AFAIK Kraken is based in Euroland. They'll just do the same as Finex and ditch the US customers. Must suck being an Yankee right now
Kraken is in San Francisco |
|
|
|
I think the USD can likely be maintained against all odds for quite some time, but regarding cryptocurrencies, I suspect the genie is indeed out of the bottle. They picked off BTC-e like they did Full Tilt Poker and Pokerstars a few years ago. This time, no happy ending I guess...
I think you misunderstood what I was saying, I was not suggesting that crypto is a cause of fiat collapse, it's way too small for that, the years of BTC-e trade volume since day one is only hours worth of trade in the fiat markets. I was pointing out that crypto is a safer haven that more and more people will flee too, as it's seen to be more democratic even though subject to highly speculative fluctuations atm. Which is improving daily (well except for the ICOs, but that's another story) |
|
|
|
the genie is out of the bottle
the USD is long since doomed, resistance is futile, but this fact will do nothing to prevent the violent death spasms of the dying order
as always, the proletariat will pay the price, plan accordingly
The USD is certainly in trouble, the US middle class is dying. These attacks on crypto exchanges could be last ditch attempts to forestall the inevitable fiat collapse. The principles behind crypto are sound, sure there may be mostly speculative money driving the exchanges like BTC-e, but there are more and more real investors moving some funds from fiat into crypto as a method of preserving wealth. The next phase will be people asking for their wages in crypto, and they are going to need exchanges until most business accept crypto. |
|
|
|
I think US is really overreaching on this one.
Putting tighter regulations on ICO's
AlphaBay and Hansa was taken down
Bitmixer.io officially shutdown its business (Because of pressure from the gov't?)
BTC-e then taking down by Fed
Who is next then on the list of the Feds?
I don't know why the US government is suddenly taking on the crypto in general. This is out of their jurisdiction. I would understand if they will bully another third world nation, but this is Russia that are involved here. I think they should have think many times before seizing the BTC-e servers and now BTC-e is trying to get back the funds to give it back to its customers. US has crossed some boundaries here and for sure there will be repercussions on this. And this actions is not the best and most effective way to handle it. They are now waging war on crypto world for that matter. But why just now?
One thing to keep in mind, the US government is run by the big corporations, has been for several years now. So when you are trying to summarize the situation, it's good to work out who benefits most from the events you described. |
|
|
|
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=019e4e0f-fddb-4097-895c-c872bbbdcb3aJurisdiction Although BTC-e is not a US company, FinCEN asserted jurisdiction because BTC-e conducts business as an MSB in substantial part within the United States. More specifically, FinCEN regulates as “money transmitters” (MTs) any person in the business of accepting currency, funds, or any substitute for currency from one person and transmitting such currency, funds, or substitute for currency to another person or location (unless an applicable exemption applies). To establish jurisdiction, FinCEN asserted that: Since 2011, BTC-e customers located within the United States conducted at least 21,000 virtual currency transactions worth over $296,000,000. These transactions included funds sent from customers located within the United States to recipients who were also located within the United States. These transactions were processed through servers located in the United States. BTC-e attempted to conceal that it provided services to customers located within the United States. BTC-e instructed customers to make use of correspondent accounts held by foreign financial institutions or services provided by affiliates of BTC-e located abroad. The whole thing is BS, the fiat went to overseas companies, eg OKPAY in the UK, and then to BTC-e. The crypto, which isn't legally money under the US constitution, is a virtual construct with no fixed address. |
|
|
|
Not to mention their servers were located in a US datacenter, which means they can quite easily demand to seize the hardware. Not the brightest idea to host it there to be honest.
Which US datacenter where the servers located in? They were hosted by Cloudflare which is a US company. Exactly where the servers where physically located I'm not sure, I think I read somewhere in the US. But either way, as Cloudflare is a US based company the FBI can demand pretty much anything from them under US law and they have to comply, even if the servers were physically located abroad (which I don't think they were, I think it was a data center in california). Cloudflare doesn't host websites, it's a distributed caching proxy service for speed and DDoS protection, plus DNS services. |
|
|
|
but yes, they served US customers. no IP block, no checkbox to confirm residency and of course no actual KYC. so that's the reasoning used by law enforcement. that's what the unlicensed MSB charge is all about.
Not to mention their servers were located in a US datacenter, which means they can quite easily demand to seize the hardware. Not the brightest idea to host it there to be honest. Which US datacenter where the servers located in? |
|
|
|
Huh? The charge BTCE had was operating a money service without a license.
Do you know the money service licensing requirements of the country BTC-e was operating in? Does it matter? The United States consider the whole world as its jurisdiction, if it is convenient for them. What you just described is called tyranny, and caused the collapse of countless civilizations over the centuries. This is one of the main reasons crypto exists. |
|
|
|
Huh? The charge BTCE had was operating a money service without a license.
Do you know the money service licensing requirements of the country BTC-e was operating in? |
|
|
|
I absolutely agree with you @figmentofmyass
Finally someone asking the right questions!
Verification doesn't make sense at this point of
time and with a busted exchange like BTC-E
this is a security risk for every customer.
BTC-E didn't care 7 years about any AML
laws now they get busted and want to verifiy
every customer. People wake up this is fishy!
Not true, BTC-e introduced verification on May 30th. 2017. Here is a copy of the announcement. https://web.archive.org/web/20170603055634/https://btc-e.com/news/241One of the reasons was: In the near future verified users will be able to deposit via such popular payment systems as WebMoney, Visa/MasterCard, China UnionPay, Payza. So obviously they were interested in trying to comply with AML laws. |
|
|
|
Good point, there are probably legal hurdles to go jump in order for the FBI/DOJ to get hold of the blocked funds in the UK. |
|
|
|
+1 The cash in and run types got pretty rekt on Bitfinex. If the BTC-E backer companies can get a handle on the legal side of things and sue the shit out of the US gov then there is a decent chance of holders getting full refund. Hellabetter than a 55% payoff
From the sound off it, the FBI have stolen a large sum of money from the citizens of the world that used the BTC-e crypto exchange. That is a serious issue, with no clear avenue of response for the exchange customers. There needs to be an organized international class action against the FBI to recover the customer funds and other losses incurred. Do you have definite proof the FBI actually took the money? Do you have definite proof they didn't? Aug 3rd. BTC-e said their fiat was via "Mayzus Financial Services Ltd and at the moment they are arrested". They also said most of their losses were fiat. |
|
|
|
+1 The cash in and run types got pretty rekt on Bitfinex. If the BTC-E backer companies can get a handle on the legal side of things and sue the shit out of the US gov then there is a decent chance of holders getting full refund. Hellabetter than a 55% payoff
From the sound off it, the FBI have stolen a large sum of money from the citizens of the world that used the BTC-e crypto exchange. That is a serious issue, with no clear avenue of response for the exchange customers. There needs to be an organized international class action against the FBI to recover the customer funds and other losses incurred. |
|
|
|
Way i read it is:
Fiat users will get half BTE tokens and half coins
Coin users will get half coins and half BTE tokens
So both sides is fair
Sounds like they are short of funds mainly because of the seized fiat, though the did suggest that they don't have all their crypto either, so they are looking at a revenue raising scheme. It would piss me off if the FBI seized more than the DOJ $110m fine value, even the $110m was outrageous and should be contested. I didn't see the FBI seizing the $14bn fine the US imposed on Deutsche Bank and redirecting their domain last year, seems to be double standards. |
|
|
|
It is said that btc-e laundered the money of mtgox now and they are still awaiting a trial to see if Vinnik has laundered $4 billion funds of mtgox and to arrest him (some say he is already arrested). This matter won't get solved anytime soon it seems.
Mt Gox didn't have $4billion of funds. That is some magic propaganda number. It was $473 million at the time of filing for bankruptcy protection. You can bet that was exaggerated too. For all we know the Mt Gox hack might be tiny, and used as a cover story for an inside job. Those bitcoins are not sitting still somewhere all these years just waiting to be redistributed back to Mt. Gox customers. Just like the proceeds of bank robberies are guaranteed to pass though some other bank(s) eventually, I am quite sure many of the coins would have passed though BTC-e, being pretty much the only other viable exchange back in 2014. Of course the DOJ tries to make it look like a Russian conspiracy by conjecture. Can't wait for their next PR piece. |
|
|
|
i'd agree that this is likely not the real btc-e admins. i would assume that a number of fake phishing sites are being set up right now, just on the chance that btc-e relaunches in some capacity and tries to refund users. statistically, that's what this probably is.
but im curious: what makes you say that it is "most likely not under btc-e control?"
If BTC-e manage to get their servers up and running somewhere safer, I am sure they will let us know the URL. It doesn't pay to speculate on domain names as a sign of progress, they are the least of the problems. Getting hosting, IP's, DDoS protection, synced wallets etc. all has to be in place before then, and that's just to get crypto flowing, the tip of the iceberg. Getting fiat flowing is the mega-drama. |
|
|
|
|
I can start Electron Cash 2.9.2 with a server specified at the command line, and it will show the correct BCC balance but I can't send.
"your client produced a transaction that is not acceptable to the network anymore"
If I start with auto servers it always falls back to the BCC block chain.
I have tried:
electroncash.cascharia.com:50002
electrum_abc.criptolayer.net:50012
bcc.arihanc.com:52002
The first two wont even sync properly it they keep falling back to the fork block 478559:
"[Blockchain] verify_chunk failed bits mismatch: 402736949 vs 402757890"
I have deleted the .electron_cash and .electrum folders, and reimported keys several times, it doesn't help
Is there some other BCC server I should select, or is this a fail exercise in which case can someone suggest a better BCC client?
|
|
|
|
|
I installed Electron Cash 2.9.2 just before, and it's trying to connect to pop3 ports on some server, which my firewall stopped.
WTF is that all about?
|
|
|
|
In the Star Wars analogy, I agree. If only it were so simple! The fact of the matter is, by targeting the owners with criminal charges, the US authorities have made it much more likely that the owners will disappear with no attempt at relaunching or refunding customers. Any effort they make to repay customers puts them at greater risk. That makes our odds pretty bad.  Perhaps the US intention is to frighten people away from using crypto. Of course it could be just corruption. eg. when the two DEA agents stole coins from the Silk Road seizure. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/stealing-bitcoins-with-badges-how-silk-roads-dirty-cops-got-caught/Maybe some other US agents are looking to try the same caper. |
|
|
|
yes, keep using shit(unregulated) exchangers and the history will repeat. you will lose the funds.  Your logic is terrible and should probably just leave. Funds were not lost due to "unregulated" BTC-e, they were lost BECAUSE of regulators. Seems like a chicken-and-egg problem. The US government creates the law and is largely free to enforce it as they please across the world. So in that sense, yes: any exchange that serves US customers without holding MSB licenses and complying with AML law can cause customer funds to be lost. The morality of this is a whole different issue. In no way is what happened to BTC-e an argument FOR regulation and anyone with a genuine opinion (not agenda-driven fud) knows that.
There are two opposing camps that are diverging further and further apart. The cypherpunks who want to create a decentralized world have no interest in complying with government thugs. Others, like our friend above, are bootlickers, and enjoy seeing law enforcement rob people of their hard-earned money. It's not unlike the Imperial Storm Troopers in Star Wars inflicting their tyranny on others. The Cyberpunks are the Rebels. BTC-e is a Rebel base. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
