As consumers or users of bitcoin, we don't necessarily need to know or understand the various technicalities, except to have some faith that other technical folks know and understand what they are doing.

In the end, we work with the interface and if it seems that the funds are secure, then we consider whether it is worth it to us to pay whatever it is that they are charging comparing other competing systems.

Also, even if we are not personally using the various payment systems on a regular basis, we can also remain involved by using the storage of value aspects (hopefully, diversifying, to some extent, our various categories of asset holdings with a reasonable portion held in bitcoin).

Yeah... you are worthy of disregard because you are not really saying anything... except "look at me... blah, blah, blah, blah, talking nonsense and making stabs in the dark with little to no rationale"

Probably, we should just agree to disagree because part of my earlier point was that Bitfinex is not going from the largest volume USD/BTC exchange into significant obscurity in any kind of expedited manner...

The chances of that occurring are very low, indeed.

You, on the other hand, appear to be assuming such an expedited and inevitable death of Bitfinex, with pure fantasyland conjecture.

I am not attempting to suggest that the Bitfinex folks are angels or that their story even adds up or that they are not continuing to scam us; however, they currently seem to have too many irons in the fire in order to increase the likelihood that they are going to continue to milk this matter, to the extent that they can - whether their story is plausible or not; whether they are going to run away with the money or not; or whether they just fade away, as you seem to be suggesting within your weak-ass indirect attempts at poetry.  

I'm not sure whether this information matters too much, at the time being.

We need to see a bit of volume across all exchanges before we attempt to jump to any conclusions about anything.

I will concede, however, that it appears that some folks have moved to other exchanges (off of Bitfinex)... but we need to get some volume before we attempt to hammer any coffin nails. 

Yeah.. right...

That's not how a hardfork works.  You must be thinking about a softfork, if you think that you are going to slowly merge folks into the dominant chain.   

In fact, the ETH foundation jumped to a fairly rash conclusion and had been throwing around the idea of fork for quite some time, and really they had forked before; however, this particular latest fork happened to be a bit more controversial than they had expected.

Yeah, if they had clarified that the hardfork was not controversial, before they did it, then it would not have been a problem.  Instead they acted rashly.

Yeah, let's talk about ETH as if it were living in a vacuum, and this little diluting coin, called ETC, did not exist.   

O.k..  Fine.  If you want to characterize yourself as an optimist, then so be it.  At this point, I don't feel very much in the mood to go into further detail regarding my assessments of your seemingly ongoing negativism  with what seems to me to be fringe matters.



So what?  It is what it is.  I mean, we have had several mini-failures of Bitfinex prior to the more recent larger failure, and folks went back to them.  O.k. I may be able to conceded that there is some craziness, but in the end, it is what it is, and why we want to get all worked up attempting to change the "is" to an "ought?"  That part makes little sense to me.





O.k.  Maybe I misunderstood your original point, a little bit?  I believe that I was considering your point to be that Bitfinex is on some kind of irreversible downwards trajectory, which there could be some truth to the matter, but instead you are griping because you believe a larger number of folks are returning that seems plausible or reasonable.

Surely, maybe there are some explanations for this including the fact that the situation could have turned out a lot worse, and whether you believe Bitfinex's seemingly half baked story, they do seem to be engaged in taking several reasonably creative measures in order to paint a path forward, and even a path that could plausibly work. 

I personally had been considering that possibly they could be losing some customers on the margins, who would otherwise be persuaded by lowering fees for a period of time.... and personally, I do think that lowering fees for a period of time is a better demonstration of good will and giving the sense of an apology for some of the losses of some of the affected account holders.. .. but, yeah, you could be correct that such a fee reduction may not be needed.  I doubt that either one of us knows sufficiently regarding their inner operations in order to really make some  kind of strong arguments, either way... and also, the practice of whether or not to actually introduce a lowered-fee arrangement is not exactly clear cut regarding whether they should implement such, or not.

That makes little sense. 

Didn't we learn anything from that lilie coin, not to be named?

The only ways that someone believes forking bitcoin to be a positive is either if they want to play on the volatility of such a move or to undermine bitcoin.

Yes, we are likely repeating ourselves with some of these old arguments..... but yeah, maybe sometimes it can be worth repeating, or at least to reassess the matter under current circumstances.

You agree that bitcoin is not broken, but you assert that it is unnecessarily limited.

In essence, you are still wanting to suggest that the best solution is that the blocksize limit is increased; however, if bitcoin is not broken, and there are remedies in the wings, then I don't understand the problem... Where's the rush to increase the blocksize limit? 

I think that there remains a bit of faulty logic, when you are suggesting that something, such as a blocksize limit increase, should be done right away, but at the same time conceding that bitcoin is not broken.

Scaling is likely to be an ongoing issue that is not going to go away, and raising the limit or creating some kind of schedule as was proposed in XT and classic are not going to resolve the issues, and anyhow, those XT and Classic solutions had failed to convince enough folks about their essentiality (also they had the problems of attempting to attack governance too, which made them sloppy).  Anyhow, there are some partial remedies in the works that are close to being released into the live, and seems good enough to let those play out for a little while, first, before jumping too far ahead of ourselves concerning a problem (which you characterize as bitcoin being unnecessarily limited) that is not agreed upon as actually being a problem.

Undesireable, by who?  you  cannot really be still buying into the idea that bitcoin is somehow broken because of some kind of supposed blocksize limit issue?

Look at you... making up shit.

Coming out with a tried and wanna be true outdated remanent of a made-up claim from the past, which in essence is asserting that blocks are full... yeah, right.

Hellow::: Block size limit is a current feature in bitcoin, and not a bug..   and regarding seg wit.. you are correct in the implication that it is going to likely provide scaling improvement to the current situation.. and surely, seg wit is a work in progress that is on the cusp of going live... and even if it takes a bit of time, six months or so, no BIG deal.. Bitcoin is currently doing fine, in spite of a few folks raging on, unconvincingly,  regarding some old and debunked arguments....  Have a little patience!!

We can talk about worse case scenarios and lesser variations, yet we have already seen a pretty decent silver lining in that they opened up, and people did not lose all of their coins and Bitfinex came up with a decent plan.

Yeah, the plan is not perfect and it has a lot strange innovations, but really, Bitfinex seems to be acting quite adventurous and creative in it's proposals.

Yeah, maybe, if everything that they is saying is true, regarding the stolen coins and all, they could have come up with some better plan, yet even if you disagree with the plan and you disagree with their holding back details, you gotta give them some credit for attempting to be innovative.  I am skeptical too, and i am a bit irritated by their plan still seeming to being in the process of creation and tweaking.... Maybe it is all going to fall apart, but maybe not?

It seems that you just have a tendency for narrow pessimistic thinking, and I wonder if you are that way about all things in life, to want to argue over fringe matters?

O.k.  Surely, you have strong opinions that Bitfinex is corrupt, and you try to act as if everyone comes to these same kinds of conclusions or are going to give the same weight to your seemingly highly refined conspiracy theories.  Sure there is some truth in what you are saying and some possibilities that your fringe viewpoints are correct, but in the end, I would prefer to consider the world from more realistic, moderate and day by day thinking, rather than assuming the worst and then acting in that direction.. yeah.. go ahead, you can do it, but let's take these matters one step at a time, rather than assuming the worst and acting under those negative views of the world. 

I saw that earlier too. 

There was about a 1,200 coin dump that took place over about 3 minutes, and the price bounce back into the lower $570s within about 10 minutes.  It seemed to have caused a few dollars down on all of the exchanges, but none of the other exchanges followed with a dump.. yet it could have averted a pump?  Who knows what the fuck some of these whales are doing or accomplishing in their throwing around coins -?   Whether it was done on purpose or not?

We already know that if the exchange fails or continues the scam or takes a lot more money from folks, then other guys are going to be lecturing about (I think it's called trolling), you should have done this or you should have done that.

There are risks and potential rewards with any activity, and surely many of us will likely concede that some aspects of the Bitfinex story doesn't really seem to add up, and we may wonder, why aren't they being more transparent about some of what happened and about their plan to go forward.  Some of the obscurity is justifiable no matter what happened, but also part of the obscurity could end up being a big fucking ploy (as some of the most extreme conspiracy theorists would argue).

Usually the story is somewhere in the middle, at least in terms of it not being as bad as conceived, yet in circumstances like these, while the situation is evolving, we do need to account for the possibility that some of the more outlandish and less probable theories could be true.

If Bitfinex is able to pull off some meaningful and creative reimbursement plan, then all the more power to them, yet I still think that in the near future, they need to play on their good will (to the extent that they have any left) and/or name recognition to attempt to leverage some low fee incentives in their trading.  I do understand that in the short term the low fees could cause them to not make any money, yet keeping some of their customers and potentially building customers seems like a must... and I cannot really understand why they have not yet instituted such trade incentive creation measures.  Anyone?

I don't disagree with you regarding Bitfinex serving as a kind of model;  however, no two situations go down the same way in cryptolandia, and this continues to be an evolving space in which the resources of any entity and the nature of their "hack" or "scamming" or other ongoing scams/hacks is going to effect the way they attempt to carry out their proposed remedy.

Odds are pretty decent that you are correct and this Bitfinex matter is just a scheme to stall, divert and to get some more folks to give them money, but nothing is 100% in cryptolandia...   

Hellow?

Seems to be an interesting experiment, and question regarding whether it is going to have any solid value in the future or just a means to suck some more people into a scam...   Don't get me wrong, it seems that they may be making some meaningful efforts in the direction of rectifying matters in the event that the official story (regarding an unknown hacker) is actually true.

Well one thing is developing, and another thing is promoting and selling or changing for the sake of change.

I agree that there is likely very little need for development with bitcoin, except to entertain the possibility of possible changes, tweaks with the passage of time... so for example, scaling will likely always be a bit of an issue... to not make too big and not allow to stay too small.

Also, if an improvement proposal is made, there is likely needs within a community to assess whether such a proposal is capable of achieving consensus, and certainly developers could be sufficiently familiar and articulate enough to assess possible technical issues.. so in the end, it seems quit logical that with an adequately programed coin, such as bitcoin, changes to the protocol would be extraordinary occurrences rather than something that took place on the regular.

From the amount of information currently out there regarding price movements and volume, it is way too early to conclude that "Bears are in charge." 


Unless you happen to be a whale yourself, frequently, you cannot really determine for sure whether support or resistance is real or whether we are merely being "played with."   Accordingly, trade volume remains somewhat mediocre, so this baby could blow (from 1% to 10%) in either direction.  What's wrong with my current assessment (which admittedly tends to be my broken record assessment almost no matter where we are at... hahahahahaha)?