Bitfinex - FRAUD, price manipulation, fake transactions

[CyberKuro]

A very good article about the "good" guys from Bitfinex :


https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-analyst-identifies-clear-spoofing-pattern-at-bitfinex


Of course, they are not the only ones who are doing that. Almost all the exchangers are making fake volumes, market manipulations and so on....a lot of illegal things.

Losers  = "YOU" (their customers).

Oh my god, this is a bad thing of exchanges, then we should cash out right now, withdraw bitcoin and fiat currency.
Fake volumes refers to amount of money on the table, right? to attract more people join in their platform?
Then, how we convert bitcoin into fiat without exchange as a middle man?
How could we measure bitcoin price without trading volume on exchanges?
Well, I am not really worry about it, as long as I treat exchanges as a 'temporary shelter' in order to convert bitcoin into cash and vice versa.

[deisik]

Someone above suggested that US federal agencies may be up to something regarding Bitfinex. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that the BTC-e indictment (filed in January 2017) and Bitfinex being cut off from the banking system (March 2017) are part of a larger operation targeting unregulated exchanges.

The conspiracy man in you is weak, small, and chicken-hearted

If he were a little more brave and decisive, he would tell you that this is no less than a part of a bigger plot, a plot which should eventually lead to the destruction of Bitcoin as well as other coins (i.e. the whole cryptoworld). But the real question you should have asked is whether the US federal agencies (such as those pictured at the Btc-e front page) can actually do anything substantial and detrimental (substantially detrimental) against Bitfinex today. I mean beyond what they have already done by now

[illyiller]

But the real question you should have asked is whether the US federal agencies (such as those pictured at the Btc-e front page) can actually do anything substantial and detrimental (substantially detrimental) against Bitfinex today. I mean beyond what they have already done by now

What have they done, besides the CFTC giving Bitfinex a slap on the wrist? The thing about this is, these agencies take months and years to build cases. They filed that BTC-e indictment in January and sat on it for 6-7 months waiting for the time to strike. They were probably investigating for years before that.

We're now coming up on one year from the Bitfinex token scheme. I'd say the feds certainly aren't powerless here. They could start by seizing Bitfinex's domain and servers. They could likely seize a good deal of Bitfinex's fiat reserves. Same situation as BTC-e, if the feds want to go that route. That would be very detrimental for their customers (and for all those customers who just became investors via the token deal). And then there is the matter of all the Tether......

[deisik]

But the real question you should have asked is whether the US federal agencies (such as those pictured at the Btc-e front page) can actually do anything substantial and detrimental (substantially detrimental) against Bitfinex today. I mean beyond what they have already done by now

What have they done, besides the CFTC giving Bitfinex a slap on the wrist? The thing about this is, these agencies take months and years to build cases. They filed that BTC-e indictment in January and sat on it for 6-7 months waiting for the time to strike. They were probably investigating for years before that.

We're now coming up on one year from the Bitfinex token scheme. I'd say the feds certainly aren't powerless here. They could start by seizing Bitfinex's domain and servers. They could likely seize a good deal of Bitfinex's fiat reserves. Same situation as BTC-e, if the feds want to go that route. That would be very detrimental for their customers (and for all those customers who just became investors via the token deal). And then there is the matter of all the Tether......

I don't know about the domain name

After all, ICANN is an American corporation so they could somehow force them to revoke the domain name for themselves. But do you know where Bitfinex servers are located exactly? If you don't know that (which seems to be the case), how are the US authorities going to seize them if they might be all placed in some obscure Chinese (Hong-Kong) data-center or even scattered all over the world? In short, do you have any real and pertinent info about the case?

[aTriz]

A very good article about the "good" guys from Bitfinex :


https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-analyst-identifies-clear-spoofing-pattern-at-bitfinex


Of course, they are not the only ones who are doing that. Almost all the exchangers are making fake volumes, market manipulations and so on....a lot of illegal things.

Losers  = "YOU" (their customers).

Stuff like this, just makes me mad, and this will definitely give Bitcoin a bad reputation and will only further discourage new people to use Bitcoin. This is one of the reasons why Bitcoin will never become mainstream. These exchanges could always go corrupt and they could easily just manipulate the prices of bitcoin, causing them to lose a whole lot of money

[gentlemand]

Stuff like this, just makes me mad, and this will definitely give Bitcoin a bad reputation and will only further discourage new people to use Bitcoin. This is one of the reasons why Bitcoin will never become mainstream. These exchanges could always go corrupt and they could easily just manipulate the prices of bitcoin, causing them to lose a whole lot of money

Exchanges with track records like Bitfinex aren't going to be around for much longer IMO. They'll either be raided and shut down, lose any semblance of banking no matter how many corners they try to cut or lies they tell, be bought out by someone who can be arsed to make it fully legit or abandoned by their users when better options come along.

When it comes to fiat exchanges, not that it really is one any more, it's pretty much the last of its kind now.

We will all be better off when it's gone.

[stompix]

Stuff like this, just makes me mad, and this will definitely give Bitcoin a bad reputation and will only further discourage new people to use Bitcoin. This is one of the reasons why Bitcoin will never become mainstream. These exchanges could always go corrupt and they could easily just manipulate the prices of bitcoin, causing them to lose a whole lot of money

Exchanges with track records like Bitfinex aren't going to be around for much longer IMO. They'll either be raided and shut down, lose any semblance of banking no matter how many corners they try to cut, be bought out by someone who can be arsed to make it fully legit or abandoned by their users when better options come along.

When it comes to fiat exchanges, not that it really is one any more, it's pretty much the last of its kind now.

And which are the ones with track records UNLIKE Bitfinex?

Btcchina and Okcoin? oh, those are just as good
Gox and Mintpall?  no comment )
Bitswamp? probably the cleanest pair of socks in the laundry bag
Coinbase ? the only one that looks so neat and clean and legal because they are running like fort knox of information and not quite an exchange more like a bank
Poloniex and Bittrex? don't make me laugh
BTCe ? this is no laughing matter , it's a sad story

You're asking for a total revamp of the system, not going to happen too soon

[gentlemand]

You're asking for a total revamp of the system, not going to happen too soon

Gemini, Itbit, Bitstamp, GDAX, Kraken, Coinfloor and perhaps a few others.

Kraken is broken but unhacked. Bitstamp was hacked but users weren't affected. GDAX is a weird flaky place but has never been hacked and is backed by extremely deep pockets. The Japanese exchanges are now rigourously regulated and backed by proper finance heavyweights.

I think it's only a matter of time before the alt only places have to shape up or ship out. It's also likely that the above list will add more alts as time goes by too. Once more of them have margin trading the volume will move towards them too.

The revamp is happening, albeit slowly.

[deisik]

You're asking for a total revamp of the system, not going to happen too soon

Gemini, Itbit, Bitstamp, GDAX, Kraken, Coinfloor and perhaps a few others.

Kraken is broken but unhacked. Bitstamp was hacked but users weren't affected. GDAX is a weird flaky place but has never been hacked and is backed by extremely deep pockets. The Japanese exchanges are now rigourously regulated and backed by proper finance heavyweights

What about decentralized exchanges?

I mean the ones that are built in, i.e. exist in the blockchain itself? As far as I know, no major altcoin (not speaking of Bitcoin) has this functionality so far (BitShares cuts it pretty close to being one such exchange). But given the recent events (and events that are yet to follow), there might be a strong push toward such exchanges. Indeed, we would still need fiat gateways anyway, but it seems people nowadays rarely need to withdraw fiat, so this doesn't look like a primary concern here. what is your stance on the matter?

[gentlemand]

What about decentralized exchanges?

I mean the ones that are built in, i.e. exist in the blockchain itself? As far as I know, no major altcoin (not speaking of Bitcoin) has this functionality so far (BitShares cuts it pretty close to being one such exchange). But given the recent events (and events that are yet to follow), there might be a strong push toward such exchanges. Indeed, we would still need fiat gateways anyway, but it seems people nowadays rarely need to withdraw fiat, so this doesn't look like a primary concern here. what is your stance on the matter?

I've already said it elsewhere in this thread. We need two types of exchanges, properly regulated ones for people who are fond of their order books or fully decentralised.

Centralised, unregulated and unaccountable has been the norm so far and it's been a very consistent disaster.

[mayax]

You're asking for a total revamp of the system, not going to happen too soon

Gemini, Itbit, Bitstamp, GDAX, Kraken, Coinfloor and perhaps a few others.

Kraken is broken but unhacked. Bitstamp was hacked but users weren't affected. GDAX is a weird flaky place but has never been hacked and is backed by extremely deep pockets. The Japanese exchanges are now rigourously regulated and backed by proper finance heavyweights.

I think it's only a matter of time before the alt only places have to shape up or ship out. It's also likely that the above list will add more alts as time goes by too. Once more of them have margin trading the volume will move towards them too.

The revamp is happening, albeit slowly.

Kraken is unregulated.  They can be seized anytime.  They play a very risky game on the client's funds. I don't know what's in their mind  

[moviebuff777]

A very good article about the "good" guys from Bitfinex :


https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-analyst-identifies-clear-spoofing-pattern-at-bitfinex


Of course, they are not the only ones who are doing that. Almost all the exchangers are making fake volumes, market manipulations and so on....a lot of illegal things.

Losers  = "YOU" (their customers).

It doesn't really surprise me that some exchanges are doing things like this. It's another reason why we shouldn't store bitcoins or altcoins on exchanges. I will keep some on exchanges for trading but the bulk of my bitcoins will be held in offline wallets so I can control the private keys.

[Andre_Goldman]

I think if we're here at bitcoin community is to lean 1 or 2 lessons about how the economic gears works ...

Regards to exchanges ... I think about the "order matching engine" and queue algorithms 

[sylance]

https://www.bitfinex.com/posts/216

Well, for us Americans this argument might be moot.  Seems like Bitfinex will no longer support customers in the US.  I actually enjoyed my experience with them, and also enjoyed the passive income of margin lending.  Probably off topic, but any suggestions on where I should go?  Poloniex was interesting to me but the recent outages has me spooked.

[illyiller]

But the real question you should have asked is whether the US federal agencies (such as those pictured at the Btc-e front page) can actually do anything substantial and detrimental (substantially detrimental) against Bitfinex today. I mean beyond what they have already done by now

What have they done, besides the CFTC giving Bitfinex a slap on the wrist? The thing about this is, these agencies take months and years to build cases. They filed that BTC-e indictment in January and sat on it for 6-7 months waiting for the time to strike. They were probably investigating for years before that.

We're now coming up on one year from the Bitfinex token scheme. I'd say the feds certainly aren't powerless here. They could start by seizing Bitfinex's domain and servers. They could likely seize a good deal of Bitfinex's fiat reserves. Same situation as BTC-e, if the feds want to go that route. That would be very detrimental for their customers (and for all those customers who just became investors via the token deal). And then there is the matter of all the Tether......

I don't know about the domain name

After all, ICANN is an American corporation so they could somehow force them to revoke the domain name for themselves. But do you know where Bitfinex servers are located exactly? If you don't know that (which seems to be the case), how are the US authorities going to seize them if they might be all placed in some obscure Chinese (Hong-Kong) data-center or even scattered all over the world? In short, do you have any real and pertinent info about the case?

Do I personally have that info? Of course not! But we have a recent case study, as mentioned above. In that case, the US government issued a seizure of the domain; very easy on a .com TLD. Bitfinex.com is registered by a US company.

Do I know where Bitfinex servers are located? Of course not. I imagine the US government could (as with BTC-e) coordinate with law enforcement in several countries around the world to investigate, discover and seize any servers in US-friendly countries (most of the world). USD bank accounts could likely be frozen as well.

Regular folks wouldn't "have any real and pertinent info about the case." The BTC-e indictment was filed in January and unsealed in July. Similarly, any investigation into Bitfinex could already have been happening for years, and for all we know, an indictment has already been filed against them, but not unsealed.

*This is purely hypothetical speculation. Just speculating on the possibilities based on the reach of the US government (as evidenced by the BTC-e seizure), the blacklisting of Bitfinex by the legacy banking system, Bitfinex's lack of licensing as an MSB despite operating as one for years in the US, etc.

[countryfree]

I'm dreaming people would stick to facts instead of saying BS.

The whole thing behind this topic is this:

According to author “Bitcrypto’d,” there is a high likelihood that Bitfinex itself is spoofing the entire market place.

There isn't any proof of any wrong doing. Just one guy saying there could be something...

haha. nice shill and a legendary one  

it's not only "one gue saying" . I am saying that since years ago !   The exchangers have fake volumes just to appear "big" and to manipulate the market.

99% from exchangers are spoofing and having fake volumes and you come to say that it's not true. OK ! LOL

Bitfinex is an unregulated shit exchanger like BTC-e, Poloniex, Kraken, all the chinese exchangers and so on. these have fake volumes and they manipulate the market as they want. is this correct for traders that a shit exchanger can dispose of funds as it wants?

don't come with "it's a free market" . a free market doesn't mean to fraud your client, to steal from him and so on.

Spoof transactions, fake volumes? I don't understand why. It would be just stupid.

When you look at Poloniex or Bitfinex, it's evident that the people behind those websites have invested a lot of money in servers and software development. No doubt they can afford more than enough cryptos to make real transactions and deal large volumes.

Besides, let's say it clearly: I love Poloniex and Bitfinex. I'm using both, and my best month I made more than $1,000 trading and lending. So you understand why I'm a supporter...

[deisik]

But the real question you should have asked is whether the US federal agencies (such as those pictured at the Btc-e front page) can actually do anything substantial and detrimental (substantially detrimental) against Bitfinex today. I mean beyond what they have already done by now

What have they done, besides the CFTC giving Bitfinex a slap on the wrist? The thing about this is, these agencies take months and years to build cases. They filed that BTC-e indictment in January and sat on it for 6-7 months waiting for the time to strike. They were probably investigating for years before that.

We're now coming up on one year from the Bitfinex token scheme. I'd say the feds certainly aren't powerless here. They could start by seizing Bitfinex's domain and servers. They could likely seize a good deal of Bitfinex's fiat reserves. Same situation as BTC-e, if the feds want to go that route. That would be very detrimental for their customers (and for all those customers who just became investors via the token deal). And then there is the matter of all the Tether......

I don't know about the domain name

After all, ICANN is an American corporation so they could somehow force them to revoke the domain name for themselves. But do you know where Bitfinex servers are located exactly? If you don't know that (which seems to be the case), how are the US authorities going to seize them if they might be all placed in some obscure Chinese (Hong-Kong) data-center or even scattered all over the world? In short, do you have any real and pertinent info about the case?

Do I personally have that info? Of course not! But we have a recent case study, as mentioned above. In that case, the US government issued a seizure of the domain; very easy on a .com TLD. Bitfinex.com is registered by a US company

So you are just speculating (as you say yourself)

Seizing a domain name is not a big deal, any domain, for that matter. But seizing domains that don't officially sit in the US jurisdiction will be another violation of sovereignty (as far as I understand it). And while technically it might not be difficult, it could be next to impossible politically. What prevents Bitfinex from registering a new domain in some US-hostile country, say, Iran? As I see it, domain names should be Bitfinex' least concern. Further, Bitfinex is a whole lot larger than Btc-e, and they had tensions with the CFTC in the past, so, first, they are more tasty than Btc-e, so to speak, and, second, they should be prepared to the US "law enforcing" agencies to go after their servers (and even more so now that Btc-e servers got seized). So the real question is whether the US already tried that but failed or they are yet to try. Besides, Bitfinex has already been blacklisted by the US banks (see Wells Fargo), so there likely was (is) something going on behind the scenes, and it kinda looks that this exchange is far better prepared to the kind of attack that Btc-e fell victim to

[manchester93]

Seizing a domain name is not a big deal, any domain, for that matter. But seizing domains that don't officially sit in the US jurisdiction will be another violation of sovereignty (as far as I understand it). And while technically it might not be difficult, it could be next to impossible politically. What prevents Bitfinex from registering a new domain in some US-hostile country, say, Iran? As I see it, domain names should be Bitfinex' least concern.

Seizing the domain is about making a statement. The banking world would shut them out (well, already done in Bitfinex's case), and they would forever have a target on their back and risk of seizures.

Further, Bitfinex is a whole lot larger than Btc-e, and they had tensions with the CFTC in the past, so, first, they are more tasty than Btc-e, so to speak, and, second, they should be prepared to the US "law enforcing" agencies to go after their servers (and even more so now that Btc-e servers got seized). So the real question is whether the US already tried that but failed or they are yet to try. Besides, Bitfinex has already been blacklisted by the US banks (see Wells Fargo), so there likely was (is) something going on behind the scenes, and it kinda looks that this exchange is far better prepared to the kind of attack that Btc-e fell victim to

I think it's more just a matter of time. The feds take years to build these cases.

[deisik]

Seizing a domain name is not a big deal, any domain, for that matter. But seizing domains that don't officially sit in the US jurisdiction will be another violation of sovereignty (as far as I understand it). And while technically it might not be difficult, it could be next to impossible politically. What prevents Bitfinex from registering a new domain in some US-hostile country, say, Iran? As I see it, domain names should be Bitfinex' least concern.

Seizing the domain is about making a statement. The banking world would shut them out (well, already done in Bitfinex's case), and they would forever have a target on their back and risk of seizures

This statement is meaningless

In fact, I'd rather say that it is even detrimental to the whole initiative aimed at shutting down an exchange. When did we see that scary to every trader picture at the Btc-e site? When everything was essentially over for Btc-e, right? In this manner, seizing the domain only and placing the seizure note is futile and in fact counterproductive if they, at the same time, fail to reach out and touch servers as well as wallets. The exchange will likely fire up another domain and users will took their coins away. In two words, mission failed

[squatter]

Seizing a domain name is not a big deal, any domain, for that matter. But seizing domains that don't officially sit in the US jurisdiction will be another violation of sovereignty (as far as I understand it). And while technically it might not be difficult, it could be next to impossible politically. What prevents Bitfinex from registering a new domain in some US-hostile country, say, Iran? As I see it, domain names should be Bitfinex' least concern.

Seizing the domain is about making a statement. The banking world would shut them out (well, already done in Bitfinex's case), and they would forever have a target on their back and risk of seizures

This statement is meaningless

In fact, I'd rather say that it is even detrimental to the whole initiative aimed at shutting down an exchange. When did we see that scary to every trader picture at the Btc-e site? When everything was essentially over for Btc-e, right? In this manner, seizing the domain only and placing the seizure note is futile and in fact counterproductive if they, at the same time, fail to reach out and touch servers as well as wallets. The exchange will likely fire up another domain and users will took their coins away. Mission failed

I don't get it. Aren't you just ignoring the BTC-e case? Sure, the crypto should be encrypted. But due to fiat bank accounts being frozen, BTC-e is saying 45% of the money is gone. (I think they are probably pocketing a lot more than that if they do come back, given this talk of KYC)

Money laundering charges are a lot more serious than listing torrent trackers or even offering US-facing online gambling. Would you take the risks to run such an exchange? You can't step foot in most of the world for risk of extradition. And the bigger question is, why would anyone trade there? Given that they are under indictment from the US? Seems like a no-brainer to just go somewhere else.