BTC-e hacked ??

[bj9k]

Guys, please keep the topic clean. It serves an important purpose.
If you have to dump bullshit, simply open a new topic.

"To date, part of the service funds were arrested by FBI"

Probably the fiat.

hot wallets for automated trade settlement

Although... they really chose to put the hot wallets on US resident servers?

That's not clear at all. But they may have been in a country more friendly to US intervention than they thought. Ideally, the keys on such servers would be encrypted, with the database and exchange data being constantly dumped to remote servers. But it's really unclear how much of the infrastructure was left intact.

That's the part I miss.
How can a company such as BTC-e, which has anonymous shell companies in the virgin islands and so on... leave hot wallets valued hundreds of millions... in US friendly servers?
I still believe that crypto assets are not in Fed hands, although this does not necessarily mean that they will return to right owners.

Anyway:

- A popular bitcoin mixer suddenly decided to stop it service 2 days before btc-e went down
- Alexander Vinnik arrested in Greece and suspected to be the head of btc-e
- On July 27th a popular antiddos hosting service moved all their network equipment to another datacenter (probably to avoid this type of problem in the future because they also host an exchanger service almost similar to btc-e)

From the russian thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2056158.msg20521221#msg20521221

Anyone has info about point 1 and 3?
Name of the services etc?

Mixer is bitmixer.io

[erk]

That's the part I miss.
How can a company such as BTC-e, which has anonymous shell companies in the virgin islands and so on... leave hot wallets valued hundreds of millions... in US friendly servers?
I still believe that crypto assets are not in Fed hands, although this does not necessarily mean that they will return to right owners.

Exactly what I thought, where is the disaster recovery strategy?

The Feds raiding is not the only reason servers might go offline, you need a well thought out strategy to handle it.
You certainly wouldn't have wallets on hosting servers.
In case of hacking or theft, the wallet server drives would should be fully encrypted requiring a manual passphrase entry to mount them.
Private keys should only be in RAM so they are gone when a server is rebooted, and have to be imported again. It's not like they had many coins to worry about. BTC, LTC, NMC, NVC, PPC, DASH,  and ETH. That's only 7 hot wallets to import keys each reboot.

[brainland]

Alex is Refusing To Help Investigations .. Fuck

https://en.crimerussia.com/financialcrimes/alexander-vinnik-refuses-to-help-investigation/

Why not just pay the f**king fine and let things be back

[bj9k]

Alex is Refusing To Help Investigations .. Fuck

https://en.crimerussia.com/financialcrimes/alexander-vinnik-refuses-to-help-investigation/

Why not just pay the f**king fine and let things be back

There are criminal charges with prison time. But the good news in that article is that it seems that he is not considered as BTC-e employee.

[theytookmuhcoins]

Alex is Refusing To Help Investigations .. Fuck

https://en.crimerussia.com/financialcrimes/alexander-vinnik-refuses-to-help-investigation/

Why not just pay the f**king fine and let things be back

"The US authorities are planning to impose a fine of $110 million on the BTC-e, and $12 million on Vinnik himself. In case of extradition, he faces at least 20 years in prison. "

[marky89]

This situation with BTC-e is not important just to BTC-e but for the whole crypto exchange system.

For example, SimpleFX (exchange?) is not allowing transfers between crypto and hard currency balances. You can trade crypto-hard pairs but you can't: deposit crypto then buy usd and then use that usd to fund mt4 account or to withdraw that usd bought onto EXCHANGE(?). FXOpen does not allow US citizens. Will the rest of exchanges follow those rules?

If theres one thing I've learnt from all this bullshit is that the biggest problem is crypto is fiat. If a viable living economy can exist purely based on crypto, then the ties to fiat can be cut and these government shakedowns can end

That's the problem only with USD cash because US gov thinks that if you accept or send USD that you are doing business with USA. And you are actually doing business with them because dealing with any foreign fiat you are actually influencing their country payment system by freezing or releasing their own funds onto which they have no legal influence (if there were not those AML and so USA treaties). It just depends the scale of that business when they will react.

I'm pretty sure the legal justification used is that they were serving US customers while acting as an unlicensed money services business. If they had (like many other exchanges) prohibited US residents --- or at least asked customers to confirm they weren't US residents and IP restrict based on region --- maybe this could have been avoided. Or not; maybe it's highly political and this is really about US and USD hegemony.

[bj9k]

This situation with BTC-e is not important just to BTC-e but for the whole crypto exchange system.

For example, SimpleFX (exchange?) is not allowing transfers between crypto and hard currency balances. You can trade crypto-hard pairs but you can't: deposit crypto then buy usd and then use that usd to fund mt4 account or to withdraw that usd bought onto EXCHANGE(?). FXOpen does not allow US citizens. Will the rest of exchanges follow those rules?

If theres one thing I've learnt from all this bullshit is that the biggest problem is crypto is fiat. If a viable living economy can exist purely based on crypto, then the ties to fiat can be cut and these government shakedowns can end

That's the problem only with USD cash because US gov thinks that if you accept or send USD that you are doing business with USA. And you are actually doing business with them because dealing with any foreign fiat you are actually influencing their country payment system by freezing or releasing their own funds onto which they have no legal influence (if there were not those AML and so USA treaties). It just depends the scale of that business when they will react.

I'm pretty sure the legal justification used is that they were serving US customers while acting as an unlicensed money services business. If they had (like many other exchanges) prohibited US residents --- or at least asked customers to confirm they weren't US residents and IP restrict based on region --- maybe this could have been avoided. Or not; maybe it's highly political and this is really about US and USD hegemony.

Yes US citizenship is important because nobody can get any US fiat without dealing with some USA entity, person, bank or company. If you trace any US cash back you will find that that cash was passed by someone from USA. So controlling where USA citizens can spend their US cash they have control over US cash. They just want to control the flow of their own currency, more then any other country.

[mayax]

This situation with BTC-e is not important just to BTC-e but for the whole crypto exchange system.

For example, SimpleFX (exchange?) is not allowing transfers between crypto and hard currency balances. You can trade crypto-hard pairs but you can't: deposit crypto then buy usd and then use that usd to fund mt4 account or to withdraw that usd bought onto EXCHANGE(?). FXOpen does not allow US citizens. Will the rest of exchanges follow those rules?

If theres one thing I've learnt from all this bullshit is that the biggest problem is crypto is fiat. If a viable living economy can exist purely based on crypto, then the ties to fiat can be cut and these government shakedowns can end

That's the problem only with USD cash because US gov thinks that if you accept or send USD that you are doing business with USA. And you are actually doing business with them because dealing with any foreign fiat you are actually influencing their country payment system by freezing or releasing their own funds onto which they have no legal influence (if there were not those AML and so USA treaties). It just depends the scale of that business when they will react.

I'm pretty sure the legal justification used is that they were serving US customers while acting as an unlicensed money services business. If they had (like many other exchanges) prohibited US residents --- or at least asked customers to confirm they weren't US residents and IP restrict based on region --- maybe this could have been avoided. Or not; maybe it's highly political and this is really about US and USD hegemony.

Kraken, Poloniex and many others are registered in USA and they are unlicensed money services business.

they will be next.

[shrodix]

This situation with BTC-e is not important just to BTC-e but for the whole crypto exchange system.

For example, SimpleFX (exchange?) is not allowing transfers between crypto and hard currency balances. You can trade crypto-hard pairs but you can't: deposit crypto then buy usd and then use that usd to fund mt4 account or to withdraw that usd bought onto EXCHANGE(?). FXOpen does not allow US citizens. Will the rest of exchanges follow those rules?

If theres one thing I've learnt from all this bullshit is that the biggest problem is crypto is fiat. If a viable living economy can exist purely based on crypto, then the ties to fiat can be cut and these government shakedowns can end

That's the problem only with USD cash because US gov thinks that if you accept or send USD that you are doing business with USA. And you are actually doing business with them because dealing with any foreign fiat you are actually influencing their country payment system by freezing or releasing their own funds onto which they have no legal influence (if there were not those AML and so USA treaties). It just depends the scale of that business when they will react.

I'm pretty sure the legal justification used is that they were serving US customers while acting as an unlicensed money services business. If they had (like many other exchanges) prohibited US residents --- or at least asked customers to confirm they weren't US residents and IP restrict based on region --- maybe this could have been avoided. Or not; maybe it's highly political and this is really about US and USD hegemony.

Kraken, Poloniex and many others are registered in USA and they are unlicensed money services business.

they will be next.

yes. Withdraw all your coins from poloniex and kraken.

[phineas562]

This is only about the 4 billion dollar theft and tracing the money through to btc-e, as well, the use of btc-e by ransomware criminals and the US government is simply chasing the criminals. Unfortunately, by servicing US citizens without having appropriate rules in place has left them (btc-e) open to further punishment beyond the 110 million $US fine. By not banning US citizens or not playing by their KYC rules, btc-e has left its liability open to confiscation punishments associated with the proceeds of crime legislation that warrants payment of double the damages......which the US government will chase from either Alex or btc-e....whichever is easier. Both probably.

The timing of the takedown is interesting with the BCC hardfork because whoever owns the bitcoin will get coins in both currencies. Those who had their bitcoin in a trading account would have had their actual bitcoin residing in a btc-e hot or cold wallet belonging to btc-e. Therefore.... when the dust settles, btc-e would own your BCC entitlement which was trading in futures markets at $900USD per BCC unit. They will keep that. The rumours of a 40% exit fee for 90 days when they come back online would also provide additional funds for subsequent US government actions.

My gripe is that these strategies are forcing current users to pay for what should be paid from their last 6 years profit. They did wrong....not we users.

[erk]

Kraken, Poloniex and many others are registered in USA and they are unlicensed money services business.

they will be next.

Keep trolling, Poloniex have been licensed for years.

https://poloniex.com/press-releases/2015.05.19-Open-Letter

[phineas562]

By my calculation I am owed BTC price plus BCC price at time of redemption for the BTC units on the btc-e exchange at the time it went down. The RIGHT thing to do is populate a BTC and BCC wallet owned by me for the number of BTC units I had when site went down.

Who is going to ensure the honest people with verifiable personal transactions to btc-e are not innocent victims (collateral damage is an expression that comes to mind because somehow in all wars, collateral damage is perceived to be inevitable...almost acceptable). Well...innocent victims are not acceptable collateral damage in a digital space because everything can be verified....reversed....etc.

There is no reason this cannot be sorted fairly....unless greed or laziness or both is the guiding principle of those imposing the rules.

[stingray454]

Even IF they reimburse us (and tbh I still see that as an "if") I think we can expect substantial losses. Probably not all funds still there, people in fiat will have lost both on BTC price rise and on BCC, and so on. We'll see how it goes, but naturally I'm happy with getting _something_ back instead of sponsoring the FBI. Let's hope for the best.

[marky89]

This situation with BTC-e is not important just to BTC-e but for the whole crypto exchange system.

For example, SimpleFX (exchange?) is not allowing transfers between crypto and hard currency balances. You can trade crypto-hard pairs but you can't: deposit crypto then buy usd and then use that usd to fund mt4 account or to withdraw that usd bought onto EXCHANGE(?). FXOpen does not allow US citizens. Will the rest of exchanges follow those rules?

If theres one thing I've learnt from all this bullshit is that the biggest problem is crypto is fiat. If a viable living economy can exist purely based on crypto, then the ties to fiat can be cut and these government shakedowns can end

That's the problem only with USD cash because US gov thinks that if you accept or send USD that you are doing business with USA. And you are actually doing business with them because dealing with any foreign fiat you are actually influencing their country payment system by freezing or releasing their own funds onto which they have no legal influence (if there were not those AML and so USA treaties). It just depends the scale of that business when they will react.

I'm pretty sure the legal justification used is that they were serving US customers while acting as an unlicensed money services business. If they had (like many other exchanges) prohibited US residents --- or at least asked customers to confirm they weren't US residents and IP restrict based on region --- maybe this could have been avoided. Or not; maybe it's highly political and this is really about US and USD hegemony.

Kraken, Poloniex and many others are registered in USA and they are unlicensed money services business.

they will be next.

Yes, that's possible. They aren't properly registered in each state that they serve IIRC. But I don't think that necessarily means that they will get shut down in the same way as BTC-e. With the latter, the money laundering charge and association with Vinnik's activities seemed to greatly overshadow any emphasis on the unlicensed MSB charge. Since they both have stricter AML/KYC procedures, and because Poloniex doesn't have fiat deposit/withdrawal, I suspect it would go down very differently. I think there's a good chance in those cases that the government simply levies a hefty fine and forces them to implement new KYC procedures and/or prohibit US residents.

[Thangz]

This situation with BTC-e is not important just to BTC-e but for the whole crypto exchange system.

For example, SimpleFX (exchange?) is not allowing transfers between crypto and hard currency balances. You can trade crypto-hard pairs but you can't: deposit crypto then buy usd and then use that usd to fund mt4 account or to withdraw that usd bought onto EXCHANGE(?). FXOpen does not allow US citizens. Will the rest of exchanges follow those rules?

If theres one thing I've learnt from all this bullshit is that the biggest problem is crypto is fiat. If a viable living economy can exist purely based on crypto, then the ties to fiat can be cut and these government shakedowns can end

That's the problem only with USD cash because US gov thinks that if you accept or send USD that you are doing business with USA. And you are actually doing business with them because dealing with any foreign fiat you are actually influencing their country payment system by freezing or releasing their own funds onto which they have no legal influence (if there were not those AML and so USA treaties). It just depends the scale of that business when they will react.

I'm pretty sure the legal justification used is that they were serving US customers while acting as an unlicensed money services business. If they had (like many other exchanges) prohibited US residents --- or at least asked customers to confirm they weren't US residents and IP restrict based on region --- maybe this could have been avoided. Or not; maybe it's highly political and this is really about US and USD hegemony.

Kraken, Poloniex and many others are registered in USA and they are unlicensed money services business.

they will be next.

Yes, that's possible. They aren't properly registered in each state that they serve IIRC. But I don't think that necessarily means that they will get shut down in the same way as BTC-e. With the latter, the money laundering charge and association with Vinnik's activities seemed to greatly overshadow any emphasis on the unlicensed MSB charge. Since they both have stricter AML/KYC procedures, and because Poloniex doesn't have fiat deposit/withdrawal, I suspect it would go down very differently. I think there's a good chance in those cases that the government simply levies a hefty fine and forces them to implement new KYC procedures and/or prohibit US residents.

Polo cut off service to some States in the U.S. back in april or may

[newhyips]

I just wanna ask

Where is Fitness???

[locked_in]

I am going to try to explain this to you guys in very simple terms and short sentences, in the hope that everyone understands it:

* BTC-e is gone.  It will never come back online
* BTC-e's servers have been seized by the USA FBI
* The USDOJ indictment of BTC-e was from JANUARY 2017
* It was only unsealed after Alex Vinnik vacationed in Greece and they saw an opportunity to arrest him
* The USDOJ sat on the sealed indictment for SEVEN MONTHS waiting for Alex Vinnik to leave whatever safe-haven country he was in so they could arrest him.  Then he went to Greece for "holiday" and they swooped in.  They were sitting on this for the last seven months.  Waiting.
* BTC-e had servers in Secaucus, New Jersey, USA.  This is easily verifiable if you look up the DNS history for btc-e.com and blockchain history.  They had at least SIX different IP addresses acting as either full bitcoin nodes or at least wallets from 2011-2014.  The were running their servers in USA.  Just as the USDOJ indictment says they were.
* The FBI had access to the servers for a long time.  They likely monitored them with pensticks (bridge adapters that dump all network traffic to a connected hard drive) and took images of the servers' hard disks.  They could have done this easily and it could have been done frequently over the last few years.  The server were only just seized this last week, but they probably already had been monitoring the servers the last year+

The FBI has everything.  BTC-e is gone.  Anyone remaining at BTC-e are FUGITIVES from USA FBI and will definitely disappear or be caught. 

[shrodix]

Kraken, Poloniex and many others are registered in USA and they are unlicensed money services business.

they will be next.

Keep trolling, Poloniex have been licensed for years.

https://poloniex.com/press-releases/2015.05.19-Open-Letter


 

really ?
Financial Regulator Registration Poloniex isn't a regulated platform, but it did register with the FinCEN with MSB registration number 310000918440. Note that the latter isn't required and it wouldn't represent a "recommendation, certification of legitimacy, or endorsement of the business by any government agency".
Operating License Not regulated (see Financial Regulator Registration and Service Disruptions & Unbusinesslike Conduct)
Or

http://digiconomist.net/fraud-risk-assessment-poloniex

https://cointelegraph.com/news/license-required-poloniex-bitfinex-will-stop-operations-in-washington

[reb0rn21]

@locked_in

And who are YOU then, FBI himself, if so how you plan to return us our own crypto which is legal and not laundered?

[locked_in]

@locked_in

And who are YOU then, FBI himself, if so how you plan to return us our own crypto which is legal and not laundered?

I am realistic person that knows how these kinds of investigations works