Unless your account has been hacked (because of existing software bug or backdoor) or exchange messed up something on their side, then you have no right for any compensation.
If you traded with leverage and encountered a dump then your coins 'disappeared' at a very fast rate, but that is not Kraken's fault. You are not protected when you committed to the wrong trading decisions.
When you still think that their trading engine in unresponsive and maybe faulty, go ahead and demand a compensation, but it will be very hard to prove.
I do not think he was hacked. More like he was trading with leverage and wiped out his Bitcoins in the process when it crashed. Another possibility is he incurred a big loss because the stop loss missed and he was forced to sell it the lows. What he should have done was to be patient and wait for the rise. Bitcoin always does sooner or later. |
|
|
|
|
That is one long reply there. Anyway why have a second blockchain? You can use altcoins if you want. Roger Ver has tweeted that he has sent $100k through using Dash. The fees were costed him only a few pennies.
There is also a trustless way to do what I posted above. It is called the Lightning Network.
|
|
|
|
Market has recovered better than expected. The price is again heading back to 1200$ range. Looks like more people are not going for panic selling yet.
Yes. The only people who dumped are the speculators who made a gamble on the approval of the ETF and the amateur traders who panicked and dumped their coins. We have to thank them for letting some of us hit our buy orders.  |
|
|
|
Since the fees keep rising and the mempool is always flooded because the 1mb blocks are overflowed beyond its confines,
we should think of ways to fix this problem not try to come up with ways of going around it and trying to use other weird methods of going around the problem, that is called erasing the problem instead of fixing it. bitcoin was fine before the spam attack and we need to go back to those days one way or another. What do you mean we? Core has already made a solution, the big blockers and the Gavinistas too have their solutions. The problem here is the mining pools are not upgrading to activate Segwit, to Bitcoin Unlimited or whatever is out there. I could foresee wallet services making arrangments with Bitcoin merchants, gambling sites and others to make transactions with them through an internal ledger. Settlement will come later on the blockchain. Blockchain.info is in an excellent position to start this. Soon we'll see recommended merchants inside their wallet. I want to hear your opinions please.
why use services such as blockchain.info. it is 100 times easier to do it off the chain, which means using some services such as xapo or anything like that which are working off the chain and become accounts instead of using bitcoin. and that means trusting third parties and going back to Paypal,... and eventually paying higher fees and be subjected to all the rest of the problems that exist. It is not a question of why. It is how every Bitcoin service evolves. It is also not a matter of what I want but a matter of what I think the trend might be. |
|
|
|
As part of a Bitcoin service I am developing, I am going to be performing Bitcoin transactions from users in bulk, rather than immediately as part of the security design (hard to attack a system if a reply to your request comes 30 minutes later).
A thought came to mind today. Instead of running *insert amount* transactions at once, would it actually be cheaper in fees to put all the inputs and outputs from all them transactions into one massive one? Would this cause problems for the network, and mining in general if was possible for my node to throw a single TX out that was nearly 500KB in size for example?
I'd rather not cause problems for nodes, or have miners unable to add my fat ass transaction as it pushes the block size too high.
I had the same idea in mind when I started this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1820131.0The idea is Blockchain.info will be in a good position to do something like your service but with a different model. Basically I foresee Blockchain.info will have arrangements with different Bitcoin services to process transactions with an internal ledger first. Fees will be cheaper than what your paying with present fees now. Then later Blockchain.info will settle the transactions in the blockchain by bulk. |
|
|
|
yes, do not trade at kraken until they release their new trading engine. It is bugged like hell in high traffic times and also right now, orders need ~30 seconds to match, while there are enough orders to match instantly.
Support is telling me that new trading engine is expected begin of april.
I doubt even the new trading engine will be able to solve that problem. A fast moving price will surely miss you stop loss no matter what trading engine you use. If you set up a stop loss at 1150 and then there was a quick dump to 1000 or less, your stop loss will activate to 1150 on the sell side and it was clearly missed because of the fast moving market. You will have to wait for the price to get back up to that price. OP, if your 5000 euros were wiped out then you must have used too much leverage. That is your own fault. Call the police if you want. Your threats do not scare anyone. |
|
|
|
Your transaction was included in block 456363 by AntPool. Contact them and plead your case they might take pity on you and give you the fee back. Be nice as they are under no obligation to do so. While perhaps no legally bound to returning the mistakenly attached fee, I believe that Bitcoin miners have a moral obligation to return blatantly abnormal fees once apprised of the situation hence they are not technically "under no obligation" to return the fee. Think of it as a goodwill gesture to the Bitcoin community which already has it's more than fair share of scammers. Wrong is wrong. A moral obligation? Sure. They do have to give the fee back. It will be good for their karma. But really what else would it give them? It would be good to see if they did give it back, but do not expect anything and do not feel bad about it if they ignore you. Fair is fair in Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Even if it fails there are two more ETF's not far behind that are will know what it needs to do to make it go through when its there turn no need to worry.
Who is worried? No one except the people who bought Bitcoins because the anticipated or more likely hoped that the ETF will be approved. Those same people panicked and dumped their coins. That is a big mistake in my opinion. The clearly do not know that the biggest market of Bitcoin will become worth more than a billion dollars in 5 years. The dark markets. |
|
|
|
Yeah I really think that it is not the ETF why the price would fall,
I think it is really the bitcoin users who are in panic when bitcoin gets denied by the ETF.
Ignoring ETF = Ignoring multimillions dollar will flow into the bitcoin market. And all of the bitcoiners really need the approval of bitcoin etf by SEC to pump the price of bitcoin into the next level. I try to bring all of my bitcoin into the exchange site. And waiting for the deadline or the another announcement will come. These markets are all separate. An investment in the Bitcoin ETF does not mean a direct increase in the real Bitcoin market. It is not like the money flows straight to the Bitcoin ecosystem. Anyway the ETF is rejected. There is no use arguing about it now. |
|
|
|
nah, it is going to suck as a service then. No. It will be the trend whether you think it will suck or not. so far they have added the option to buy bitcoin through their website and i haven't been seeing good reviews so far. What reviews? I have not seen any in both good or bad. It does not have to get a review. The point of that feature is it is there if you need it. So you cannot judge anything from what you are saying.
and for this option, unless they offer big discounts and no addition fee then i can see it take of but that is impossible to do, because such services will require some additional fees and the merchants aren't just going to offer discounts.
I am sure the wallet services and merchants will think of something to get the Bitcoiners to use their services. Nothing is impossible here. Think about the time when you first heard about cryptocurrencies. You obviously did not buy Bitcoins when it was really cheap. Look where you are now. Spamming the forum for your signature campaign to get Bitcoins. |
|
|
|
Sounds like that would be going in the direction of trusted third parties and away from the original 'distributed consensus' Bitcoin was supposed to be promising.
It looks like an dependence over a third party to overcome the correlation. As they don't support bitcoin unlimited, the prevailing mining difficulty could have forced to come up with such a plan. Even when the fee is high people understand the truth behind I, now for someone it's hard to trust a third party supporting blockchain.info I am a little confused with what you said, but if I understood it correctly then my reply to your post would be there is a trustless way to do it. Activate Segwit and then deploy the Lightning Network. making arrangments with Bitcoin merchants, gambling sites and others to make transactions with them through an internal ledger.
im guessing you havnt seen blockstreams elements "liquid" which is the internal ledger between a few exchanges No, I am afraid not. But if it is being done already then it might become the trend soon. Blockchain.info is in a good position to do this. |
|
|
|
Sounds like that would be going in the direction of trusted third parties and away from the original 'distributed consensus' Bitcoin was supposed to be promising.
Like it or not that is the current situation. By now the mining pools may have already chosen which implementation they want. And the majority are still running Core. It will be in the hands of the wallet services and the merchants now to be creative in making transactions cheaper for Bitcoiners. It might be a good way to market their services to the users too. |
|
|
|
So many arguments and talk but no action from the people that matter. Why? Because the price is still high. If the price was dumped back to $100, we will see the mining pools scramble to the best scaling solution. What they think it will be we do not know.
On another topic of the miners deciding to activate Segwit or not, is it not the mining pools have control for this and not the miners? The miners only buy their equipment and point their hashing power to a mining pool.
if the price were to drop that low, miners would stop mining and switched to mining something else that is profitable, because they only care about making profit. No. If some miners would stop mining because there is no profit, a more efficient miner who is willing to take the losses will be happy to take its place. and anyone who doesn't like what their pool are doing can simply switch to another pool. there are multiple pools out there and i don't know any of them that are enforcing anything. not yet anyways.
Where have you been the past year. There are mining pools for Segwit and there are others for Bitcoin Unlimited. A small small portion is calling for Bitcoin Classic.  |
|
|
|
I knew it! I mentioned this a few weeks ago. The People's Bank of China will never let the Bitcoin exchanges operate without tying there necks with a short leash. They will do this for as long as it takes until they have to bow and give up. Many small exchanges will close in the coming months. The next thing the Chinese government will go after are the big industrial miners. Just watch. |
|
|
|
I cannot believe that a no is final, I am almost sure that there would be reasons given and the obstacles could be remedied. What do you mean? I heard the ruling will be out on Monday unless I am mistaken. Anyone who is not a securities lawyer should stop writing nonsense Give room to speculate and make comments. But yes, I do agree most of the comments are coming from posters who are nitwits. Actually there is an article on Coinbase saying that the whole process could be another 6 months. Link? Now lets look at the numbers. 100 Million ETF....BTC market cap is like 17 BILLION. Technically the ETF is less than 1% of BTC market cap, rest is psychology, LOL at the doomsayers. It will not he as simple as that once it starts trading. Speculators could pump it like it is more valuable than Bitcoin itself. |
|
|
|
|
Since the fees keep rising and the mempool is always flooded because the 1mb blocks are overflowed beyond its confines, I could foresee wallet services making arrangments with Bitcoin merchants, gambling sites and others to make transactions with them through an internal ledger. Settlement will come later on the blockchain.
Blockchain.info is in an excellent position to start this. Soon we'll see recommended merchants inside their wallet.
I want to hear your opinions please.
|
|
|
|
Remember that, even if the ETF doesn't pass, if the final verdict is overall positive (not passed, but few requirements for the next time, showing progress) the scenario would still be positive: It ultimately would mean we are closer to an ETF. You are contradicting yourself sir. The decision IS the verdict. Please look up the word "verdict" in the dictionary. Thanks. I think we may dip, but not as deep as people look at. And we may have even have a pump, after doubters jump in and market realizes it's just dumb to dump. Thought call on this one.
We are together with this one though. I do not think the ETF disapproval will affect Bitcoin that much negatively. It will for those who bought at the current highs because they are hoping and thinking that the ETF will be approved. But as a holder, I do not care much what happens. |
|
|
|
The price shot up over a thousand months before most people even knew about the ETF. What makes you think it will make a difference?
If it's not approved, whales will dump and price will drop... but the panic sellers will send it further. Just HODL. $10k is not far away.
For a Legendary member here in Bitcointalk you still do not get the whole picture. While I agree that holding is the best course of action, there are still some traders who do not care about Bitcoin at all. All they care about are the movements in price because that is where their profit in fiat comes from. So if the ETF is not approved, that is actually good news for them because they can short the market. In a way, yes they are dumb but in some other ways they are also smart depending on your point of view. |
|
|
|
|
So many arguments and talk but no action from the people that matter. Why? Because the price is still high. If the price was dumped back to $100, we will see the mining pools scramble to the best scaling solution. What they think it will be we do not know.
On another topic of the miners deciding to activate Segwit or not, is it not the mining pools have control for this and not the miners? The miners only buy their equipment and point their hashing power to a mining pool.
|
|
|
|
ETF isn't a company. It's a financial product. It's a structure of investment. The control of an ETF depends on which ETF you're referring to, who owns that ETF and who's purchased shares in that ETF. The control is a balance between the owners and investors (customers) of the ETF...and the SEC I suppose.Here's a definition for ETF: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/etf.aspMost popular ETFs: http://etfdb.com/compare/volume/BTW, contrary to what the guy quoted below thinks, the Winklevoss Bitcoin ETF and bitcoin itself are directly connected, and correlated. That's kind of (exactly) the point. These are two independent markets that have no direct connection.
I do not think so. Would you think and say that the Bitcoin market on Bitstamp is directly connected with the ETF market in Wall Street? They are 2 different worlds, one can go up and down without affecting the price of the other. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
