Any news regarding the Bitfinex hack? RRT spiked from 7 to 44 cents, now at 25 cents.
Maybe good news for shareholders? 
Topic: [OFFICIAL]Bitfinex.com first Bitcoin P2P lending platform for leverage trading - page 41. (Read 723861 times)
August 24, 2017, 02:44:29 PM
August 24, 2017, 02:38:26 PM
Any news regarding the Bitfinex hack? RRT spiked from 7 to 44 cents, now at 25 cents.
August 22, 2017, 07:13:07 AM
However, I was arguing for the importance of regulated exchanges in order to render a Bitcoin ETF possible.
Regulation is a huge headache for users and for the exchanges, but it is an inevitable outcome if the BTC market comes to maturity. If BTC was mainly traded on regulated exchanges, the SEC (and similar institutions in other countries) would have a hard time denying another ETF application
Regulation is a huge headache for users and for the exchanges, but it is an inevitable outcome if the BTC market comes to maturity. If BTC was mainly traded on regulated exchanges, the SEC (and similar institutions in other countries) would have a hard time denying another ETF application
But I was not replying to your post
The recent discussion was about safety of using regulated exchanges, some dude claimed that bitcoins would be insured at these exchanges but that turned out to be complete crap. In this way, regulated exchanges are in no way safer than unregulated ones, by and large. Regarding Bitcoin ETF approval, I'm more inclined to think that regulated exchanges won't change a lot in this respect, since, as I have already said, Bitcoin will remain the same Bitcoin prone to insane volatility and hacks (and now to splits as well as hardforks), so regulation won't mend matters in this regard
August 22, 2017, 06:48:51 AM
...
I'm wondering how many people seriously believe that regulation means anything but you and your operations being thoroughly inspected, scrutinized, and examined by the authorities (after you completely disclose your identity). Not that I think unregulated businesses like Bitcoin exchanges cannot be doing essentially the same but since you don't have to follow some eerie KYC policies, their mileage will certainly vary
I'm wondering how many people seriously believe that regulation means anything but you and your operations being thoroughly inspected, scrutinized, and examined by the authorities (after you completely disclose your identity). Not that I think unregulated businesses like Bitcoin exchanges cannot be doing essentially the same but since you don't have to follow some eerie KYC policies, their mileage will certainly vary
I wasn´t arguing for the importance of regulation. That is a topic for another day. I´m actually inclined to agree with most of
your statements regarding the disadvantages of regulation for the average exchange user!
However, I was arguing for the importance of regulated exchanges in order to render a Bitcoin ETF possible.
Regulation is a huge headache for users and for the exchanges, but it is an inevitable outcome if the BTC market comes
to maturity. If BTC was mainly traded on regulated exchanges, the SEC (and similar institutions in other countries)
would have a hard time denying another ETF application.
August 22, 2017, 02:21:21 AM
you can ask Coinbase or Gemini how they are insured because they are
Could you provide any proof?
I'm curious to know which insurance company is insuring bitcoins. Given the volatile nature of Bitcoin price, it seems to me that this task would be next to impossible to perform. Apart from that (given the irrevocable nature of Bitcoin transactions), I would also like to know the premiums they demand for insuring Bitcoin holdings. As to me, it would be impossible for Coinbase to exist if they were to fully insure the bitcoins of their clients. In other words, their profits wouldn't be enough to cover insurance expenses
Coinbase insures fiat money (e.g. USD has FDIC insurance up to $250,000, like any standard bank account). I imagine Gemini does the same. But I'm not aware of anything that covers cryptocurrencies. I still haven't heard of bitcoin insurance companies; I imagine the premiums at this stage in the game would be astronomical.
The only case that comes to mind... BitPay tried to collect from and later sued the Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company over a phishing incident where the executives got fooled into sending thousands of bitcoins based on fraudulent requests. The lawsuit was dismissed, though
I guess this Massachusetts Bay company was a properly regulated business, lol
I'm wondering how many people seriously believe that regulation means anything but you and your operations being thoroughly inspected, scrutinized, and examined by the authorities (after you completely disclose your identity). Not that I think unregulated businesses like Bitcoin exchanges cannot be doing essentially the same but since you don't have to follow some eerie KYC policies, their mileage will certainly vary
August 22, 2017, 02:12:46 AM
you can ask Coinbase or Gemini how they are insured because they are
Could you provide any proof?
I'm curious to know which insurance company is insuring bitcoins. Given the volatile nature of Bitcoin price, it seems to me that this task would be next to impossible to perform. Apart from that (given the irrevocable nature of Bitcoin transactions), I would also like to know the premiums they demand for insuring Bitcoin holdings. As to me, it would be impossible for Coinbase to exist if they were to fully insure the bitcoins of their clients. In other words, their profits wouldn't be enough to cover insurance expenses
Coinbase insures fiat money (e.g. USD has FDIC insurance up to $250,000, like any standard bank account). I imagine Gemini does the same. But I'm not aware of anything that covers cryptocurrencies. I still haven't heard of bitcoin insurance companies; I imagine the premiums at this stage in the game would be astronomical.
The only case that comes to mind... BitPay tried to collect from and later sued the Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company over a phishing incident where the executives got fooled into sending thousands of bitcoins based on fraudulent requests. The lawsuit was dismissed, though.
August 22, 2017, 01:16:45 AM
bitcoins can be stolen as easily from regulated exchanges as from unregulated ones
Regulated exchanges can be insured up to certain amounts, much like bank accounts. As it says on GDAX:so it all comes down to technical competence of the exchange staff regarding security (i.e. not whether exchange is regulated or not).
It also comes down to moral competence of the exchange staff. Ideally, regulated exchanges would be subject to forced auditing so that it's clear if a security breach or theft has taken place. The bottom line is that the status of being a regulated exchange doesn't give any advantage, and, in certain cases, may become a real disadvantage (e.g. insane KYC policies, frozen accounts, and similar shit)
It can give the two advantages that I just mentioned. There's also the fact that whether we like it or not, governments are not going to allow unregulated exchanges to stay around forever, particularly the US government. Eventually they'll be accused of aiding a crime such as money laundering (this happened to BTC-e). That's why Bitfinex has had to be careful dealing with US customers.Unregulated exchanges are important for people who find their privacy important. But for some people and for the biggest traders, regulated exchanges can be a better way to go
And what about bitcoins stolen?
How these regulated exchanges can prevent them from being taken by hackers? You said about USD balances but I'm obviously talking about bitcoins, so how are you going to insure them? Regarding auditing, it may be helpful to reveal some shit going on behind the scenes but this in no way prevents this shit from happening in the first place. You can't audit them all day long and round the clock. So getting a license won't prevent exchanges from scamming, just like getting a banking license doesn't prevent banks from going bust or good old running away with their clients' money. As to me, regulated exchanges would give you a false sense of security when, in fact, there is none and cannot be any (given the nature of Bitcoin)
you can ask Coinbase or Gemini how they are insured because they are
Could you provide any proof?
I'm curious to know which insurance company is insuring bitcoins. Given the volatile nature of Bitcoin price, it seems to me that this task would be next to impossible to perform. Apart from that (given the irrevocable nature of Bitcoin transactions), I would also like to know the premiums they demand for insuring Bitcoin holdings. As to me, it would be impossible for Coinbase to exist if they were to fully insure the bitcoins of their clients. In other words, their profits wouldn't be enough to cover insurance expenses
August 22, 2017, 01:08:33 AM
you can ask Coinbase or Gemini how they are insured because they are. 
AFAIK only their fiat holdings are insured, not their crypto. August 21, 2017, 02:19:17 PM
bitcoins can be stolen as easily from regulated exchanges as from unregulated ones
Regulated exchanges can be insured up to certain amounts, much like bank accounts. As it says on GDAX:so it all comes down to technical competence of the exchange staff regarding security (i.e. not whether exchange is regulated or not).
It also comes down to moral competence of the exchange staff. Ideally, regulated exchanges would be subject to forced auditing so that it's clear if a security breach or theft has taken place. The bottom line is that the status of being a regulated exchange doesn't give any advantage, and, in certain cases, may become a real disadvantage (e.g. insane KYC policies, frozen accounts, and similar shit)
It can give the two advantages that I just mentioned. There's also the fact that whether we like it or not, governments are not going to allow unregulated exchanges to stay around forever, particularly the US government. Eventually they'll be accused of aiding a crime such as money laundering (this happened to BTC-e). That's why Bitfinex has had to be careful dealing with US customers.Unregulated exchanges are important for people who find their privacy important. But for some people and for the biggest traders, regulated exchanges can be a better way to go
And what about bitcoins stolen?
How these regulated exchanges can prevent them from being taken by hackers? You said about USD balances but I'm obviously talking about bitcoins, so how are you going to insure them? Regarding auditing, it may be helpful to reveal some shit going on behind the scenes but this in no way prevents this shit from happening in the first place. You can't audit them all day long and round the clock. So getting a license won't prevent exchanges from scamming, just like getting a banking license doesn't prevent banks from going bust or good old running away with their clients' money. As to me, regulated exchanges would give you a false sense of security when, in fact, there is none and cannot be any (given the nature of Bitcoin)
you can ask Coinbase or Gemini how they are insured because they are.
the audit can be done without problem.
the future belongs to regulated exchangers. the others will be seized or they will disappear overnight by scamming.
the nature of Bitcoin can be anonymous but once the exchangers are licensed, you won't be able to fund or withdrawn without a REAL verification so it will harder for someone to use BTC for shitty things.
August 21, 2017, 01:31:28 PM
bitcoins can be stolen as easily from regulated exchanges as from unregulated ones
Regulated exchanges can be insured up to certain amounts, much like bank accounts. As it says on GDAX:so it all comes down to technical competence of the exchange staff regarding security (i.e. not whether exchange is regulated or not).
It also comes down to moral competence of the exchange staff. Ideally, regulated exchanges would be subject to forced auditing so that it's clear if a security breach or theft has taken place. The bottom line is that the status of being a regulated exchange doesn't give any advantage, and, in certain cases, may become a real disadvantage (e.g. insane KYC policies, frozen accounts, and similar shit)
It can give the two advantages that I just mentioned. There's also the fact that whether we like it or not, governments are not going to allow unregulated exchanges to stay around forever, particularly the US government. Eventually they'll be accused of aiding a crime such as money laundering (this happened to BTC-e). That's why Bitfinex has had to be careful dealing with US customers.Unregulated exchanges are important for people who find their privacy important. But for some people and for the biggest traders, regulated exchanges can be a better way to go
And what about bitcoins stolen?
How these regulated exchanges can prevent them from being taken by hackers? You said about USD balances but I'm obviously talking about bitcoins, so how are you going to insure them? Regarding auditing, it may be helpful to reveal some shit going on behind the scenes but this in no way prevents this shit from happening in the first place. You can't audit them all day long and round the clock. So getting a license won't prevent exchanges from scamming, just like getting a banking license doesn't prevent banks from going bust or good old running away with their clients' money. As to me, regulated exchanges would give you a false sense of security when, in fact, there is none and cannot be any (given the nature of Bitcoin)
August 21, 2017, 01:22:32 PM
bitcoins can be stolen as easily from regulated exchanges as from unregulated ones
Regulated exchanges can be insured up to certain amounts, much like bank accounts. As it says on GDAX:so it all comes down to technical competence of the exchange staff regarding security (i.e. not whether exchange is regulated or not).
It also comes down to moral competence of the exchange staff. Ideally, regulated exchanges would be subject to forced auditing so that it's clear if a security breach or theft has taken place. The bottom line is that the status of being a regulated exchange doesn't give any advantage, and, in certain cases, may become a real disadvantage (e.g. insane KYC policies, frozen accounts, and similar shit)
It can give the two advantages that I just mentioned. There's also the fact that whether we like it or not, governments are not going to allow unregulated exchanges to stay around forever, particularly the US government. Eventually they'll be accused of aiding a crime such as money laundering (this happened to BTC-e). That's why Bitfinex has had to be careful dealing with US customers.Unregulated exchanges are important for people who find their privacy important. But for some people and for the biggest traders, regulated exchanges can be a better way to go.
August 21, 2017, 09:10:50 AM
...
I don't think there is any real connection (apart from cooked-up, of course)
What makes you think that shutting down the unregulated exchanges would actually help promote acceptance of Bitcoin ETF's? They will just find another excuse to reject the application. Even if all such exchanges are closed one day (let's assume that), you will still have to face the unregulated nature of Bitcoin itself. In other words, you can't make the whole scene regulated unless you somehow make Bitcoin regulated which is impossible without destroying it first. As to me, the unregulated exchanges should be your least concern since they are not the culprit. Bitcoin itself is
I don't think there is any real connection (apart from cooked-up, of course)
What makes you think that shutting down the unregulated exchanges would actually help promote acceptance of Bitcoin ETF's? They will just find another excuse to reject the application. Even if all such exchanges are closed one day (let's assume that), you will still have to face the unregulated nature of Bitcoin itself. In other words, you can't make the whole scene regulated unless you somehow make Bitcoin regulated which is impossible without destroying it first. As to me, the unregulated exchanges should be your least concern since they are not the culprit. Bitcoin itself is
I concede that the unregulated nature of Bitcoin itself could be a problem. However, it could be sufficient for the SEC and other regulatory entities, if the
exchanges (= the points where cryptos are changed to fiat and vice versa) are regulated.
If the unregulated exchanges would be gone or only responsible for a negligible part of overall trading volume an ETF would likely be approved.
Imagine a world where the biggest 5 exchanges are places like GDAX, Gemini, Kraken (all US based) combined with some regulated exchanges
in Asia (e.g. Bitflyer, which is also expanding towards many US states). This would make an ETF approval much more likely.
In this scenario Bitfinex could still be functioning, but not at the current level of marketshare
This leaves a lot of room for debate
First, bitcoins can be stolen as easily from regulated exchanges as from unregulated ones, so it all comes down to technical competence of the exchange staff regarding security (i.e. not whether exchange is regulated or not). Further, many people around the world would prefer not to have anything to do with "regulated" exchanges since "regulation" in this case would pretty much mean disclosing your identity to the US authorities. And while that might not be an issue for the US citizens (though even this is debatable), this is certainly not the case with people living in other parts of the world. The bottom line is that the status of being a regulated exchange doesn't give any advantage, and, in certain cases, may become a real disadvantage (e.g. insane KYC policies, frozen accounts, and similar shit)
August 21, 2017, 06:33:25 AM
...
I don't think there is any real connection (apart from cooked-up, of course)
What makes you think that shutting down the unregulated exchanges would actually help promote acceptance of Bitcoin ETF's? They will just find another excuse to reject the application. Even if all such exchanges are closed one day (let's assume that), you will still have to face the unregulated nature of Bitcoin itself. In other words, you can't make the whole scene regulated unless you somehow make Bitcoin regulated which is impossible without destroying it first. As to me, the unregulated exchanges should be your least concern since they are not the culprit. Bitcoin itself is
I don't think there is any real connection (apart from cooked-up, of course)
What makes you think that shutting down the unregulated exchanges would actually help promote acceptance of Bitcoin ETF's? They will just find another excuse to reject the application. Even if all such exchanges are closed one day (let's assume that), you will still have to face the unregulated nature of Bitcoin itself. In other words, you can't make the whole scene regulated unless you somehow make Bitcoin regulated which is impossible without destroying it first. As to me, the unregulated exchanges should be your least concern since they are not the culprit. Bitcoin itself is
I concede that the unregulated nature of Bitcoin itself could be a problem. However, it could be sufficient for the SEC and other regulatory entities, if the
exchanges (= the points where cryptos are changed to fiat and vice versa) are regulated.
If the unregulated exchanges would be gone or only responsible for a negligible part of overall trading volume an ETF would likely be approved.
Imagine a world where the biggest 5 exchanges are places like GDAX, Gemini, Kraken (all US based) combined with some regulated exchanges
in Asia (e.g. Bitflyer, which is also expanding towards many US states). This would make an ETF approval much more likely.
In this scenario Bitfinex could still be functioning, but not at the current level of marketshare.
August 20, 2017, 10:59:46 AM
...
That is, what is your point here? If you are not paid and you don't have some hidden agenda, why are you warning people from using all these exchanges? What is the purpose of that? Does it give you double pleasure when an exchange gets seized or ends up scamming after you warned people? Do you understand that it makes you into a complete crook despicable by everyone and his dog? Does that give you pleasure as well? Is this your choice too and what you are really looking for, i.e. to despised and hated?
That is, what is your point here? If you are not paid and you don't have some hidden agenda, why are you warning people from using all these exchanges? What is the purpose of that? Does it give you double pleasure when an exchange gets seized or ends up scamming after you warned people? Do you understand that it makes you into a complete crook despicable by everyone and his dog? Does that give you pleasure as well? Is this your choice too and what you are really looking for, i.e. to despised and hated?
I don´t know the motivation for his posts, but let me take his side for the sake of argument.
The shutting down of exchanges like BTC-E and Bitfinex could be beneficial for the whole
cryptomarket. One of the reasons cited in the original Bitcoin ETF denial was that
certain unregulated exchanges make up a big part of the Bitcoin markets.
If these exchanges would get shut down for some reason, this would facilitate the
introduction of Bitcoin ETFs. And we all know what this would likely mean for the price
I don't think there is any real connection (apart from cooked-up, of course)
What makes you think that shutting down the unregulated exchanges would actually help promote acceptance of Bitcoin ETF's? They will just find another excuse to reject the application. Even if all such exchanges are closed one day (let's assume that), you will still have to face the unregulated nature of Bitcoin itself. In other words, you can't make the whole scene regulated unless you somehow make Bitcoin regulated which is impossible without destroying it first. As to me, the unregulated exchanges should be your least concern since they are not the culprit. Bitcoin itself is
August 20, 2017, 10:29:53 AM
...
That is, what is your point here? If you are not paid and you don't have some hidden agenda, why are you warning people from using all these exchanges? What is the purpose of that? Does it give you double pleasure when an exchange gets seized or ends up scamming after you warned people? Do you understand that it makes you into a complete crook despicable by everyone and his dog? Does that give you pleasure as well? Is this your choice too and what you are really looking for, i.e. to despised and hated?
That is, what is your point here? If you are not paid and you don't have some hidden agenda, why are you warning people from using all these exchanges? What is the purpose of that? Does it give you double pleasure when an exchange gets seized or ends up scamming after you warned people? Do you understand that it makes you into a complete crook despicable by everyone and his dog? Does that give you pleasure as well? Is this your choice too and what you are really looking for, i.e. to despised and hated?
I don´t know the motivation for his posts, but let me take his side for the sake of argument.
The shutting down of exchanges like BTC-E and Bitfinex could be beneficial for the whole
cryptomarket. One of the reasons cited in the original Bitcoin ETF denial was that
certain unregulated exchanges make up a big part of the Bitcoin markets.
If these exchanges would get shut down for some reason, this would facilitate the
introduction of Bitcoin ETFs. And we all know what this would likely mean for the price.
August 20, 2017, 10:07:42 AM
...
That is, what is your point here? If you are not paid and you don't have some hidden agenda, why are you warning people from using all these exchanges? What is the purpose of that? Does it give you double pleasure when an exchange gets seized or ends up scamming after you warned people? Do you understand that it makes you into a complete crook despicable by everyone and his dog? Does that give you pleasure as well? Is this your choice too and what you are really looking for, i.e. to despised and hated?
That is, what is your point here? If you are not paid and you don't have some hidden agenda, why are you warning people from using all these exchanges? What is the purpose of that? Does it give you double pleasure when an exchange gets seized or ends up scamming after you warned people? Do you understand that it makes you into a complete crook despicable by everyone and his dog? Does that give you pleasure as well? Is this your choice too and what you are really looking for, i.e. to despised and hated?
I don´t know the motivation for his posts, but let me take his side for the sake of argument.
The shutting down of exchanges like BTC-E and Bitfinex could be beneficial for the whole
cryptomarket. One of the reasons cited in the original Bitcoin ETF denial was that
certain unregulated exchanges make up a big part of the Bitcoin markets.
If these exchanges would get shut down for some reason, this would facilitate the
introduction of Bitcoin ETFs. And we all know what this would likely mean for the price.
August 20, 2017, 07:53:21 AM
So, one question here... Those that are NOT US Citizens, can they withdraw dollars (After verifying)?
Most likely not, they were talking about manual one-off deals to withdraw 50k+ USD at once a while back, but so far it still seems that the fiat channels on Bitfinex are quite lacking.If you go on the withdraw section of the bitfinex site and click through to try and withdraw USD you get a message pop up for one time withdraws of over $50k so i guess you contact support and go from there.
On other issues, not sure about the shit coins but i wouldn't want to deal with USA either ongoing.
August 20, 2017, 06:13:40 AM
Dude, you become really annoying
What is your agenda here? I will never believe that you are doing this kind of thing out of empathy or compassion since you obviously lack these qualities. I've seen you posting total crap in the Btc-e thread, and now you came here to spread your stench around. I guess you assume that Bitfinex should get a financial license from no other than Uncle Sam himself. Did I get you right? How much do you get paid? Have you been hired by Poloniex? To all, did anyone see this fudster post anything negative about Polo (or any American exchange, for that matter)?
What is your agenda here? I will never believe that you are doing this kind of thing out of empathy or compassion since you obviously lack these qualities. I've seen you posting total crap in the Btc-e thread, and now you came here to spread your stench around. I guess you assume that Bitfinex should get a financial license from no other than Uncle Sam himself. Did I get you right? How much do you get paid? Have you been hired by Poloniex? To all, did anyone see this fudster post anything negative about Polo (or any American exchange, for that matter)?
no, they can get a financial license from any country and they will not accept US clients. for them, it's not about money. it's about compliance with the financials laws.
Yes, I post alot of things about Poloniex shit. They are in the same boat like Bitfinex, Kraken and so on. There is no agenda, mate.
BTC cannot move forward by having unlicensed exchangers. they are like a plague ; they did and they do a lot of harm to the e-currency industry. Why? because they can disappear over night by stealing the funds or they can be seized anytime. count how many unlicensed exchangers have gone and count how many licensed exchangers have gone too. get real and see the facts.
So what is your point then really?
It doesn't look like you are sincerely warning people to stay away from (unlicensed) Bitcoin exchanges since I've seen your other posts (in the Btc-e thread, more specifically) which were completely void of any compassion, sympathy, or understanding (in fact, it looked as though you derived particular pleasure from the suffering of the Btc-e seizure victims). Are you that insecure? Further, which financial laws do you refer in particular, i.e. established by whom, the US authorities? Apart from that, what does it change if Bitcoin remains the same Bitcoin, and it can be stolen as easily and as irrevocably as before regardless of whether an exchange is licensed or not?
the warnings were before Bte was seized(as I warn about Bitfinex, Poloniex and Kraken now). once, you have been warned for many times about a thing but you continue to use it and in the end you suffer a loss because of that, it means that you are either stupid or arrogant.
yes, i don't feel compassion for arrogant and stupid people. it's my choice.
But you didn't answer my question
That is, what is your point here? If you are not paid and you don't have some hidden agenda, why are you warning people from using all these exchanges? What is the purpose of that? Does it give you double pleasure when an exchange gets seized or ends up scamming after you warned people? Do you understand that it makes you into a complete crook despicable by everyone and his dog? Does that give you pleasure as well? Is this your choice too and what you are really looking for, i.e. to despised and hated?
August 20, 2017, 06:03:12 AM
move all your funds out of this shit exchanger.
they made a lot of money but they don't want to get a financial license anywhere. why? because all they are doing is fraudulent: fake transactions and volume, market manipulation, so called "hack" which was an inside thing, lies regarding to the bank withdrawals , etc
stay away of Bitfinex.
they made a lot of money but they don't want to get a financial license anywhere. why? because all they are doing is fraudulent: fake transactions and volume, market manipulation, so called "hack" which was an inside thing, lies regarding to the bank withdrawals , etc
stay away of Bitfinex.
Dude, you become really annoying
What is your agenda here? I will never believe that you are doing this kind of thing out of empathy or compassion since you obviously lack these qualities. I've seen you posting total crap in the Btc-e thread, and now you came here to spread your stench around. I guess you assume that Bitfinex should get a financial license from no other than Uncle Sam himself. Did I get you right? How much do you get paid? Have you been hired by Poloniex? To all, did anyone see this fudster post anything negative about Polo (or any American exchange, for that matter)?
no, they can get a financial license from any country and they will not accept US clients. for them, it's not about money. it's about compliance with the financials laws.
Yes, I post alot of things about Poloniex shit. They are in the same boat like Bitfinex, Kraken and so on. There is no agenda, mate.
BTC cannot move forward by having unlicensed exchangers. they are like a plague ; they did and they do a lot of harm to the e-currency industry. Why? because they can disappear over night by stealing the funds or they can be seized anytime. count how many unlicensed exchangers have gone and count how many licensed exchangers have gone too. get real and see the facts.
So what is your point then really?
It doesn't look like you are sincerely warning people to stay away from (unlicensed) Bitcoin exchanges since I've seen your other posts (in the Btc-e thread, more specifically) which were completely void of any compassion, sympathy, or understanding (in fact, it looked as though you derived particular pleasure from the suffering of the Btc-e seizure victims). Are you that insecure? Further, which financial laws do you refer in particular, i.e. established by whom, the US authorities? Apart from that, what does it change if Bitcoin remains the same Bitcoin, and it can be stolen as easily and as irrevocably as before regardless of whether an exchange is licensed or not?
the warnings were before Bte was seized(as I warn about Bitfinex, Poloniex and Kraken now). once, you have been warned for many times about a thing but you continue to use it and in the end you suffer a loss because of that, it means that you are either stupid or arrogant.
what understanding can you have for someone who is using an anonymous exchanger for large amounts? it means he/she assumes the risk and that is OK; do you want to gamble? do it !
if so, don't come to complain, whine, cry on forums about your loss.
yes, i don't feel compassion for arrogant and stupid people. it's my choice.
August 20, 2017, 05:20:23 AM
move all your funds out of this shit exchanger.
they made a lot of money but they don't want to get a financial license anywhere. why? because all they are doing is fraudulent: fake transactions and volume, market manipulation, so called "hack" which was an inside thing, lies regarding to the bank withdrawals , etc
stay away of Bitfinex.
they made a lot of money but they don't want to get a financial license anywhere. why? because all they are doing is fraudulent: fake transactions and volume, market manipulation, so called "hack" which was an inside thing, lies regarding to the bank withdrawals , etc
stay away of Bitfinex.
Dude, you become really annoying
What is your agenda here? I will never believe that you are doing this kind of thing out of empathy or compassion since you obviously lack these qualities. I've seen you posting total crap in the Btc-e thread, and now you came here to spread your stench around. I guess you assume that Bitfinex should get a financial license from no other than Uncle Sam himself. Did I get you right? How much do you get paid? Have you been hired by Poloniex? To all, did anyone see this fudster post anything negative about Polo (or any American exchange, for that matter)?
no, they can get a financial license from any country and they will not accept US clients. for them, it's not about money. it's about compliance with the financials laws.
Yes, I post alot of things about Poloniex shit. They are in the same boat like Bitfinex, Kraken and so on. There is no agenda, mate.
BTC cannot move forward by having unlicensed exchangers. they are like a plague ; they did and they do a lot of harm to the e-currency industry. Why? because they can disappear over night by stealing the funds or they can be seized anytime. count how many unlicensed exchangers have gone and count how many licensed exchangers have gone too. get real and see the facts.
So what is your point then really?
It doesn't look like you are sincerely warning people to stay away from (unlicensed) Bitcoin exchanges since I've seen your other posts (in the Btc-e thread, more specifically) which were completely void of any compassion, sympathy, or understanding (in fact, it looked as though you derived particular pleasure from the suffering of the Btc-e seizure victims). Are you that insecure? Further, which financial laws do you refer to in particular, i.e. established by whom, the US authorities? Apart from that, what does it change if Bitcoin remains the same Bitcoin, and it can be stolen as easily and as irrevocably as before regardless of whether an exchange is licensed or not?
Jump to: