www.BITSTAMP.net Bitcoin exchange site for USD/BTC

[qxzn]

Site is back up, but order placement is not working, orders getting queued indefinitely

[1715276044]

1715276044

[1715276044]

1715276044

[1715276044]

1715276044

[xybersurfer]

first of all. good job getting the site backup and running (didn't realize that Nejc Kodric runs Bitstamp)


i've noticed an issues with the Transactions API call (https://www.bitstamp.net/api/transactions/?time=hour)
sometimes a call returns transactions that are older than those in a previous call.

today with this call, i first received:
[{"date": "1420896736", "tid": 7102104, "price": "274.11", "amount": "2.00000000"}, ...]

and in a next call, i received:
[{"date": "1420896324", "tid": 7101926, "price": "276.06", "amount": "4.49916597"}, ...]

i left out irrelevant parts of the lists (with "...").
but clearly date 1420896324 is supposed to come before 1420896736

(i'm not sure whether this is the right place to report this issue)

[qxzn]

first of all. good job getting the site backup and running (didn't realize that Nejc Kodric runs Bitstamp)


i've noticed an issues with the Transactions API call (https://www.bitstamp.net/api/transactions/?time=hour)
sometimes a call returns transactions that are older than those in a previous call.

today with this call, i first received:
[{"date": "1420896736", "tid": 7102104, "price": "274.11", "amount": "2.00000000"}, ...]

and in a next call, i received:
[{"date": "1420896324", "tid": 7101926, "price": "276.06", "amount": "4.49916597"}, ...]

i left out irrelevant parts of the lists (with "...").
but clearly date 1420896324 is supposed to come before 1420896736

(i'm not sure whether this is the right place to report this issue)

There seems to be some real issues with transactions at the moment. We are seeing subsequent pulls give us different versions of history. For example, I pull the history once and get a large set of trades, then I pull again and I'm missing just two trades from somewhere in the middle of the set. A third pull and the trades are back again. I'm opening a ticket but I think Bitstamp should look at this ASAP.

[qxzn]

first of all. good job getting the site backup and running (didn't realize that Nejc Kodric runs Bitstamp)


i've noticed an issues with the Transactions API call (https://www.bitstamp.net/api/transactions/?time=hour)
sometimes a call returns transactions that are older than those in a previous call.

today with this call, i first received:
[{"date": "1420896736", "tid": 7102104, "price": "274.11", "amount": "2.00000000"}, ...]

and in a next call, i received:
[{"date": "1420896324", "tid": 7101926, "price": "276.06", "amount": "4.49916597"}, ...]

i left out irrelevant parts of the lists (with "...").
but clearly date 1420896324 is supposed to come before 1420896736

(i'm not sure whether this is the right place to report this issue)

There seems to be some real issues with transactions at the moment. We are seeing subsequent pulls give us different versions of history. For example, I pull the history once and get a large set of trades, then I pull again and I'm missing just two trades from somewhere in the middle of the set. A third pull and the trades are back again. I'm opening a ticket but I think Bitstamp should look at this ASAP.

Actually, this might be my mistake. Will update here as soon as I know.

[qxzn]

first of all. good job getting the site backup and running (didn't realize that Nejc Kodric runs Bitstamp)


i've noticed an issues with the Transactions API call (https://www.bitstamp.net/api/transactions/?time=hour)
sometimes a call returns transactions that are older than those in a previous call.

today with this call, i first received:
[{"date": "1420896736", "tid": 7102104, "price": "274.11", "amount": "2.00000000"}, ...]

and in a next call, i received:
[{"date": "1420896324", "tid": 7101926, "price": "276.06", "amount": "4.49916597"}, ...]

i left out irrelevant parts of the lists (with "...").
but clearly date 1420896324 is supposed to come before 1420896736

(i'm not sure whether this is the right place to report this issue)

There seems to be some real issues with transactions at the moment. We are seeing subsequent pulls give us different versions of history. For example, I pull the history once and get a large set of trades, then I pull again and I'm missing just two trades from somewhere in the middle of the set. A third pull and the trades are back again. I'm opening a ticket but I think Bitstamp should look at this ASAP.

Actually, this might be my mistake. Will update here as soon as I know.

Yeah, this was a mistake in our code. From what I can tell, bitstamp transaction data is OK, though there have been a few subtle changes in the ordering of records returned.

[xybersurfer]

first of all. good job getting the site backup and running (didn't realize that Nejc Kodric runs Bitstamp)


i've noticed an issues with the Transactions API call (https://www.bitstamp.net/api/transactions/?time=hour)
sometimes a call returns transactions that are older than those in a previous call.

today with this call, i first received:
[{"date": "1420896736", "tid": 7102104, "price": "274.11", "amount": "2.00000000"}, ...]

and in a next call, i received:
[{"date": "1420896324", "tid": 7101926, "price": "276.06", "amount": "4.49916597"}, ...]

i left out irrelevant parts of the lists (with "...").
but clearly date 1420896324 is supposed to come before 1420896736

(i'm not sure whether this is the right place to report this issue)

There seems to be some real issues with transactions at the moment. We are seeing subsequent pulls give us different versions of history. For example, I pull the history once and get a large set of trades, then I pull again and I'm missing just two trades from somewhere in the middle of the set. A third pull and the trades are back again. I'm opening a ticket but I think Bitstamp should look at this ASAP.

Actually, this might be my mistake. Will update here as soon as I know.

Yeah, this was a mistake in our code. From what I can tell, bitstamp transaction data is OK, though there have been a few subtle changes in the ordering of records returned.

it hasn't happened again since i posted here. but i'm pretty sure it's not a problem in my code. because when it happens, i log the data that i already have and the data returned from the API call. and it's really easy to see that the data i already have is newer (which should never be the case).

i also noticed an issue of missing trades between the list of trades for the last hour and the list for the last minute. here the hour list lags behind the minute list. and at times a trade is no longer in the minute list but also not in the hour list yet. so i just use the hour list now. so i use a little more bandwidth (but i consider this a minor issue).

[MusX]

first of all. good job getting the site backup and running (didn't realize that Nejc Kodric runs Bitstamp)


i've noticed an issues with the Transactions API call (https://www.bitstamp.net/api/transactions/?time=hour)
sometimes a call returns transactions that are older than those in a previous call.

today with this call, i first received:
[{"date": "1420896736", "tid": 7102104, "price": "274.11", "amount": "2.00000000"}, ...]

and in a next call, i received:
[{"date": "1420896324", "tid": 7101926, "price": "276.06", "amount": "4.49916597"}, ...]

i left out irrelevant parts of the lists (with "...").
but clearly date 1420896324 is supposed to come before 1420896736

(i'm not sure whether this is the right place to report this issue)

There seems to be some real issues with transactions at the moment. We are seeing subsequent pulls give us different versions of history. For example, I pull the history once and get a large set of trades, then I pull again and I'm missing just two trades from somewhere in the middle of the set. A third pull and the trades are back again. I'm opening a ticket but I think Bitstamp should look at this ASAP.

Actually, this might be my mistake. Will update here as soon as I know.

Yeah, this was a mistake in our code. From what I can tell, bitstamp transaction data is OK, though there have been a few subtle changes in the ordering of records returned.

it hasn't happened again since i posted here. but i'm pretty sure it's not a problem in my code. because when it happens, i log the data that i already have and the data returned from the API call. and it's really easy to see that the data i already have is newer (which should never be the case).

i also noticed an issue of missing trades between the list of trades for the last hour and the list for the last minute. here the hour list lags behind the minute list. and at times a trade is no longer in the minute list but also not in the hour list yet. so i just use the hour list now. so i use a little more bandwidth (but i consider this a minor issue).

I would advice to built a additional data integrity validation layer when operating on bitstamp historical trades API. Since October 2013 bitstamp does not allow to keep data integrity due to removed `since` / `offset` param from trades API method. Be aware that sourcing bitstamp trades data from external sites like bitcoincharts.com might be also affected by lack of data integrity feature on bitstamp.

[oda.krell]

@hazek

When can we expect the next financial audit of Bitstamp's customer deposits?

The last one was almost a year ago (March 2014). Back then, the plan was to do them quarter yearly. That didn't happen unfortunately.

In my opinion, after the recent hot wallet hack, it would seem like an extremely good idea to announce, and then undergo another audit of your exchange, to reassure your customers, and the crypto market in general.

[spin]

Been experiencing problems with the new site but nobody's helping:

I'm pretty sure they have a floating point rounding issue in the withdrawal API somewhere.

I withdrew BTC0.29 the other day using API.  And it shows as 0.29 in my withdrawal list etc.  But the tx in the blockchain goes only for 0.28999999.

Talk about nickel-and-diming

Anyway it just causes hassles and it doesn't seem right.  Can anyone confirm if they see the same issue?

[smoothie]

A full blown audit needs to be done on bitstamp.

Wouldn't use it otherwise.

[oda.krell]

A full blown audit needs to be done on bitstamp.

Wouldn't use it otherwise.

Which ties in with my own request from a few days ago...

When can we expect the next financial audit of Bitstamp's customer deposits?

The last one was almost a year ago (March 2014). Back then, the plan was to do them quarter yearly. That didn't happen unfortunately.

In my opinion, after the recent hot wallet hack, it would seem like an extremely good idea to announce, and then undergo another audit of your exchange, to reassure your customers, and the crypto market in general.

As a long-term customer of Bitstamp, I'd really appreciate an answer from someone in charge to this simple question:

Do you have an ETA for the next financial audit? (That were once promised to be held quarter yearly).

[mmitech]

A full blown audit needs to be done on bitstamp.

Wouldn't use it otherwise.

Which ties in with my own request from a few days ago...

When can we expect the next financial audit of Bitstamp's customer deposits?

The last one was almost a year ago (March 2014). Back then, the plan was to do them quarter yearly. That didn't happen unfortunately.

In my opinion, after the recent hot wallet hack, it would seem like an extremely good idea to announce, and then undergo another audit of your exchange, to reassure your customers, and the crypto market in general.

As a long-term customer of Bitstamp, I'd really appreciate an answer from someone in charge to this simple question:

Do you have an ETA for the next financial audit? (That were once promised to be held quarter yearly).

I would also like to know if they are still solvent (by performing an audit from a trusted third party and publishing the results), I don't have any funds in the exchange for now, but I wont send any funds if an audit is not performed ASAP...at this point I personally think that the risk of leaving funds or trading at Bitstamp has become equal or even higher than trading at BTC-e.


Edit: once before the hack happened, the CEO (Nejc kodrič) said that they have a reserve fund to cover the whole hot wallet funds in case they had a problem with it (hackd, lost, technical issues...), but I personally don't think that they had 19000 BTC sitting around just in case... I can imagine 500-3000 BTC but not 19000 BTC

[pawel7777]

...
Edit: once before the hack happened, the CEO (Nejc kodrič) said that they have a reserve fund to cover the whole hot wallet funds in case they had a problem with it (hackd, lost, technical issues...), but I personally don't think that they had 19000 BTC sitting around just in case... I can imagine 500-3000 BTC but not 19000 BTC

Out of curiosity, when did he say that? Do you have any link/more details?

[mmitech]

...
Edit: once before the hack happened, the CEO (Nejc kodrič) said that they have a reserve fund to cover the whole hot wallet funds in case they had a problem with it (hackd, lost, technical issues...), but I personally don't think that they had 19000 BTC sitting around just in case... I can imagine 500-3000 BTC but not 19000 BTC

Out of curiosity, when did he say that? Do you have any link/more details?

not long before the hack, I think maybe 2-3 months ago !!!  I don't have a link because he told us (me and a couple other guys) this in a Bitcoin meeting here in the technological park in Kranj, Slovenia. (orgenized by Bitstamp)

[erre]

Time for a bank run, that would be a great way to force an audit 

[pawel7777]

...
Edit: once before the hack happened, the CEO (Nejc kodrič) said that they have a reserve fund to cover the whole hot wallet funds in case they had a problem with it (hackd, lost, technical issues...), but I personally don't think that they had 19000 BTC sitting around just in case... I can imagine 500-3000 BTC but not 19000 BTC

Out of curiosity, when did he say that? Do you have any link/more details?

not long before the hack, I think maybe 2-3 months ago !!!  I don't have a link because he told us (me and a couple other guys) this in a Bitcoin meeting here in the technological park in Kranj, Slovenia. (orgenized by Bitstamp)

Oh OK. Thanks for replying.

It would be unlikely for any company to just sit on such amount of fiat/BTC. But then again, they did get some VC funding from Pantera some time ago (~$10m), so it could be possible (depending on the terms of that funding).

But I really do hope their next financial statement will be audited.

[smoothie]

Still no response...it has been 2+ weeks since the hack and no comment on an audit to take place.

[dreamspark]

Still no response...it has been 2+ weeks since the hack and no comment on an audit to take place.

Perhaps because they haven't re-bought the coins they need to show solvency ?

[bernard75]

Guys, that would go a long way...unless you have something to hide...

[erre]

Please do an audit, some people strongly belive that you are running in fractional reserve and so fucking up bitcoin

A little explanation on how fractional reserve works:


It is important to recognize the difference between Currency Supply and Money Supply. The currency supply of bitcoins is limited to 21 million. Money supply is higher because it includes demand deposits. Let us take an example: Suppose that there are only 100 Bitcoins on Earth all owned by Satoshi. He puts all 100 in Bank Alpha. Bank Alpha puts 20 of the bitcoins (20%) in a special account and leaves them there. They then lend out 80 bitcoins to Gavin. Bank Alpha tells Satoshi on his account page that his account has 100 bitcoins in it. The total money supply of Bitcoins at this point is 180. You can see that there is no magic required. Now, Gavin buys some LolCat comics from Cameron for 80 bitcoins. Cameron puts his 80 bitcoins in his bank, Bank Beta. Bank Beta puts 20% in reserve (16 bitcoins) and has 64 to lend out. They lend those 64 bitcoins to someone else. Cameron's account page on Bank Beta's website says he has 80 bitcoins in his account. The money supply of bitcoin is now 100+80+64 = 244 bitcoins. Supposing all banks put 20% in reserves for safe keeping, and suppose everyone uses banks (as opposed to keeping them in a wallet on their computer) then the money supply of bitcoin will max out at 500 bitcoins. Obviously because some people will hold their own bitcoins and because they will be used out in the world for transactions, the money supply wouldn't reach 500 bitcoins, but it can easily exceed 100.
An obvious response is 'Well what happens when Gavin takes his bitcoins out of the bank!?' The answer is that that is what the reserves are for. Although not reflected in this example, the actual reserves held by a bank would be vastly greater than the amount held in any individual customer's account.
And that is how Fractional Reserve Banking works.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Talk:Myths#Fractional_reserve_banking_with_Bitcoin_is_fundamentally_different

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=932052.0