bitfinex WEBSITE BACK TO LIFE

[mayax]

Interesting how no one mentioned what kind of vulnerability or exploit was used to "hack" the website. If they released that information, it'd bring the credibility of their story up, even if it is just by 5%.

IF the site WAS "hacked", let's assume that the password was brute forced. A simple google search led me to the email Query value: admin@bitfinex.com (email). Seeing as blog.bitfinex.com runs WordPress, I ran a few tests.

Firstly, user enumeration is possible. I tested it with two, but:
ID   User   Login
1   admin    admin

If one was to brute force, they'd add admin into the &username= part of their brute force query.

---

HAHAHA I FOUND A VULNERABILITY IN THE WEBSITE. IT'S AN SQLI VULNERABILITY.

you won't see anything like that from Bitfinex. They are just a gang of scammers. They manipulated the market, inside traders, blocked client's accounts and so on... Yes, there are so many idiots to accept their shits  

you can see how many of the Bitfinex's clients are saying THANKS that Bitfinex found a miraculous solution : a cut of 36% + shit tokens  while Bitfinex earned over 25 MIL USD

Yeah, i also think so it was an inside attempt to get free funds. If all the bitcoins are stolen, why they cut 36% of each users. Are they paying from their pocket ?
No, they grabbed people Bitcoins and now saying they will cut 36% each. Wow..

correct ! more than that, many of their clients say "Thank you !"  is it not amazing? LOL

[BillyBobZorton]

If you saw the news:
http://themarketmogul.com/bitcoin-hack-victims-to-suffer-36-haircut/

you will know that the people that were incompetent and weren't able to secure their client bitcoins, are now going to make the client's pay with a 36% of their holdings. This is worse than banks. I cant believe Bitfinex didn't file for bankruptcy instead, would have been a better ending than coming back. I mean who will use their service now?

[franky1]

to those wondering about BFX liquidity and the mindset of the spread 36% loss.. i wrote this elsewhere but orth repeating as most people seem to still not know what to expect

There is likely to be a massive bank run after they open up again and seeing how only bitcoin are missing, they have limited coins available to handle the withdrawels (unless they start buying them with the fiat they hold, which is possible as also fiat holdings get a haircut). Let alone potential law suits and bankrupcy around the corner.. get those funds out..

you are right.. its maths
imagine the exchange had (simplified numbers for demo only)
$400k held in bitcoin
$200k held in eth
$400k held in dollar
totals $1m combined holdings (simplified numbers for demo only)

now imagine 36% of $1m total (combining of funds to spread the loss) was lost. which is $360k
yet we know it was not other funds just bitcoin lost.. so that means $360k of only bitcoins are gone!!

thats basically most of the real bitcoin reserves ($400k holdings, $360k loss = only $40k bitcoin (10%) left in reserves )

those bitcoin customers which initially counted up as $400k total holdings were told they had $400k with 36% loss.. meaning they are WRONGLY being told that there solvent balance of 64%, which logically accounts to $256k of bitcoin.. when actually there is only $40k of bitcoin in the pot.

they cannot magic the other $212k of bitcoin into existance out of thin air.
are we seeing a price rise in bitcoin on other exchanges where BFX is grabbing bitcoin from other exchanges to fill the $212k gap in just the solvent balance

and that missing $212k is not even part of the 36% theft.. but the missing bitcoin that has been offset by ETH and dollar..

in simple terms $360k bitcoins LOST of $400k. bfx is saying to bitcoin holders, that they are solvent of bitcoins to a tune of $256k, yet physically only have $40k(in this demo)


so ofcourse there will be a bank run while bitcoin holders owed $256k(the 64% in my demo), try to fight to withdrawal the $40k bitcoin left

in short (my demo amounts)
$40k actual reserves= circle hole 1inch diameter
$256k solvent balance = square peg 6inch wide

[Thatstinks]

To me it sounds like an exchange that answers to no one decided to just steal 30%+ of it's customers deposits and replace it with a made up garbage coin and an iou. Likely no hack ever occurred for real.

Nice, no regulation you say, now you pay for it! Bitcoin has it's flaws, huge one's and this a perfect example. You either want regulation or you don't but you cannot have your way and feel the gov. or authorities owe you something as well.

[yudy]

yap bitfinex dot com on again
but is balance client customer I heard and be informed, that they bitcoin balance is reduced by about 36%
not good information but not bad because balance not all gone

[franky1]

To me it sounds like an exchange that answers to no one decided to just steal 30%+ of it's customers deposits and replace it with a made up garbage coin and an iou. Likely no hack ever occurred for real.

Nice, no regulation you say, now you pay for it! Bitcoin has it's flaws, huge one's and this a perfect example. You either want regulation or you don't but you cannot have your way and feel the gov. or authorities owe you something as well.

by the way regulations are not about protecting customers funds from the exchange..
its about protecting the exchange from criminal customers..

there is, separate from regulations.. the consumer protection part. which is about insuring funds.. which.. bfx faked.. bitgo were not insuring bfx's losses.
even without regulations. consumer protection is still a thing. and a separate crime if the exchange exploits this.

in short you dont need regulation to protect users. just consumer protection.. which is still not perfect when a scammer defrauds users by faking their insurance and reserves.

[Hit It!]

by the way regulations are not about protecting customers funds from the exchange..
its about protecting the exchange from criminal customers..

Not sure about that.  Probably isn't true in US

[smoothie]

To me it sounds like an exchange that answers to no one decided to just steal 30%+ of it's customers deposits and replace it with a made up garbage coin and an iou. Likely no hack ever occurred for real.

Nice, no regulation you say, now you pay for it! Bitcoin has it's flaws, huge one's and this a perfect example. You either want regulation or you don't but you cannot have your way and feel the gov. or authorities owe you something as well.

How is that a flaw in Bitcoin?

[Lionidas]

Well this just has wrong written all over it.

[Thatstinks]

It's a flaw because it would defeat the purpose of an anon system.

The flaw is essentially without regulation or oversight then criminals/exchanges are free to set up shop outside US and basically steal away with little to no punishment. There is no way if within the US or fell under exchange regulation and oversight we would see such a brazen theft by exchange operators.

Ask yourself why these exchanges like to set up in the countries they do, it is a license to steal.

What gives them this license and support/deposits is the belief bitcoin is anon and outside US control etc, rage against the machine, be a rebel , anti big gov. etc. These exchanges prey on this belief and use it to steal.

THIS is the BTC flaw, the anon use and anti gov angle sets up its supports to be robbed.

[franky1]

by the way regulations are not about protecting customers funds from the exchange..
its about protecting the exchange from criminal customers..

Not sure about that.  Probably isn't true in US

regulations are about exchanges creating THEIR OWN policy for identifying their customers, to do KYC on them to look for AML and report suspicious activity.. that is like 90% of what regulations concentrate on..

you can easily separate the small 10% consumer protection stipulations of regulations. and instead do a full consumer protection scheme without the regulation.
put it this way.. Apple inc refund unsatisfied customers much faster then Goldman Sachs.. yet apple is not regulated, Goldman Sachs was.. the difference is apple inc concentrates on consumer protection. goldman sachs concentrates on their own creation policy to ward off customers

if you actually seen the difference between the two. and se how small the consumer protection requirement is in regulations you would laugh at how useless regulations are and how things like the financial crises was able to happen

if you think regulations are a saviour for consumers.. thats a lie.

the only reason wall street love regulations is because if they are transferring funds between other regulated exchanges.. the first exchange doesnt ask any questions simply because the mindset is. 'oh the other exchange is regulated, they can do their own checks and audits, so we are safe to just let the money roll"

[Thatstinks]

@franky, regulations do not stop theft, that is true. But oversight and regulations if applied to btc exchanges would mean someone would ay least pay for the crime and detour future attempts of inside jobs.

Fact is when your btc is stolen for real or not from some exchange in Asia, to bad so sad? That is NOT advancement for a new financial system that is going backwards. Right now your btc is not safe on these exchanges and until that changes you are a fool for leaving anything on them.

[olyaru]

If you have an account there check you balance now--do the refund you?

every company so-posed to have a backup of funds saved in the bank so to refund to customers if anything goes wrong (ESPECIALLY A FINANCIAL COMPANY)



IF THE BIZ WAS REGISTERED IN USA THE WILL NOT GO FREE

I didnt check yet, but since last day I'm reading that they will be back online. Thats a welcome move and we really appreciate their effort even to refund. I think theres a percentage that they will return? not full as what Ive read on some articles. Anyone can confirm?

As far as was known from the statement of administration, that if the company will be able to find good investors that all customers will be able to compensate for the losses, with the exception of 36 per cent. If I'm not mistaken.

[franky1]

@franky, regulations do not stop theft, that is true. But oversight and regulations if applied to btc exchanges would mean someone would ay least pay for the crime and detour future attempts of inside jobs.

Fact is when your btc is stolen for real or not from some exchange in Asia, to bad so sad? That is NOT advancement for a new financial system that is going backwards. Right now your btc is not safe on these exchanges and until that changes you are a fool for leaving anything on them.

i havnt hoarded in an exchange since 2013 im just giving advice to general population

oversight??

please read some regulation documents.. regulators are not watching and auditing businesses pre-emptively.. they react AFTER THE FACT.
the SEC do not create policies personalised for every business, the sec does not create monthly statements yearly tax reports for businesses.they just receive documents from the company.
when the SEC receives a complaint then the sec investigates. if there is no complaint the sec just takes the businesses word that they are following their obligations and have a policy(the business created themselves) in place.

for instance..
imagine a criminal put funds into an exchange..
the exchange cannot:
inform the suspect that the exchange is filing a suspicious report
freeze the account themselves without a court order.. so the funds have to continue to move (you can spot a phony exchange because they freeze accounts when no crime was committed, just to pretend they are licenced)
record any and all information possible about where it came from and where it is going to, again without suspects knowledge

however by being regulated
if LATER the funds are truly linked to criminal behaviors, the exchange is obsolved of any personal connection to the crime. if they file a suspicious report

however by not being regulated/not filing a report
if LATER the funds are truly linked to criminal behaviors, the exchange can be classed as a money launderer on behalf of a criminal.

and all of this is about reacting to info AFTER the fact..

regulations are a laughing stock.. no one should ever be promoting regulations... HOWEVER.. consumer protection is advantageous

[European Central Bank]

the strife has just begun. have they provided proof of reserves so everyone knows that they've received a justifiable haircut?

[mayax]

by the way regulations are not about protecting customers funds from the exchange..
its about protecting the exchange from criminal customers..

Not sure about that.  Probably isn't true in US

regulations are about exchanges creating THEIR OWN policy for identifying their customers, to do KYC on them to look for AML and report suspicious activity.. that is like 90% of what regulations concentrate on..

you can easily separate the small 10% consumer protection stipulations of regulations. and instead do a full consumer protection scheme without the regulation.
put it this way.. Apple inc refund unsatisfied customers much faster then Goldman Sachs.. yet apple is not regulated, Goldman Sachs was.. the difference is apple inc concentrates on consumer protection. goldman sachs concentrates on their own creation policy to ward off customers

if you actually seen the difference between the two. and se how small the consumer protection requirement is in regulations you would laugh at how useless regulations are and how things like the financial crises was able to happen

if you think regulations are a saviour for consumers.. thats a lie.

the only reason wall street love regulations is because if they are transferring funds between other regulated exchanges.. the first exchange doesnt ask any questions simply because the mindset is. 'oh the other exchange is regulated, they can do their own checks and audits, so we are safe to just let the money roll"

Goldman Sachs is dealing with millions, billions per client while Apple store is dealing with max. thousands.That's why the refund is quicker

Regulation brings more responsibility on any market. The exchangers will know that they are responsible for everything is going wrong. Also, it's required by laws(almost all the countries) that a forex, exchangers to have a license.
There are few exchangers who got it. They paid a lot of money, insurance, compliance, they hired staff, rent, lawyers,audits and so on.  The other ones like Bitfinex, Kraken, BTC-e do not own anything even the legislation from their countries requires that.   Is it fair? I guess not....

[franky1]

There are few exchangers who got it. They paid a lot of money, insurance, compliance, they hired staff, rent, lawyers,audits and so on.  The other ones like Bitfinex, Kraken, BTC-e do not own anything even the legislation from their countries requires that.   Is it fair? I guess not....

out of all of your list of requirements.. there is only one thing that is actually consumer protection orientated. i made it bold
all the other stuff is internally created by the company and submitted to the regulators who just sit on it until they hear a complaint. and then only look backwards.

im not saying bitfinex kraken or btc-e are any worse or better... im saying as a whole.. people should care less about regulations which is 90% paperwork to hinder usage and only 10% consumer protection.

bitcoin businesses should definitely concentrate on the consumer protection side more then the paperwork hindering side.

once you yourself realise the details of regulations you to would laugh at the whole licence things. and instead prefer businesses protect their customers first, because regulations are not about protecting customers first.. once you actually read into it

[useless4]

yap bitfinex dot com on again
but is balance client customer I heard and be informed, that they bitcoin balance is reduced by about 36%
not good information but not bad because balance not all gone

its nice to see that at least something is happening, though it is sad that people will have suffer all the losses just because the site wasnt safe enough

[sniveling]

There are few exchangers who got it. They paid a lot of money, insurance, compliance, they hired staff, rent, lawyers,audits and so on.  The other ones like Bitfinex, Kraken, BTC-e do not own anything even the legislation from their countries requires that.   Is it fair? I guess not....

out of all of your list of requirements.. there is only one thing that is actually consumer protection orientated. i made it bold
all the other stuff is internally created by the company and submitted to the regulators who just sit on it until they hear a complaint. and then only look backwards.

im not saying bitfinex kraken or btc-e are any worse or better... im saying as a whole.. people should care less about regulations which is 90% paperwork to hinder usage and only 10% consumer protection.

bitcoin businesses should definitely concentrate on the consumer protection side more then the paperwork hindering side.

once you yourself realise the details of regulations you to would laugh at the whole licence things. and instead prefer businesses protect their customers first, because regulations are not about protecting customers first.. once you actually read into it

Bitgo is supposed to have insurance to protect against everything, including hacks. It's removed a blog page about its great insurance since the Bitfinex hack. What's the point of having insurance if it doesn't pay for what it's supposed to pay for?

[philipma1957]

To me it sounds like an exchange that answers to no one decided to just steal 30%+ of it's customers deposits and replace it with a made up garbage coin and an iou. Likely no hack ever occurred for real.

Nice, no regulation you say, now you pay for it! Bitcoin has it's flaws, huge one's and this a perfect example. You either want regulation or you don't but you cannot have your way and feel the gov. or authorities owe you something as well.

How is that a flaw in Bitcoin?

If you want to spend a btc most of the time you need to turn it into cash.  You need an exchange .

And btc won't fork to stop a big theft.

So even if you keep a hundred coins on your safe client every exchange to cash involves a risk.

And that is completely to fault of btc. Since as shown by eth and etc a large theft can be stopped.