trading will be always ... trapped.
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 18335. (Read 26709367 times)
August 07, 2016, 12:37:17 PM
clearly, virtual wallet ... will be always a trap.
trading will be always ... trapped.
trading will be always ... trapped.
August 07, 2016, 12:30:27 PM
This needs a meme...
Bitfinex haircuts users 36%
Bitcoin wallet user not affected
Bitfinex haircuts users 36%
Bitcoin wallet user not affected
August 07, 2016, 12:27:00 PM
BitGo and BitFinex are both very keen to point out that none of the blame lies with BitGo. Finex apparently had a custom setup with BitGo, unlike any other BitGo customer. [...]
Perhaps there is something else going on and I haven't read about it or it isn't public knowledge?
Perhaps there is something else going on and I haven't read about it or it isn't public knowledge?
Jeesh, for people who seem to value outside-the-box thinking, you guys are thinking smack-dab inside the box.
BitGo implementation was used so that BFX could continue p2p lending (needed for leverage trading), without having to commingle the customer funds in a wallet it controlled (reason for the CFTC fine they paid).
So BitGo did exactly what was asked of it, allowing BFX to keep doing what it was already doing, without the need to become a licensed futures exchange.
I don't see how separating wallets by individual depositor requires ignoring proven security methods. Are you suggesting that security and appeasing the CFTC are mutually exclusive?
August 07, 2016, 12:09:01 PM
Bail-In at bitfinex ...
just goes to show it's those goddamn humans who have to ruin everything despite bitcoin's best efforts. I really hope the bitfinex victims are made whole and then they sue that shithole until it squeals.
August 07, 2016, 12:05:39 PM
Bail-In at bitfinex ...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-07/first-bitcoin-bail-all-bitfinex-users-lose-36-shared-loss-after-historic-hack
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-07/first-bitcoin-bail-all-bitfinex-users-lose-36-shared-loss-after-historic-hack
Quote
Bitfinex announced it would pull a page right out of Europe's bank resolution mechanism, saying that all of its users will lose 36% of their deposits after it concluded its review the massive hack, in what is set to be the first ever "bitcoin bail-in."
August 07, 2016, 10:21:05 AM
Not sure about choo choo but the price is certainly recovering from the panic dump after the bfx hack.
BFX buyin' BTC with filthy fiat and ... inferior coins? Wonder what'll happen once they open the floodgates...
It's only Sunday. Lets get this thing rolling again.
https://youtu.be/Q_nFwwjBlEc
Taking a shave off USD deposits was a bold move, tho.
-But I don’t like strawberries and cream.
-Comes the revolution, you’ll eat strawberries and cream. And like it. Socialized losses for everyone, Comrade!
August 07, 2016, 10:19:30 AM
BitGo and BitFinex are both very keen to point out that none of the blame lies with BitGo. Finex apparently had a custom setup with BitGo, unlike any other BitGo customer. [...]
Perhaps there is something else going on and I haven't read about it or it isn't public knowledge?
Perhaps there is something else going on and I haven't read about it or it isn't public knowledge?
Jeesh, for people who seem to value outside-the-box thinking, you guys are thinking smack-dab inside the box.
BitGo implementation was used so that BFX could continue p2p lending (needed for leverage trading), without having to commingle the customer funds in a wallet it controlled (reason for the CFTC fine they paid).
So BitGo did exactly what was asked of it, allowing BFX to keep doing what it was already doing, without the need to become a licensed futures exchange.
The 64% thing is brilliant. I hear it's basically about what would come from receivership, minus lawyers and years of litigation. Taking a shave off USD deposits was a bold move, tho.
August 07, 2016, 10:18:24 AM
Good morning Bitcoinland.
I see the recovery from last week's fiasco is continuing nicely. Over $600 according to Bitcoinaverage.
It's only Sunday. Lets get this thing rolling again.
Hope everyone bought last week. It was pretty much a no-brainer.
I see the recovery from last week's fiasco is continuing nicely. Over $600 according to Bitcoinaverage.
It's only Sunday. Lets get this thing rolling again.
Hope everyone bought last week. It was pretty much a no-brainer.
August 07, 2016, 10:14:51 AM
Choo Choo?
No?
No?
Closing in on 600.
Not sure about choo choo but the price is certainly recovering from the panic dump after the bfx hack. It always would do though, sure it's unfortunate people got burnt but it's an unlicensed exchange that had the problem. No reason for people to lose faith in bitcoin.
August 07, 2016, 10:02:15 AM
Choo Choo?
No?
No?
August 07, 2016, 09:25:16 AM
BitGo and BitFinex are both very keen to point out that none of the blame lies with BitGo. Finex apparently had a custom setup with BitGo, unlike any other BitGo customer. [...]
Perhaps there is something else going on and I haven't read about it or it isn't public knowledge?
Perhaps there is something else going on and I haven't read about it or it isn't public knowledge?
Jeesh, for people who seem to value outside-the-box thinking, you guys are thinking smack-dab inside the box.
BitGo implementation was used so that BFX could continue p2p lending (needed for leverage trading), without having to commingle the customer funds in a wallet it controlled (reason for the CFTC fine they paid).
So BitGo did exactly what was asked of it, allowing BFX to keep doing what it was already doing, without the need to become a licensed futures exchange.
August 07, 2016, 06:24:36 AM
Hey Jimbo,
Don't you saw a small nice spike up?
I'm currently seeing $ 585.80 on Coinbase
Looking good. It seems the bitfinex nightmare is withering away
Don't you saw a small nice spike up?
I'm currently seeing $ 585.80 on Coinbase
Looking good. It seems the bitfinex nightmare is withering away
Yes. The spike was starting as I was typing. When I started to type my post it was about $580 on Bitstamp and $586 on Bitcoinaverage.
I had a flurry of phone calls and visitors and then I check back and they're both up $5.
Yes I think the Finex panic is done. I'm waiting to see what happens when the banks open after the weekend. I'm guessing an influx of fiat at the exchanges and a spike upward.
I agree. I think tomorrow we'll see another nice trend. We're set to go up. Even though Bitfinex story might not seem finished.
Anyway, we're on the way up
August 07, 2016, 02:55:02 AM
Do we know if the process was totally automated? Was no one looking at a screen at BitGawn?
No official word, but looks like it was totally automated and they were just rubber stamping everything that they got from finex.Wounder if hax0r knew that ahead or was surprised as everyone else when BitGone just kept signing off on everything s/he threw at it and no withdrawal limits kicked in
2% of BTC gone oh they probably have it set at 5
5% huh high withdrawal limit
10% are you kidding me BitGone is still signing transactions
25% i must be on testnet
50% LOLs
60% That's just sad, it's like kicking a person on the floor, i'm just gonna stop here.
August 07, 2016, 02:35:04 AM
Do we know if the process was totally automated? Was no one looking at a screen at BitGawn?
August 07, 2016, 02:24:10 AM
So far sounds to me like it's an implementation error. BFX forgot to check the "Limit maximum daily withdrawals to 5%" checkbox during account set up with BitGone
Well, BitGo's website states that they are "The leader in blockchain security" along with "100% secure". If their job is to secure bitcoins, it shouldn't matter how badly the customer tries to screw up, they should still secure the coins!
If I take my car to a garage and tell them to replace the brake pads with eight blocks of sharp cheddar cheese, they had better talk me out of it or refuse entirely. Especially if they are "The leader in automotive safety" and "100% safe".
Why would BitGo, a company which prides itself on securing bitcoins, let one of their customers choose a solution with no security at all? They should have either had precautions in place or, if they couldn't provide the kind of service that Finex desired, they should have turned them away as a customer explaining that their proposed solution is insecure.
It's because I was under the impression the boxes (addresses) were all drained individually. What kind of daily withdrawal limit woulda prevented that?
The one where one customer isn't allowed to withdraw 1%ish of all the bitcoins in existence without some kind of flag going up. LOL!
Even if they were individual addresses, they all belonged to the same customer: Finex.
Agree, there should have been some baseline security implementation which cannot be overridden before they slap their name on it. And the maximum daily % should be on the top of that list
August 07, 2016, 02:22:19 AM
Good to see that at Kraken, we are again above the price when the BFX hack surfaced (€532). So far only at Kraken, because for some odd reason it was Kraken where apparently the most shorting took place between 31 July 4:00 CET and 2 August 20:00. The price was more than 2% lower than the Chinese exchanges, BFX, and Stamp. And even lower than BTC-e, usually the bottom of the barrel.
At the time, I pointed out this very odd situation in /r/bitcoinmarkets, which I had never seen before in the past 2.5 years.
Could it be that the hacker used Kraken the most for his pre-hack shorting? (EDIT: relatively, that is. So that it had more impact than on OKcoin)
At the time, I pointed out this very odd situation in /r/bitcoinmarkets, which I had never seen before in the past 2.5 years.
Could it be that the hacker used Kraken the most for his pre-hack shorting? (EDIT: relatively, that is. So that it had more impact than on OKcoin)
August 07, 2016, 02:21:01 AM
but if bitgo auto signs every time BFX signs.... then all you really need is BFX keys and you can move the coins.
is this infact the reality of what was going on with this "shared key model." ? idk.. idk shit...
is this infact the reality of what was going on with this "shared key model." ? idk.. idk shit...
From everything I've read, that seems to be the case Adam. BitGo and BitFinex are both very keen to point out that none of the blame lies with BitGo. Finex apparently had a custom setup with BitGo, unlike any other BitGo customer.
Either BitGo simply signed everything requested by Finex, or the hackers were able to bypass/avoid any kind of security precautions that BitGo had in place.
In either case, it looks to me like BitGo is shit when it comes to security, which is supposed to be their job. They provided Finex with a system that had no security or their system was easily bypassed. Fail or fail.
Perhaps there is something else going on and I haven't read about it or it isn't public knowledge?
So far sounds to me like it's an implementation error. BFX forgot to check the "Limit maximum daily withdrawals to 5%" checkbox during account set up with BitGone
It's because I was under the impression the boxes (addresses) were all drained individually. What kind of daily withdrawal limit woulda prevented that?
The addresses were all in 2/3 multisig. Hacker got BFX's key, signed the transaction (got 1/3), and then forwarded it to BitGone, and then BitGone said yep transaction looks valid i'll sign for this so you got your (2/3). In essence Bitgone signed off on BTC120k of BTC withdrawals from BFXs controlled accounts in 3hrs and didn't see anything wrong with it to stop it.
Or at least how i understand it.
August 07, 2016, 02:09:32 AM
So far sounds to me like it's an implementation error. BFX forgot to check the "Limit maximum daily withdrawals to 5%" checkbox during account set up with BitGone
Well, BitGo's website states that they are "The leader in blockchain security" along with "100% secure". If their job is to secure bitcoins, it shouldn't matter how badly the customer tries to screw up, they should still secure the coins!
If I take my car to a garage and tell them to replace the brake pads with eight blocks of sharp cheddar cheese, they had better talk me out of it or refuse entirely. Especially if they are "The leader in automotive safety" and "100% safe".
Why would BitGo, a company which prides itself on securing bitcoins, let one of their customers choose a solution with no security at all? They should have either had precautions in place or, if they couldn't provide the kind of service that Finex desired, they should have turned them away as a customer explaining that their proposed solution is insecure.
It's because I was under the impression the boxes (addresses) were all drained individually. What kind of daily withdrawal limit woulda prevented that?
The one where one customer isn't allowed to withdraw 1%ish of all the bitcoins in existence without some kind of flag going up. LOL!
Even if they were individual addresses, they all belonged to the same customer: Finex.
August 07, 2016, 01:37:59 AM
but if bitgo auto signs every time BFX signs.... then all you really need is BFX keys and you can move the coins.
is this infact the reality of what was going on with this "shared key model." ? idk.. idk shit...
is this infact the reality of what was going on with this "shared key model." ? idk.. idk shit...
From everything I've read, that seems to be the case Adam. BitGo and BitFinex are both very keen to point out that none of the blame lies with BitGo. Finex apparently had a custom setup with BitGo, unlike any other BitGo customer.
Either BitGo simply signed everything requested by Finex, or the hackers were able to bypass/avoid any kind of security precautions that BitGo had in place.
In either case, it looks to me like BitGo is shit when it comes to security, which is supposed to be their job. They provided Finex with a system that had no security or their system was easily bypassed. Fail or fail.
Perhaps there is something else going on and I haven't read about it or it isn't public knowledge?
So far sounds to me like it's an implementation error. BFX forgot to check the "Limit maximum daily withdrawals to 5%" checkbox during account set up with BitGone
It's because I was under the impression the boxes (addresses) were all drained individually. What kind of daily withdrawal limit woulda prevented that?
August 07, 2016, 12:49:24 AM
but if bitgo auto signs every time BFX signs.... then all you really need is BFX keys and you can move the coins.
is this infact the reality of what was going on with this "shared key model." ? idk.. idk shit...
is this infact the reality of what was going on with this "shared key model." ? idk.. idk shit...
From everything I've read, that seems to be the case Adam. BitGo and BitFinex are both very keen to point out that none of the blame lies with BitGo. Finex apparently had a custom setup with BitGo, unlike any other BitGo customer.
Either BitGo simply signed everything requested by Finex, or the hackers were able to bypass/avoid any kind of security precautions that BitGo had in place.
In either case, it looks to me like BitGo is shit when it comes to security, which is supposed to be their job. They provided Finex with a system that had no security or their system was easily bypassed. Fail or fail.
Perhaps there is something else going on and I haven't read about it or it isn't public knowledge?
So far sounds to me like it's an implementation error. BFX forgot to check the "Limit maximum daily withdrawals to 5%" checkbox during account set up with BitGone
that was a feature ... so was BFX holding one key and the auto-sign api key at the same time . if they did way adam was thinking, obviously would defeat the entire purpose of the features of using bitgo for security of bitcoins .. they wouldn't be able to do bail-ins either . the hack was actually good for BFX and bitcoin . just think, now have BFXtokens .
Jump to: