|
Two turds, one more brown than the other. I love the debate over at reddit arguing which piece of shit is more valued. I guess what we're learning here is that people get emotionally invested, and make poor decisions that defy rationality. Anyone who trades for a living would recognize Bitfinex as the trade that needs to be "cut" -- either by cashing out their loss and moving on, or getting some sucker to buy their BFXCrapCoins.
The end result for a pro trader is a flat account balance and a learned lesson. With this "Special Purpose Vehicle" you get to prolong the pain with a company that doesn't even have a posted Disaster Recovery plan, or a posted Security Plan to prevent future problems. They're running their exchange like a personal piggy bank, which was admitted to by the CEO in a drunken rant that the two top account holders were in fact exchange employees.
If you trust these assholes with your money, you are in fact -- mental, hopeless and deluded.
|
|
|
|
|
Small bit of math -- 240 days / 365 days = 0.6575 = 65.7% of a full year.
And this is supposed to "double" Bitcoin price when it hasn't even been approved as an ETF yet? What?
Your posted headline is extremely misleading.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh good, another conspiracy theory.
So, even after difficulty didn't decline substaintially (as predicted by doom-sayers), and price really hasn't done too much, someone has to pull a whitepaper out of their ass to convince everyone that doom is around the corner.
How convenient. I guess the battle never stops, does it. Just another ham-fisted attempt by "experts" to smear Bitcoin in general.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your nearly 4-month delayed response. I'm sure getting new people who are gullible enough to trust you was more important than addressing my comment.
All you've proven is that there are people out there that will trade with you, Bitfinex, Mt. Gox, or any other service after they've failed their customers.
How proud you must be...
I do apologize for the delay, but I think that it's a bit disingenuous for you to use that as an attempt to support your false claim that we are swindling our users. As previously stated, no funds were lost, and 100% of customer funds that were under management at the time were returned to our users (unlike Bitfinex and MtGox). If I go to a store and steal a steak, then later return the steak -- does that clear me of any malfeasance? No, it doesn't. Refunding your customers after failing them isn't a "free pass" to pat yourself on the back. Its just one step on the long road of rebuilding your lost trust. And no, I don't trust you at all. |
|
|
|
|
This is really about control of money flows from sovereign state to sovereign state -- it has nothing to do with "laundering" as a primary objective.
The largest source of laundering is the US Dollar, Euro, Pound, Yen, Yuan, Rupee, Ruble and every other shitty fiat currency that still exists. Lumping Bitcoin in there just allows them to overreach and try to ring-fence people who are fleeing oppressive monetary policies aimed at devaluing their local currency.
|
|
|
|
|
Remember all the idiots that said the next halvening would be a downward difficulty spiral and all the miners would quit?
Yeah, I wonder if they all drowned by looking up when it rains with the mouths open...
We will never know...
|
|
|
|
|
Vampire Squid making inroads, eh?
Maybe when all the derivatives collapse they'll have bigger things on their agenda than screwing around with "blockchain" walled-garden solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your nearly 4-month delayed response. I'm sure getting new people who are gullible enough to trust you was more important than addressing my comment.
All you've proven is that there are people out there that will trade with you, Bitfinex, Mt. Gox, or any other service after they've failed their customers.
How proud you must be...
|
|
|
|
Malware Infects 70% of Seagate Central NAS Drives, Earns $86,400 An anonymous Slashdot reader writes:A new malware family has infected over 70% of all Seagate Central NAS devices connected to the Internet. The malware, named Miner-C or PhotoMiner, uses these hard-drives as an intermediary point to infect connected PCs and install software that mines for the Monero cryptocurrency... The crooks made over $86,000 from Monero mining so far. The hard drives are easy to infect because Seagate does not allow users to delete or deactivate a certain "shared" folder when the device is exposed to the Internet. Over 5,000 Seagate Central NAS devices are currently infected. Researchers estimates the malware is now responsible for 2.5% of all mining activity for the Monero cryptocurrency, according to the article. "The quandary is that Seagate Central owners have no way to protect their device. Turning off the remote access NAS feature can prevent the infection, but also means they lose the ability to access the device from a remote location, one of the reasons they purchased the hard drive in the first place." ---------------- So much for the "taking over the darknet" excuse.... it was a malware install spike, lol. https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/09/11/0028238/malware-infects-70-of-seagate-central-nas-drives-earns-86400
|
|
|
|
What do they gain from such an attack against Monero?
They do not learn anything about the transactions from mining, and how to determine what transactions to attack? The most they could do would be to mine empty blocks and delay transactions by two minutes or so.
This sort of attack is not effective verses block-chains where the transactions are private, not public.
In fact they could already be doing this, no one would know, because it wouldn't matter.
And comparing the hash rate of a CPU mined chain to an ASIC mined chain is a false comparison. You should know better, sir. FUD rejected.
If the majority of bitcoin wallets implemented ring-signatures and required the use of BIP47 addresses (aka stealth), then Bitcoin could stop worrying about this sort of thing also, but too many do not care about their privacy until after it is violated, (and they find out).
You must've skipped over the entire post, which considering your history of posting slap-dash pseudobabble, isn't surprising. It was a theoretical attack vector based on the farcical fabrications of an e-journalist that Monero is replacing Bitcoin somehow with darknet/black market transactions. Now follow very closely here, because I know attention to detail isn't your forte, but the amount of computing power (regardless of algorithm, my dear chum-filled chum) is TRIVIAL compared to what is needed for Bitcoin to execute an attack. That was the point. I know you're working it through your goldbergian-meatworks-of-a-frontal-lobe right now trying to make it twist to your reality, but that is the unvarnished truth of it. Go back to writing about your Bitcoin "religion", its more suited to your obfuscated and gordian-knot-like thinking skills. |
|
|
|
|
Naturally SWIFT says Bitcoin isn't "going anywhere". How about that SWIFT system, eh? If you need a few million sent to the wrong party, SWIFT is the way to go. Oh, and it takes a while too, because you know - its so ADVANCED. What these Belgian idiots don't realize is the ecosystem for Bitcoin is growing, and the whole "Blockchain" push is just another prong in the Bitcoin probe to make things mainstream.
As for why fiat and crypto can't coexist, it should be obvious. One is the product of a centralized monopoly that wants control at all times, and the other is a global system freely available to anyone who chooses to participate. Any further elaboration shouldn't be necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
Funny, they suckered the Bovespa into an arrangement, eh?
We'll see how much they love R3 after working with their "talent pool".
|
|
|
|
Banks don't have the control you seem to imply.
No bank will give a UK Bitcoin company an account though that might be slowly changing. As a result of that the UK Bitcoin scene is laughable compared to other places. There are no proper exchanges and very little commerce. If banks everywhere refused to work with exchanges then Bitcoin's usage will be vastly curtailed. It's not sexy but that's how it is. If we ever reached closed loop status then the problem goes away but there'll always be a need to interact with fiat and that means banks. As for the original question, 2037 maybe? Their greed will be their undoing. UK Banks will eventually be forced to recognize Bitcoin commerce just like any other fee-earning enterprise. We're at that awkward stage of Bitcoin's progress, where closed-loop hasn't happened yet, so we're forced to talk to institutions whose idea of progress is ATMs and Chip-and-PIN, which aren't really new ideas at all. They'll either change with the times or go extinct due to their own mis-steps. |
|
|
|
Banks are not going to sit back and let Bitcoin disrupt it... they have had control over our financial matter for years and they have done this with our governments backing. Why would our governments stop supporting them now, they even bailed them out, when they were suppose to fail. We will see Banks making changes to their systems to compete with Bitcoin and the governments will once again back them in that efforts. It's about control.  Banks don't have the control you seem to imply. Yes, they'll kick and scream once Bitcoin gets more traction amongst the people they are used to duping/ripping off, but by then the trends will be absolute and crushing. Buggy-makers couldn't stop the automobile, even with antiquated laws about having a "flagman" to warn oncoming pedestrians and horse-riders about the "dangerous" automobile approaching. Every industry likes its little insular spot, but most can't stay there when the tectonic plates begin to shift. Bitcoin will subsume and absorb all of these, because they're run by people who can't understand why we love Bitcoin -- the blue-sky freedom of managing our own wealth. If you think "too big to fail" is going to continue forever, I suggest you look at the large pile of derivatives and sovereign debt being piled up around the world, and tell me -- which will last longer, an expanding balance sheet of debt, or Bitcoin? My vote is on Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
In such a scenario, people will turn to gold. Bitcoin's adoption is not that widespread for it to be considered as a safe asset for common people. Banks have tided over bigger crises than this.  Banks will not "tide over" a 19 TRILLION dollar hole of debt, when the interest payments come calling. As for gold, there are logistics to it that are necessary to attend to, like making sure you aren't being sold gold-cladded garbage - like some in NYC found out when buying bars. Even coins aren't immune to potential counterfeit attempts. Unless you want to become an expert at assaying, you are taking a risk every time you trust a gold seller with your money. (Much like any other financial transaction.) For me, I don't need the weight or the worry of verifying my coins or bars are "pure", I'd rather just have 6 confirms on my transactions and backups in suitable places as needed. Good luck getting gold across the border, they tend to frown on concentrated wealth moving out of the country. Me, I'll just bounce my wealth to a secure location and travel with zero problems. Thanks Bitcoin! |
|
|
|
|
Never heard of this idiot before.
"Baron" implies some kind of widely-known celebrity status, and this joker doesn't have it.
|
|
|
|
Bitfinex has reimbursed its first wave of customers. Announced 1st September, the Hong Kong bitcoin exchange revealed it had purchased more than 1% of the blockchain debt tokens it issued to users in August as a way to pay them back for losses it incurred in a debilitating hack. While a small step to recovery, analysts were largely positive about the move due in large part to the exchange's decision to purchase the tokens at an above-market value of $1 each, roughly double the market value when the redemption took place. http://www.coindesk.com/bitfinex-reimburses-first-bitcoin-exchange-hack-victims/This is the right way to do it, they have to repay at full issueance value (arguably with interest). If Bitfinex bought at market value, they would create the appearance of impropriety (even if it were not improper, they could be accused and the accusation would become expensive). Well done, Bitfinex, a good start. Well done? I suppose if you consider stealing the funds first, then using them to "reimburse" people an achievement, then.... yeah, I guess. They're circling the drain, and after having their volume more than halved since the "hack", I doubt they'll be in the position to continue much further... Why anyone would applaud these crooks is beyond me.... |
|
|
|
What fallout? The stumble in the FTSE has largely been erased, and other than their current decline in the GBP compared to other currencies, things aren't going to hell in a handbasket as the "Remain" camp inferred would happen.
How it can go to hell when the route is unknown so far? We don't know if the City retains a financial passport, whether we're in some type of single market or not, whether everyone who's currently here will move wholesale to Ireland or elsewhere. The strife hasn't even started to begin. It's going to take many years for the fallout to be absorbed and understood. And I'm sure every step of the way the banking and corporate entities that depended on a captive populace for easy labor will whine and whine. They'll also use a "Post-Brexit World" as catchphrase to outsource as much as they can, because hey man, profit over humanity is the rule of the day. The point here is, the immediate disaster scenario posited by the "Remain" camp never came to pass, and they were threatening dire and immediate consequences would occur if the UK decided to leave the European Union. |
|
|
|
|
It is happening because of two things:
1.) Bitcoin has value, and is worth stealing (pretty important, I'd say)
2.) Exchanges so far have been run by people with very little experience in Information Security disciplines and Financial Services acumen.
Every single one with a few exceptions have been subject to those two facts, and we see the results plain as day. Luckily, after a time exchanges will not be necessary -- the long view, where Bitcoin denominated transactions slowly start to take over instead of conversions -- but before that becomes a daily routine we must put up with these incomplete and inconsistent efforts to provide conversion services to other currencies.
Never trust your funds to another service for very long - if you must.
|
|
|
|
|
CNBC is always taking the "tough" approach to cryptocurrencies. They don't trust an asset class that isn't fully corrupted and vetted by the oligarchs.
Their job is to slag it and smear it as much as they can, because if Bitcoin catches on at all in the financial space (as certain trends indicate it can) then the entire landscape changes, taking out a lot of formerly rich and powerful people with it.
I look forward to when they'll be forced to carry a price ticker some day on crypto, that'll be our sweet revenge.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
