By the way, I think they said about an update by the end of this week( I think Friday is the end of week already, don't?). So anything new?
i guess you missed this. take a seat and grab some popcorn. from socialized losses to ICOs to vague reference to KYC, this update's got it all: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2075551.0Not sure why the US consider they have jurisdiction - maybe because some of the customers or wire transfers were from US? Or they traded $?
well in general, the US government does whatever it wants. whether that's raiding whoever it wants anywhere in the world and pocketing all their money, or invading other countries and installing dictators. 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. |
|
|
|
First prove how Bitfinex has repaid every last one of its debts in their token scheme. The repayment finished so fast that its doubtful they did it without taking a loan from an outside source.
well, they had that whole investment scheme where customers could become minority shareholders in the parent company. so you had some demand (and lack of sell pressure) from people who wanted to buy into the exchange. that is true stockholm syndrome right there. i've always speculated that the repayment may also have been carried out by inflating the USDT supply. printing money, so to speak. if you look at the outstanding USDT on the blockchain, it grew significantly. now that could have been anyone withdrawing USDT from bitfinex (maybe to poloniex or bittrex). but since tether (bitfinex) can't move any fiat money to customers anymore, no one can tell. they could just as easily be inflating the supply and allowing people to withdraw it. |
|
|
|
I almost forgot about BTC-e  So what you guys think who's going to be new mysterious investor: xbtce, fxopen, exmo or ________ ? exmo has some btc-e domains redirecting to it, but i think they are just trying to profit from btc-e's downfall. xbtce is purging US customers and distancing itself from btc-e, so that seems unlikely. fxopen is too reputable by now to get involved. really, any existing service shouldn't touch btc-e from an investment perspective. it makes no sense to touch tainted assets, unless you get blessing from the US government (like pokerstars did in paying back their own and full tilt's customers). if it happens, it'll be a new site that gets launched, but it'll be the same owners behind it. |
|
|
|
also, this database backup btc-e still has and will use for bringing the exchange back up.. how old is it. hours, days, weeks old?. what about trades/deposits/withdrawals that happened between when the live servers were seized and the last db backup? they ceast to exist? limbo maybe? how would one prove a deposit was made on the live (now seized) database that is not reflected in the (possible hours/days old) backup as btc-e backups will not show that?
maybe they did real time backups?
no skin in this game, just curious.
nobody knows the details at this point. i suspect that the seized servers dumped to remote servers, but how often is anyone's guess. i would think every 2-6 hours, not more, but it's a complete guess. the deposit issue you mention is a problem if a user generated a new deposit address after the last server dump and before the seizure. but an old deposit address would already be linked to your account (btc-e allowed address re-use). but for all we know, maybe back-ups were in real-time. |
|
|
|
The largest single address (1JCe8z4jJVNXSjohjM4i9Hh813dLCNx2Sy) since late last year has recently moved about 57% of the coins to numerous addresses... my first thought given that the movements took place within a 3 hour window on the 8th turning into the 9th of August was that this address belonged to BTC-e... largely due to the news out that they were able to recover 55% of seized funds. But if that were the case and you had control over the master address, why wouldn't you move everything?
Anyone else have thoughts on the recent movement of coins?
Some big whale is selling his bitcoins and cashing out the profits. This is the most obvious theory. any blockchain evidence that coins were sent to exchanges? because it looks to me like they are just being split into different addresses. i'd say it's a whale just re-securing cold storage, or moving coins to recover the BCH. maybe they're planning to dump the BCH. i'm not even sure what block explorer to use to try and figure out if that's what they're doing. but this is plausible given the timing. At this moment anything seems possible but the theory about a whale moving his coins so he can get BCH in return seems the most logical to me due to the timing in which all of this is happening, with so many coin getting your BCH seems like a good idea. if i were a whale, i'd rather let the BCH sit. it's in the "initial launch volatility" stage of an altcoin price chart, before accumulation has taken place. and moving tens of thousands of BTC around to do it (right after launch) just doesn't seem worth the effort or the risk. the price has continued its sideways decline, but no significant price movement to support the whale theory. who knows.... |
|
|
|
Hmm.. So there are going to be three different coins: BTC, BTC2X and BCH? I think I will hold all three, at least for another 6-7 months. Even after that period, at the most I am going to dump 25% of each.
seems sensible after seeing the ETH/ETC and BTC/BCC debacles play out. i'm only really interested in BTC, and i think that's what will take the throne in the long term, but there's no point insta-dumping the other coins just to double down on my BTC holdings. better to let the market figure it out for me, and make a decision months (or even years) later. comparing bitcoin and ethereum has never been a good idea. they have nothing in common. the point is that they are both blockchain networks with native coins. thus, the incentives around contentious forks are exactly the same. some users will choose to leave the consensus, some will not, and some will use both incompatible chains. the split of ethereum was because it was rushed and nobody agreed to it but the wealthy foundation wanted it and also it was a roll back to reverse the losses they have sustained. the support for each chain was big enough arguably, the BCC and segwit2x forks are very rushed. clearly many do not agree with either of them. bitmain (very powerful miner) is backing BCC and we have not necessarily seen the end of it. segwit2x has much more support (from businesses and miners), even if bitcoin core developers and the user base opposes. so, it is very contentious. the bitcoin split was a small group of people with small hashrate who went though with it and created an altcoin which nobody wants.
for example if support for ETH/ETC was 60/40% the support for BTC/BCC was 95-5%
ethereum classic had extremely low hash rate and network activity after the split. hash rate was something like 99:1 in favor of ETH, and out the door, no services supported ETC. due to quick difficulty readjustment, though, and the timing of the poloniex coin split, ETC was profitable to mine very quickly. the rest is the story of any altcoin. BCC's difficulty readjustment was not fast enough. it was not profitable to mine for days, and still may not be. |
|
|
|
but re: the bolded, is there any indication that there is a significant user base on xbtce to begin with? they used btc-e for liquidity, presumably because they don't have enough of their own. i believe they required verification, too. i'm not sure what the draw was for users to sign up there.
Everything related to the existence of the xbtce platform is questionable. When it comes to the differences, and then mainly the reason why people would sign up there, is that they offer various features that the main platform doesn't offer. BTC-E could very easily incorporate all features, but they on purposely created a secondary platform, that at the same time, indeed happens to require verification. I strongly believe that BTC-E created that exchange as a backup plan, in case something (we know what happened) would force their main platform to shut down. Currently, these are the volumes of the xbtce platform; https://coinmarketcap.com/exchanges/xbtce/ These volumes may however grow in the coming months, as I believe that there are enough BTC-E victims willing to hop over to xbtce. that was my first thought, too (xbtce existed as a fallback plan, a more legit exchange, for the owners of btc-e). i guess they were smart enough to require verification, but not smart enough to prohibit US customers outright. but why would btc-e customers sustaining such losses go to xbtce, who have always been closely affiliated? my first thought is to run as far away from xbtce as possible... it seems like US-serving exchanges better start registering in the US states they serve. xbtce never did, and is now prohibiting US customers (beginning last month, after the seizure)... |
|
|
|
Hmm.. So there are going to be three different coins: BTC, BTC2X and BCH? I think I will hold all three, at least for another 6-7 months. Even after that period, at the most I am going to dump 25% of each.
seems sensible after seeing the ETH/ETC and BTC/BCC debacles play out. i'm only really interested in BTC, and i think that's what will take the throne in the long term, but there's no point insta-dumping the other coins just to double down on my BTC holdings. better to let the market figure it out for me, and make a decision months (or even years) later. |
|
|
|
Same question. Since the domain for btc-e has been seized, the original customers seems to be naturally guided to xbtce.com. This process is very natural, so I do suppose that Btc-e and xbtce are the same team.
Very likely, but I think they have tried to create some sort of a distance between the two platforms in order to not raise any suspicions. I strongly believe that the authorities will definitely at some point dig into that platform as well. If they do end up to be fully connected, there is obviously a lot to gain for the authorities by shutting that platform down, where they seize all remaining crypto and fiat funds. If I was an xbtce trader, I would immediately withdraw everything at the moment BTC-E went down. If people keep their funds sitting in that platform, they are seriously delusional. agreed, their "business as usual" blog post wasn't too convincing. i've always thought of them as the same company, and i'm sure the same goes for others. but re: the bolded, is there any indication that there is a significant user base on xbtce to begin with? they used btc-e for liquidity, presumably because they don't have enough of their own. i believe they required verification, too. i'm not sure what the draw was for users to sign up there. |
|
|
|
The largest single address (1JCe8z4jJVNXSjohjM4i9Hh813dLCNx2Sy) since late last year has recently moved about 57% of the coins to numerous addresses... my first thought given that the movements took place within a 3 hour window on the 8th turning into the 9th of August was that this address belonged to BTC-e... largely due to the news out that they were able to recover 55% of seized funds. But if that were the case and you had control over the master address, why wouldn't you move everything?
Anyone else have thoughts on the recent movement of coins?
Some big whale is selling his bitcoins and cashing out the profits. This is the most obvious theory. any blockchain evidence that coins were sent to exchanges? because it looks to me like they are just being split into different addresses. i'd say it's a whale just re-securing cold storage, or moving coins to recover the BCH. maybe they're planning to dump the BCH. i'm not even sure what block explorer to use to try and figure out if that's what they're doing. but this is plausible given the timing. |
|
|
|
Well guys, looks like its all turning out well. All the haters and ghoulish gloaters have been proved wrong and are now eating shit. All that remains to resolve is if there will be a trollbox amnesty
well, there is the small matter of sending ID docs to the exchange. not a fan and certainly not the btc-e i know. i hope it's not a honeypot. i'm not particularly fond of sending my docs to them at this point. it's not that i'm worried about identity theft, as some have pointed to..... it's that i think those servers might get seized again someday and i don't want my docs on them. seems like non-US citizens are in a better position in that respect, if you know what i mean..... |
|
|
|
given the latest update from btc-e, i've made a speculation thread for btc-e accounts in the marketplace forum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2076499.0please feel free to chime in. i'd love to get some thoughts on what people are pricing accounts at, given the percentage of immediate repayment proposed, and the bitfinex-like token scheme. |
|
|
|
the latest update (see bottom of post) suggests that btc-e will attempt to make partial repayments, including a bitfinex-style token scheme, transferring assets to a new company that will launch a new brand. the details are not completely clear to me. i'm waiting for my russian friend to confirm that this is the case: 55% repayment across all coins for user fiat balances. 45% repayment in BTE tokens for user fiat balances. 55% repayment of original coin balances. 45% repayment in BTE tokens for socialized/lost user coin balances. you can see the terms in the update. i am also waiting for my confirmation that this translation is correct: "The investment company works in compliance with KYC, AML and the licenses required for this activity, so all users will need to undergo verification." if this is the case, i believe there will be a market for btc-e accounts, which prices in the prospects for repayment via the BTE token (or the market pumping it) and the demand to sell accounts rather than comply with identity verification. i have an interest in this: my account is unverified and held a low 5-figure USD balance. i created the account in august 2016 after recovering my bitfinex trading funds. it was just used for long term swing trading and generally holding USD. i would like to see the market demand for btc-e accounts, to gauge whether it is appropriate to send my documents and recover what i can, or to sell the account and take a larger loss, giving me the ability to move on quickly and without sending my documents. many people were willing to verify ID with btc-e, but i don't love the idea, especially now, even though my money is chump change that is clearly just from trading BTCUSD. update below: Update5! Important! 08/09/2017
Exit from the current situation with the arrested Fiat:
1. Last 14 days we were engaged in struggle for your means, it was possible to gain control over 55% of funds (depends on the course), the remaining 45% are arrested funds, the most part in fiat. As the arrest is withdrawn from the accounts, the amount will decrease.
2. What is the way out of the current situation we see:
2.1. Work under the current BTC-e brand is not possible due to unresolved issues from the Office of Financial Crimes of the US Treasury.
2.2. At the moment, we are negotiating with a group of investors (an investment company), about buying and prompt launch of the service and repaying debts to customers. Further, the process of repayment of debt obligations will be described in more detail.
2.3. After we transfer all balance sheets of the investment company, we will recalculate the balance sheets.
2.4. The conversion procedure, taking into account the available 55% of funds:
2.4.1. All liabilities for fiat (USD, EUR, RUR) will be transferred to BTE tokens (1 BTE is 1 USD) at the exchange rate on the date of conversion. Probably, for more operative closing of promissory notes, ICO will be held on BTE tokens.
2.4.2. If you have on the balance the amount in koin, then you will be written off 45% of the balance of coins and credited with 45% of BTE (1 BTE is 1 USD). At the exchange rate on the day of conversion.
2.4.3. If you have a balance in BTE, then you will be credited with 45% in koin (the amount will be divided into 7 different coins equally BTC, LTC, NMC, NVC, PPC, ETH, DSH) and write off the amount of 45% in BTE.
2.4.4. Upon all recalculations, all users will have the opportunity to withdraw 55% of their funds from the system.
2.5. The investment company works in compliance with KYC, AML and the licenses required for this activity, so all users will need to undergo verification.
2.6. Tentative start dates end of August.
3. All debt obligations will be closed primarily from operating income from the investment company's commission, as well as from the funds we plan to sue from those who illegally arrested them.
The closing of the debt will be based on the principle of buying BTE tokens from the market.
The next update will provide more details on the procedure for accessing information on your balance sheet and when these funds can be withdrawn.
From the BTC-e team we officially inform that all the funds that were in the reserve fund (including all our income) were transferred to pay off the debts.
P.S. A warning! The cases of posting fake links on allegedly our new domain have become more frequent. All official information about our service is placed only in our twitter and from our official account on the forum.
Sincerely, BTC-e team
so, what is a btc-e account worth? more precisely, what is a btc-e account in full USD worth? what is a btc-e account in full BTC worth? speculate!  |
|
|
|
There is no safe exchanges in crypto world because so many big exchanges turn into scam. Based on coinmarketcap, the biggest volume fpr LTC exchange is poloneix, bitfinex, bittrex and kraken. If i must choose, i rather choose bittrex and kraken to trade my coins here and i think you don't need to verification your id on bittrex.
this is why i can't stand these jerks blaming us for using unregulated exchanges. every exchange you mentioned is unlicensed and yet serves US customers. this is where volume is traded! if you want positions of any significance, it's tough to get by with coinbase or bitstamp. but now that the world police (FBI) have taken down the world's oldest and most trusted litecoin exchange, what is a chikun to do? and you don't need to verify ID on any of those exchanges (poloniex, bitfinex, bittrex, kraken); they each just have different withdrawal limits based on verification tier. |
|
|
|
So further updates: Update4!
Current information:
1. We were able to access our databases and wallets, at the moment we are evaluating data and balances on koin, this information will be made public by the end of next week.
2. We confirm that the main streams of the threads have been sent to the service through Mayzus Financial Services Ltd and at the moment they are arrested.
Best regards support btc-e There could be a possibility that BTC_e is going to refund everone. That is what they are promising anyways. I personally think that there is a greater chance of them just not refund anyone than there is a chance of them refunding everyone successfully. Pretty sure that that Alexander guy not being in any BTC-e position was BS, though. Domain is still seized atm, so i don't thinkthere is any chance of them making a comeback. Best that there is is going to be them refunding everyone. i'd put the odds in favor of the owners disappearing and no relaunch. but there is a definite non-zero chance that btc-e comes back in some form. russian big balls are in play here now; there may be no turning back.  whatever the case with vinnik is, the indictment wasn't very condemning of btc-e. i'd be curious to see what evidence they have to pin him as an owner and/or principal manager. a domain is just a domain. poker site domains get seized; they pop back up on .ag or something similar. the important thing is the money. how well was the fiat hidden, how much can they move (i.e. get into crypto and USDT or similar), and was much crypto lost? this is what matters. if btc-e really wanted to relaunch, they could do so as a TOR hidden service or play whack-a-mole with domains like the pirate bay did. |
|
|
|
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 would think that the feds are subpoenaing theymos and Twitter for access to the btc-e accounts. we need some cryptographic proof of the domain they set up (if they do relaunch) from some of their known addresses. the feds could be setting up honeypots, and there's gonna be a hell of a lot of fake phishing sites trying to get your btc-e logins. given that bitfinex is still the biggest western exchange and still doesn't have fiat flowing, i'd say there's still a chance here.... is there a market where I can bet on this?
what kind of odds are you looking for? |
|
|
|
Domain most likely not under btce control. Domain Name: BTC-E.CC Registry Domain ID: 130469693_DOMAIN_CC-VRSN Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.namecheap.com Registrar URL: http://www.namecheap.com Updated Date: 2017-07-03T07:19:31Z Creation Date: 2017-07-03T07:10:38Z 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?" |
|
|
|
Just want to give you a real fact here, we can't say that an exchange is safe even it is licensed. Look at your view on BTC-e, a trusted exchanges but now turned into shitty one.
To answer the topic title, I suggest using Poloniex. As usual even in other exchanges, no need to do verification to start trading but you will have a withdrawal limit. The volume here is pretty nice compate to other exchanges and never did a problem using this exchange until now.
BTC-e was anonymous and flouted plenty of regulations. Its demise was only a matter of time. Having said that it may well come back from the dead. The American government is responsible for its shittiness in case you hadn't noticed. You're now suggesting Poloniex? A place that takes several months to answer one support ticket and has regular outages and freezes? With quasi anonymous staff and not much in the way of regulation? That's a crap suggestion. Bitstamp does LTC now as well. They're officially legit, albeit extremely uptight. times really have changed. i feel bad now having suggested btc-e to so many people over the years; it was always my favorite exchange just for sheer reliability and order execution, and access to the major altcoin markets. now i'd suggest that people use bitstamp or coinbase for their LTC trading. after this experience with btc-e, i'm concerned about using poloniex, bittrex, bitfinex or kraken since none of them are licensed as an MSB in the states they serve...  |
|
|
|
Current problems are that btc-e is down and poloniex is having bad times with several coin, users are not happy with this.
So mainly problem are exchanges overall, hard is to find good one. And what then to keep them on exchange or to keep them on wallets.
This is individual decision. But before this speed and key factor on exchanges, lack of speed and transaction confirmations.
it's not just that it's hard to find a good one; it's that none of them are good. they all have major drawbacks. btc-e was probably the best exchange for trading engine/API and features via metatrader. but now the FBI is after them, so there goes that. meanwhile, coinbase API is unusable half the time. the site (or individual markets) go down constantly when any volatility occurs. i'm really disappointed with the "regulated" options. why are they so much more illiquid, with worse trading interfaces and features? |
|
|
|
Many exchangers are lying and misleading. In fact, they have no license, so they are considered as unlicensed money transmitting business.
Conclusion: YES, there is a high risk of seizure in this case.
given that you admit that many exchanges are lying and misleading about their registration status, that they are listed on the FINCEN website, and that the exchanges do implement some level of KYC---it seems unfair for you to call anyone losing money in such a seizure "stupid" and "sheep." it is especially unclear in the case of crypto-only exchanges. USDT, for instance, by its own terms, is not money nor redeemable for USD (despite what users think). so for Polo and Bittrex, are they definitely engaging in the operation of a money services business? is there precedent for this? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
