate how many coins they hold in unverified accounts? Are there any records anywhere? I read a few threads started by people who refused to verify and must have forfeited their coins.
More days than not running exchange, the greater the losses for them. Most likely they are waiting, when customers come to terms with the idea that they cheated. Total "statements" of their boss does not bear any serious information, do not work with potatoes, they have our money. It's time to start regulating such offices, in the same way as banks and other major office, otherwise suffer many more people. Where can I apply in such cases? Who will protect us from fraud? Who adjusting the activity of these persons at the moment and where? Can not just wait and trust formal replies in Twitter.
This is conjecture on my part, based on Bitstamp's Twitter statements, such as "Working alongside the team from San Francisco, progress towards redeployment is strong. Huge thank you to for your confidence and patience."
Bitstamp desperately needs a few million dollars right now. Where are they going to get it? They're two unknown guys in their twenties, in Slovenia, with a mail drop in London. Nobody is going to fund that. If they were in Silicon Valley, they might be able to get VC funding. They have a user base; they're fundable. That's probably the motivation for the move to San Francisco.
Whether they can get funding remains unknown. If they'd closed a deal, they would probably announce it. So it's unlikely there's a deal in place.
Bitstamp desperately needs a few million dollars right now. Where are they going to get it? They're two unknown guys in their twenties, in Slovenia, with a mail drop in London. Nobody is going to fund that. If they were in Silicon Valley, they might be able to get VC funding. They have a user base; they're fundable. That's probably the motivation for the move to San Francisco.
Whether they can get funding remains unknown. If they'd closed a deal, they would probably announce it. So it's unlikely there's a deal in place.
Well they have already had VC capital investment if I remember correctly, and they won a big European startup award so they are hardly unknown. It's true though, I don't think they could have earned $5 million in fee's so they probably DO need investment from somewhere.
The theory that by moving to USA they might be able to keep the seized bitcoins is a good one as it indeed could not only buy stamp time but their lawyers could make a very good case in court. It's much better to fight the government in court, and if you lose, end up with a fine that the government would be more than happy to negotiate a pay schedule with you for (The US government isn't in the habit of putting companies out of business with fines) rather fight countless customer lawsuits. So yeah- I could imagine those seized funds going to cover the losses.
Although I suspect they will try their hardest NOT to do that, as it's just kicking the bucket down the road, but if they must- they may.
Personally, for me the promise of a return in 24-48 hours and that promise expiring has an omminous tone to it. :-(
Forfeiture of balances?
If true...then wow!
Not sure if that is legal anywhere on the planet to just take shit because they didn't get verified in a certain time frame.
From my understanding they sent out various warnings over a ~1 year period about verifying accounts. After the period was up, accounts that were unverified had to give up their identity before any transactions are processed. I guess if you refused to verify and did not withdrawal within the given time, then you would have to verify or lose you balances. If true...then wow!
Not sure if that is legal anywhere on the planet to just take shit because they didn't get verified in a certain time frame.
Forfeiture of balances?
If true...then wow!
Not sure if that is legal anywhere on the planet to just take shit because they didn't get verified in a certain time frame.
If true...then wow!
Not sure if that is legal anywhere on the planet to just take shit because they didn't get verified in a certain time frame.
This is conjecture on my part, based on Bitstamp's Twitter statements, such as "Working alongside the team from San Francisco, progress towards redeployment is strong. Huge thank you to for your confidence and patience."
Bitstamp desperately needs a few million dollars right now. Where are they going to get it? They're two unknown guys in their twenties, in Slovenia, with a mail drop in London. Nobody is going to fund that. If they were in Silicon Valley, they might be able to get VC funding. They have a user base; they're fundable. That's probably the motivation for the move to San Francisco.
Whether they can get funding remains unknown. If they'd closed a deal, they would probably announce it. So it's unlikely there's a deal in place.
Bitstamp desperately needs a few million dollars right now. Where are they going to get it? They're two unknown guys in their twenties, in Slovenia, with a mail drop in London. Nobody is going to fund that. If they were in Silicon Valley, they might be able to get VC funding. They have a user base; they're fundable. That's probably the motivation for the move to San Francisco.
Whether they can get funding remains unknown. If they'd closed a deal, they would probably announce it. So it's unlikely there's a deal in place.
I think Walsoraj figured it out:
Stamp might be sitting on loads of unclaimed bitcoins from traders who are incarcerated or failed to submit kyc documents. However, most governments require unclaimed funds be turned over to the State. Perhaps Stamp believes it has legal standing to keep bitcoins on grounds that such laws apply to fiat funds only? Weak argument, but may buy Stamp some time.
Just a few months ago, Stamp required ALL traders to verify their identities to avoid forfeiture of balances.
This is conjecture on my part, based on Bitstamp's Twitter statements, such as "Working alongside the team from San Francisco, progress towards redeployment is strong. Huge thank you to for your confidence and patience."
Bitstamp desperately needs a few million dollars right now. Where are they going to get it? They're two unknown guys in their twenties, in Slovenia, with a mail drop in London. Nobody is going to fund that. If they were in Silicon Valley, they might be able to get VC funding. They have a user base; they're fundable. That's probably the motivation for the move to San Francisco.
Whether they can get funding remains unknown. If they'd closed a deal, they would probably announce it. So it's unlikely there's a deal in place.
Bitstamp desperately needs a few million dollars right now. Where are they going to get it? They're two unknown guys in their twenties, in Slovenia, with a mail drop in London. Nobody is going to fund that. If they were in Silicon Valley, they might be able to get VC funding. They have a user base; they're fundable. That's probably the motivation for the move to San Francisco.
Whether they can get funding remains unknown. If they'd closed a deal, they would probably announce it. So it's unlikely there's a deal in place.
many people forget that Bitstamp "reserve" it's the client's Bitcoin.
Pretty much this. People forget customer's money is NOT a Bitstamp asset. They have to cover up the losses from their income, which is based on trading fees.
I may add...and not only on trading fees. You cannot make millions from 0.03%. This is like free so they have other source of making money from this biz; maybe the price difference...
Fees are from 0.4 to 1% at bitstamp (buyer and seller pay from 0.2-0.5%), they generate majority of the profits, check volume and you will see, so they can cover loss with that.
let's not forget that they reported a profit of about 800k USD in 2013....
even we double it because Bitstamp may report fake numbers in order to avoid possible taxes....it's 2 mil USD per year net profit roughly.
we can say they need 2 years to recover the loss (IF they will have the same amount of clients; clients who will run away ones the Bitstamp will open the withdrawals).
in the mean time, they have to open their pockets and hoping that everything will be as in 2014.... very hard to believe that,
many people forget that Bitstamp "reserve" it's the client's Bitcoin.
Pretty much this. People forget customer's money is NOT a Bitstamp asset. They have to cover up the losses from their income, which is based on trading fees.
I may add...and not only on trading fees. You cannot make millions from 0.03%. This is like free so they have other source of making money from this biz; maybe the price difference...
Fees are from 0.4 to 1% at bitstamp (buyer and seller pay from 0.2-0.5%), they generate majority of the profits, check volume and you will see, so they can cover loss with that.
in short, 5 Millions USD are not easy to be covered from fees.
You need millions of transactions in one year just to cover .
How many transactions does have an exchanger like Bitsmap per day?
You need millions of transactions in one year just to cover .
How many transactions does have an exchanger like Bitsmap per day?
There was a discussion about this.
Now, there are not a million options here:
1. Bitstamp pays $5M with the fees they charged. That's tough, because they had about $1.5M worth of trading each day. At a 0.3% average, that gives $4500 per day. It would take them 1111 days of such fees to pay for those $5M, running costs non accounted for. Impossible.
2. They get $5M from their insurance. I've been working with insurers for such matters myself. Can't find one that would do that, so I'd bet they weren't insured for such a hack.
3. They get $5M from investors. That's tricky. New investors won't be stepping into this mess, so that leaves the previous VC that brought $10M. But this money was probably spent. If not, why bringing it in in the first place? Maybe they'd add $5M to protect the $10M they invested prior to the hack, but that's a dangerous move. Not impossible, but doubtful...
4. They run on fractional reserves. Easy, as long as 88% of the funds remain there.
On which option would you bet?
I think your numbers are very misleading. At a price of $300, thats 5k coins a day. Most of the time they are doing significiantly higher volumes than this and the price was higher. I think you could reasonably double your volume estimate and the average price for last year for a more reasonable estimate, quadrupling your total, and quartering you time estimate. Not impossible.
Agreed.
The average weekly volume for 2014 was ~BTC 96 000 (~BTC13 700 per day) . (Based on raw data from http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/bitstampUSD)
0.3% x2 of 96 000 * 52 =BTC29 952 in fees. I'm not sure about the 0.3% number. The times two is because it's charged on both sides of the trade.
You are assuming they have to repay the full loss. We can reduce the loss by any safety margins they have already, although they may wish to re-establish those (at a higher level?).
The fee number needs to reduce by operating expenses.
So we have 19 000 less what they have already vs 30 000 less opex.
Where it lands up after those adjustments is anyone's guess.
If they had been converting to USD at higher prices then that would reduce their burden significantly (if they can buy back at current low prices).
And Bitstamp's profits from selling ripples needs adding to the total. You could buy ripples directly from Bitstamp at a price they decided, which was always way above the going market price.
in short, 5 Millions USD are not easy to be covered from fees.
You need millions of transactions in one year just to cover .
How many transactions does have an exchanger like Bitsmap per day?
You need millions of transactions in one year just to cover .
How many transactions does have an exchanger like Bitsmap per day?
many people forget that Bitstamp "reserve" it's the client's Bitcoin.
Pretty much this. People forget customer's money is NOT a Bitstamp asset. They have to cover up the losses from their income, which is based on trading fees.
I may add...and not only on trading fees. You cannot make millions from 0.03%. This is like free so they have other source of making money from this biz; maybe the price difference...
There's also withdrawal fees for both cash and bitcoins.
Jump to: