Tradesatoshi - BEWARE! Blocking without reasons.

[nutildah]

Oh, how do you like the looks of this, 3 of the most vocal accounts defending Trade Satoshi all "woke up" recently to ridicule people who got locked out of their exchange. They also all reply to comments by typing above the quoted text, which as I mentioned early, almost nobody does... What a weird coincidence:







I'm almost certain they are all operated by the trade-sa-to-shi account.

[DiHunter]

Oh, how do you like the looks of this, 3 of the most vocal accounts defending Trade Satoshi all "woke up" recently to ridicule people who got locked out of their exchange. They also all reply to comments by typing above the quoted text, which as I mentioned early, almost nobody does... What a weird coincidence:







I'm almost certain they are all operated by the trade-sa-to-shi account.

A bunch of fake accounts, used just to sweep all complaints in their topic under the carpet, starting an idiotic flame each time.

[AmoreJaz]

with the fact that "TS"...imho =TRUE SHIT
 
they have started from March 24 2019 dropping their withdrawal fee to     0.25 sat/WU - 1 sat/B
 this is creating a huge gain in the mempool of unconfirmed transactions
 plus they are double spending the unconfirmed transactions so while everyone waits, they will be sitting and regaining the funds as the transactions never get confirmed and dropped by the network
 all unconfirmed and dropped transactions return the amounts back to the original holder.... TS
but ....
alas....
 there is a way to screw them in part.....
by retransmitting the transaction that is unconfirmed
 it will not let the transaction die and will hold accountable the originating senders.
to do this there are many transaction accelerators for free.
a few of them even have issues simply because the fee is way too low but a few of the free accelerators will send and retransmit the trxid and keep alive in mempool
so if everyone would start doing this like 2 times a day they would eventually run out of available cash and chock on their own behalf

https://bitaccelerate.com/      Works GREAT

https://freebtcaccelerator.com/#tools       works

https://pool.viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator/      has issues at times with low fee





i would love to see them chock on their own tainted practices

[nutildah]

with the fact that "TS"...imho =TRUE SHIT
 
they have started from March 24 2019 dropping their withdrawal fee to     0.25 sat/WU - 1 sat/B
 this is creating a huge gain in the mempool of unconfirmed transactions
 plus they are double spending the unconfirmed transactions so while everyone waits, they will be sitting and regaining the funds as the transactions never get confirmed and dropped by the network
 all unconfirmed and dropped transactions return the amounts back to the original holder.... TS
but ....
alas....
 there is a way to screw them in part.....
by retransmitting the transaction that is unconfirmed
 it will not let the transaction die and will hold accountable the originating senders.
to do this there are many transaction accelerators for free.
a few of them even have issues simply because the fee is way too low but a few of the free accelerators will send and retransmit the trxid and keep alive in mempool
so if everyone would start doing this like 2 times a day they would eventually run out of available cash and chock on their own behalf

https://bitaccelerate.com/      Works GREAT

https://freebtcaccelerator.com/#tools       works

https://pool.viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator/      has issues at times with low fee

i would love to see them chock on their own tainted practices

This is interesting... can you give us some transactions or addresses where this happened?

I did see the screenshot where they were using a 1 sat/byte fee, and that transaction was confirmed. However, this next transaction was broadcast 2.5 days ago and is still unconfirmed. If it gets replaced by another transaction then we'll know you are on to something.

[AmoreJaz]

here is a quick one.... following it shows a huge chain effect of the same thing



https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1GY6yXKstDafvo7hF5XW1WTeLA6x3ASzcT
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1A5FjoJzYpY674bZtENAg4Sy5ae7MGrEMr
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1NZKHPQqQn7NCgTE9tdHGQ4sH5fsPFBsDN
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1SZehXphFAQ4wfJxujBT1zuLQznJhXDEJ


at the moment it wont get confirmed or get dropped from the blockchain... i am keeping it alive and blocking all the chain effect keeping it in the mempool so they will eventually  run out of steam
if everyone would do this.... eventually they would have to start refunding the empty walletid in hopes for confirmation so they could find some available funds.

with the fact that "TS"...imho =TRUE SHIT
 
they have started from March 24 2019 dropping their withdrawal fee to     0.25 sat/WU - 1 sat/B
 this is creating a huge gain in the mempool of unconfirmed transactions
 plus they are double spending the unconfirmed transactions so while everyone waits, they will be sitting and regaining the funds as the transactions never get confirmed and dropped by the network
 all unconfirmed and dropped transactions return the amounts back to the original holder.... TS
but ....
alas....
 there is a way to screw them in part.....
by retransmitting the transaction that is unconfirmed
 it will not let the transaction die and will hold accountable the originating senders.
to do this there are many transaction accelerators for free.
a few of them even have issues simply because the fee is way too low but a few of the free accelerators will send and retransmit the trxid and keep alive in mempool
so if everyone would start doing this like 2 times a day they would eventually run out of available cash and chock on their own behalf

https://bitaccelerate.com/      Works GREAT

https://freebtcaccelerator.com/#tools       works

https://pool.viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator/      has issues at times with low fee

i would love to see them chock on their own tainted practices

This is interesting... can you give us some transactions or addresses where this happened?

I did see the screenshot where they were using a 1 sat/byte fee, and that transaction was confirmed. However, this next transaction was broadcast 2.5 days ago and is still unconfirmed. If it gets replaced by another transaction then we'll know you are on to something.

[madfox11]

Traidsatoshi trolls continue to spam their own topic to hide all reasonable posts and complaints:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1691388.500

It is enough to read reviews about this exchange: Tradesatoshi have the worst possible rating in terms of cryptocurrency asset security.

[DiHunter]

Traidsatoshi trolls continue to spam their own topic to hide all reasonable posts and complaints:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1691388.500

It is enough to read reviews about this exchange: Tradesatoshi have the worst possible rating in terms of cryptocurrency asset security.

Yes, this is true. They are getting more and more "amazing" reviews.
So many, that Tradesatoshi is afraid that all this scam is coming out, so the moderators ask users not to publish any responses of support and even the numbers of tickets in public places, like discord.


They don't want us to have that kind of evidence.

[xtraelv]

Traidsatoshi trolls continue to spam their own topic to hide all reasonable posts and complaints:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1691388.500

It is enough to read reviews about this exchange: Tradesatoshi have the worst possible rating in terms of cryptocurrency asset security.

Yes, this is true. They are getting more and more "amazing" reviews.
So many, that Tradesatoshi is afraid that all this scam is coming out, so the moderators ask users not to publish any responses of support and even the numbers of tickets in public places, like discord.

It is extremely bad practice to disclose personal information on public places like discord.

It is very easy for a scammer to imitate admin and mod usernames .

Publishing your details in a public place allows scammers and phishers to target users.

For instance:

If you publish your ticket number and details - it can be used on the site to potentially "recover" an account.

A scammer can also use the details they read elsewhere to imitate exchange staff.

For this reason most exchanges will only deal with support tickets submitted through their site. It is an industry wide practice.

[CryptoCracker]

Read this thread too


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1691388.540

TRADESATOSHI is a total scam

[DiHunter]

Traidsatoshi trolls continue to spam their own topic to hide all reasonable posts and complaints:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1691388.500

It is enough to read reviews about this exchange: Tradesatoshi have the worst possible rating in terms of cryptocurrency asset security.

Yes, this is true. They are getting more and more "amazing" reviews.
So many, that Tradesatoshi is afraid that all this scam is coming out, so the moderators ask users not to publish any responses of support and even the numbers of tickets in public places, like discord.

It is extremely bad practice to disclose personal information on public places like discord.
It is very easy for a scammer to imitate admin and mod usernames .
Publishing your details in a public place allows scammers and phishers to target users.
For instance:
If you publish your ticket number and details - it can be used on the site to potentially "recover" an account.
A scammer can also use the details they read elsewhere to imitate exchange staff.
For this reason most exchanges will only deal with support tickets submitted through their site. It is an industry wide practice.

Thank you for the response, but these are all obvious general statements. And they do not take into account the situation.

None of the users posted important personal data there, except for some very slippery support responses.
After that the moderators became very concerned about the safety of personal information.

Above there are two support responses, and it's totally clear, that you won't be able to recover any of mentioned accounts, using only them.

And this is why users are forced to seek help in discord/bitcointalk/etc.:

[xtraelv]

None of the users posted important personal data there, except for some very slippery support responses.
After that the moderators became very concerned about the safety of personal information.

Above there are two support responses, and it's totally clear, that you won't be able to recover any of mentioned accounts, using only them.

How do you know that they didn't delete the info that they were referring to ?

I haven't traded on Tradesatoshi for more than a year but when I had a look at the conversation on discord that the screenshot is from it looked like some of the conversation had been deleted.

[nutildah]

The main problems with this exchange have to do with the fact that they are not accountable to anybody for anything. They aren't a registered business, they don't have any sort of licensing, and nobody knows where the owners or operators are located.

They started demanding KYC from all users after their company was dissolved, which is beyond weird. If they're not a real company, why do they need KYC? They aren't reporting to any government, they're not paying taxes; they're just a rogue operation who depend on either the loyalty of their user base (rapidly dissipating) or the naivete of new users to keep them going.

TradeSatoshi is down to $46k in trading volume per 24 hours; at a 0.1% fee this means they are only making $46 per day on trading fees. As huge withdrawal fees wasn't working in their favor, I believe they had to resort to the sudden KYC-for-everybody manuver as means to generate additional revenue. Plus, as I mentioned before, reputable exchanges don't use this as an excuse to with-hold customer funds and block them out of their accounts, even if it says they could according to their terms and conditions.

Its just bad business all the way around and potential users need to be warned about their practices.

[DiHunter]

How do you know that they didn't delete the info that they were referring to ?
I haven't traded on Tradesatoshi for more than a year but when I had a look at the conversation on discord that the screenshot is from it looked like some of the conversation had been deleted.
...

No doubts, they can delete everything they want: even user's complaints - i saw this in real, but this was too fast to make a screenshot.
Just one example from one coin-community:


You can consider it only a concern for the safety of information, while i can see their reluctance to make public some of the support responses - no problems. Both can be true to some extent. This is a secondary issue and i'm not going to turn it into the flame anymore.

While users can publish such evidences of fraudulent activity, it's ok:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5118992.msg50333915#msg50333915
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5118992.msg50347951#msg50347951

This is interesting... can you give us some transactions or addresses where this happened?
I did see the screenshot where they were using a 1 sat/byte fee, and that transaction was confirmed.

Are you still wondering, how this transaction was confirmed? I have an answer for you: user have simply spent his own money to confirm it.

So this is how Tradesatoshi new "low withdrawal fees" are working. Amazing, isn't it?


Thanks, nutildah. I think this deserves to be written in bold. I'll also add this to the first message in the topic:

The main problems with this exchange have to do with the fact that they are not accountable to anybody for anything. They aren't a registered business, they don't have any sort of licensing, and nobody knows where the owners or operators are located.

They started demanding KYC from all users after their company was dissolved, which is beyond weird. If they're not a real company, why do they need KYC? They aren't reporting to any government, they're not paying taxes; they're just a rogue operation who depend on either the loyalty of their user base (rapidly dissipating) or the naivete of new users to keep them going.

TradeSatoshi is down to $46k in trading volume per 24 hours; at a 0.1% fee this means they are only making $46 per day on trading fees. As huge withdrawal fees wasn't working in their favor, I believe they had to resort to the sudden KYC-for-everybody manuver as means to generate additional revenue. Plus, as I mentioned before, reputable exchanges don't use this as an excuse to with-hold customer funds and block them out of their accounts, even if it says they could according to their terms and conditions.

Its just bad business all the way around and potential users need to be warned about their practices.

[xtraelv]

The main problems with this exchange have to do with the fact that they are not accountable to anybody for anything. They aren't a registered business, they don't have any sort of licensing, and nobody knows where the owners or operators are located.

They started demanding KYC from all users after their company was dissolved, which is beyond weird. If they're not a real company, why do they need KYC? They aren't reporting to any government, they're not paying taxes; they're just a rogue operation who depend on either the loyalty of their user base (rapidly dissipating) or the naivete of new users to keep them going.

TradeSatoshi is down to $46k in trading volume per 24 hours; at a 0.1% fee this means they are only making $46 per day on trading fees. As huge withdrawal fees wasn't working in their favor, I believe they had to resort to the sudden KYC-for-everybody manuver as means to generate additional revenue. Plus, as I mentioned before, reputable exchanges don't use this as an excuse to with-hold customer funds and block them out of their accounts, even if it says they could according to their terms and conditions.

Its just bad business all the way around and potential users need to be warned about their practices.

They are actually legally registered in Hong Kong. I posted a search I had done earlier in the thread after someone posted that they were struck off on the UK register.

They were already registered in HK before they were struck off. So it appears to be a deliberate move to a new jurisdiction.

Tradesatoshi Ltd is incorporated in Hong Kong according to its terms:



https://tradesatoshi.com/Home/Terms

It is currently a registered company in Hong Kong according to the register.



https://www.icris.cr.gov.hk/csci/

I'm not sure where it was incorporated prior to this. It is likely that it moved its operation to Hong Kong prior to its de-registration in the UK.

Coinmarketcap shows a turnover of  $91k
https://coinmarketcap.com/exchanges/trade-satoshi/

With a buy 0.1% and sell 0.1% fee that would make $182 daily in fees
But they also charge for listing coins, tipping slots and airdrops.

[DiHunter]

They are actually legally registered in Hong Kong. I posted a search I had done earlier in the thread after someone posted that they were struck off on the UK register.
They were already registered in HK before they were struck off. So it appears to be a deliberate move to a new jurisdiction.
I'm not sure where it was incorporated prior to this. It is likely that it moved its operation to Hong Kong prior to its de-registration in the UK.
Coinmarketcap shows a turnover of  $91k
https://coinmarketcap.com/exchanges/trade-satoshi/
With a buy 0.1% and sell 0.1% fee that would make $182 daily in fees
But they also charge for listing coins, tipping slots and airdrops.

Earlier we saw the statement from you that the affected users most likely committed a crime, having specified inaccurate data in a profile. And that gives the right to the exchange to freeze their funds under the pretext of mandatory KYC-check.
The absence of any procedural actions on the part of the exchange to legalize its decision to freeze users' funds and make a statement about the criminal actions of the user legitimate, apparently regarded as the norm: let second-rate exchanges, like Binance, take care of providing official documents on the beginning of the investigation, without which they can freeze the funds for no more than 3 days. Tradesatoshi is in another league.
I have mentioned all this before:

Legally it could be argued that a user using a fake name is fraudulently using the platform contrary to their terms and conditions.  It is good that Poloniex recognized it as an issue and was sensible with the solution they offered.  However - others may go down a different path and report it to the authorities in the jurisdiction that they are in.
Allowing a user to change their name on the platform potentially could cause liability for the platform if it is done by a hacker that then drains the funds of a user. Phishing was less of an issue years ago. Currently phishing and compromised user accounts are a huge threat.

The reality is that this situation would not have occurred if the user had not lied about their personal details. It is the user that committed the legal wrong .

How to find out whether the user's data are right or wrong? Is the wish to find it out by starting a KYC-check is enough ground to make a decision that funds are illegal and to withhold the funds?

How do you think, what procedural steps have been taken by the exchange to have a reason to call each particular case "criminal" and to block users funds?

By your logic, can Tradesatoshi consider itself both investigation authority and judicial authority? They started mandatory KYC-checks without reasons and blocked users funds without any evidence for uncertain time, simply because they themselves started the KYC-checks. Seems, they don't need any of those authorities to decide what is legal and what is not.

For example, Binance blocks accounts suspected of committing a crime for 3 days. In the absence of official documents on the beginning of the investigation after these 3 days, the blocking is removed.
By the way, many exchanges do not request user data at all until verification is required - only login and password. Binance, which is mentioned above, is one of them. Because there is no sense to ask for such data until KYC.

In reality, as it turned out, the exchange plans to apply KYC to all users and in case of refusal to cooperate all their funds will be frozen. And the correctness of the data in profile does not affect this decision.

I was also robbed of almost 100,000 doge  this was the majority of my account and the majority of my coins stored on exchange.
I have the correct info but do not wish to comply with KYC, does this mean i broke an agreement or don't deserve to withdrawal my coins? their move was a cash grab. plain and simple

In addition to such a blatantly illegal freezing of users ' funds, the exchange is actively engaged in delisting coins on terms that clearly put users at a disadvantage and allow the exchange to raise extra money from them, which is clearly shown here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5118992.msg50347951#msg50347951

You are making more and more general statements, which have no relationship  or very distant  to the situation. The facts show that Tradesatoshi is experiencing financial difficulties due to the lack of professionalism of its team and solves them by scamming its own users. Should  this "incredible" volume of the exchange, which you mentioned and which is allowing it to take 175th place out of ~200 on the CMC, be regarded as a call to all affected users to understand and forgive, as Tradesatoshi was able to deploy a negative trend and no longer needs to apply fraudulent technics to its users in order to get some money? Are trying to save appearances?

[xtraelv]

Earlier we saw the statement from you that the affected users most likely committed a crime, having specified inaccurate data in a profile. And that gives the right to the exchange to freeze their funds under the pretext of mandatory KYC-check.
The absence of any procedural actions on the part of the exchange to legalize its decision to freeze users' funds and make a statement about the criminal actions of the user legitimate, apparently regarded as the norm: let second-rate exchanges, like Binance, take care of providing official documents on the beginning of the investigation, without which they can freeze the funds for no more than 3 days. Tradesatoshi is in another league.

Binance actually has a troubling ownership. It's legal status (or lack of), location of offices in unknown and volume traded potentially (centralized volume) could result in another QuadrigaCX or MTGox style disaster of Mt Gox proportion.

https://www.theblockcrypto.com/2018/11/16/fast-footwork-binance-has-danced-around-regulations-and-even-moved-itself-to-run-its-exchange-the-way-it-wants/

Tradesatoshi is only small and insignificant in size. Some of the coins they list are only listed on their exchange. So while it may be inconvenient for some users it wouldn't result in a big market impact.

Their size also make it unlikely that they could afford to take on a a regulatory body if they determined that they did not meet their AML obligations.

In 2017 Bittrex introduced mandatory KYC resulting in the freezing of many accounts. Some still remain frozen due to being located in embargoed countries.

How to find out whether the user's data are right or wrong? Is the wish to find it out by starting a KYC-check is enough ground to make a decision that funds are illegal and to withhold the funds?

How do you think, what procedural steps have been taken by the exchange to have a reason to call each particular case "criminal" and to block users funds?

By your logic, can Tradesatoshi consider itself both investigation authority and judicial authority? They started mandatory KYC-checks without reasons and blocked users funds without any evidence for uncertain time, simply because they themselves started the KYC-checks. Seems, they don't need any of those authorities to decide what is legal and what is not.

Usually with financial institutions if false information is provided the authorities have to be notified. The authorities determine what happens to the funds.

I don't know whether this happens or whether Tradesatoshi follows a legal path. What does stand out is what appears to be illegal activity by the examples that were mentioned in this thread.

For example, Binance blocks accounts suspected of committing a crime for 3 days. In the absence of official documents on the beginning of the investigation after these 3 days, the blocking is removed.
By the way, many exchanges do not request user data at all until verification is required - only login and password. Binance, which is mentioned above, is one of them. Because there is no sense to ask for such data until KYC.

<snip>

Like I said earlier. Binance has troubling ownership and jurisdiction. While I appreciate that they appear to have good systems, good customer service and good code - there appears to be no legislative oversight. Sometimes things that appear to be perfect are a Bernie Madoff style ponzie.

Bitfinex / US Tether and Binance both have the ability to cause massive damage to crypto.
https://www.coindesk.com/fake-volume-on-crypto-exchanges-isnt-the-half-of-it

You are making more and more general statements, which have no relationship  or very distant  to the situation.
<snip>

My reply was directed at what nutildah had just said and I included his quote in my reply.

It covered point by point what he had said.  You may not like what I say but time will prove whether it was correct or not.

Exchanges are centralized. Centralized exchanges working in legitimate jurisdictions require KYC (usually if a value threshold is met) . If an exchange doesn't require KYC or does not enforce AML they will be short-lived or in a dubious jurisdiction.

Real decentralized exchanges don't exist yet. They need some serious thought and technology. Until real DEXs exist the SEC and it's international counterparts will litigate and scare exchanges into invoking KYC and AML.

I don't agree that enforcing KYC and AML that is forced onto exchanges by various Govenments amounts to "being a scam".

A money launderer, hacker, someone using false identity or someone from an embargoed country rarely admits that they are such.

Anyone is such category is specifically warned not to use their services in the TOS that I saw - including the right to ask for more information and verification. How do you propose that an exchange ensures that such users don't use their services and don't just set up another fake account if there is no consequence ?

[DiHunter]

Binance actually has a troubling ownership. It's legal status (or lack of), location of offices in unknown and volume traded potentially (centralized volume) could result in another QuadrigaCX or MTGox style disaster of Mt Gox proportion.
https://www.theblockcrypto.com/2018/11/16/fast-footwork-binance-has-danced-around-regulations-and-even-moved-itself-to-run-its-exchange-the-way-it-wants/
Tradesatoshi is only small and insignificant in size. Some of the coins they list are only listed on their exchange. So while it may be inconvenient for some users it wouldn't result in a big market impact.
Their size also make it unlikely that they could afford to take on a a regulatory body if they determined that they did not meet their AML obligations.
In 2017 Bittrex introduced mandatory KYC resulting in the freezing of many accounts. Some still remain frozen due to being located in embargoed countries.

An attempt to present Binance as unreliable exchange through the citation of controversial media content looks very unconvincing. The shift of emphasis from the fact that a respectable exchange, on the example of Binance, in a case of blocking users' funds follow a transparent legal and reasonable procedure, to an irrelevant controversial statement about the danger of this exchange for the market, is not only unconvincing, but also intellectually dishonest.

Reasonings that Tradesatoshi, in contrast to Binance, have no strong impact on the market, so it can only affect and, in a case of scam-actions, harm a small group of its users, I'll just leave to your conscience.
I think there is some difference between the 0.1% accounts for Bittrex, part of which remained blocked due to the embargo, and total KYC-checking of accounts with a lifetime lock in case of refusal to cooperate for Tradesatoshi. Moreover, as I said, it is not the respectability of the exchange that determines the quality and legitimacy of the procedures it follows in relation to its users, but vice versa.

How to find out whether the user's data are right or wrong? Is the wish to find it out by starting a KYC-check is enough ground to make a decision that funds are illegal and to withhold the funds?

How do you think, what procedural steps have been taken by the exchange to have a reason to call each particular case "criminal" and to block users funds?

By your logic, can Tradesatoshi consider itself both investigation authority and judicial authority? They started mandatory KYC-checks without reasons and blocked users funds without any evidence for uncertain time, simply because they themselves started the KYC-checks. Seems, they don't need any of those authorities to decide what is legal and what is not.

Usually with financial institutions if false information is provided the authorities have to be notified. The authorities determine what happens to the funds.

I don't know whether this happens or whether Tradesatoshi follows a legal path. What does stand out is what appears to be illegal activity by the examples that were mentioned in this thread.

That is, you don't know whether Tradesatoshi is following legal procedure when it is blocking users or not. But without any evidence, in advance, without any KYC-verification, you're ready to accuse users of committing a crime and illegal activities. Please, do not claim that any comments made in discord, and even after the check had started, can serve as proof of someone's guilt.
Moreover, we know perfectly well that all affected users have passed the verification of the first level at the exchange. So, the exchange actually confirmed that these users can legally trade and meet the requirements of the exchange. Until the contrary is proved, the exchange has no right to hold the user's previously deposited funds. Exchange can block an account until the user passes the check - no problems. But to hold the funds, like Tradesatoshi does, for uncertain period without any grounds and without committing legal procedures - the official investigation, for example - is illegal.

For example, Binance blocks accounts suspected of committing a crime for 3 days. In the absence of official documents on the beginning of the investigation after these 3 days, the blocking is removed.
By the way, many exchanges do not request user data at all until verification is required - only login and password. Binance, which is mentioned above, is one of them. Because there is no sense to ask for such data until KYC.

Like I said earlier. Binance has troubling ownership and jurisdiction. While I appreciate that they appear to have good systems, good customer service and good code - there appears to be no legislative oversight. Sometimes things that appear to be perfect are a Bernie Madoff style ponzie.
Bitfinex / US Tether and Binance both have the ability to cause massive damage to crypto.
https://www.coindesk.com/fake-volume-on-crypto-exchanges-isnt-the-half-of-it

As I said, these are just controversial statements, a shift of emphasis, and, like argumentum ad hominem, they are irrelevant.

You are making more and more general statements, which have no relationship  or very distant  to the situation.

My reply was directed at what nutildah had just said and I included his quote in my reply.

It covered point by point what he had said.  You may not like what I say but time will prove whether it was correct or not.

Your answer only contained a set of statements, so I tried to clarify their meaning in the context of the question under discussion.

I don't agree that enforcing KYC and AML that is forced onto exchanges by various Govenments amounts to "being a scam".
...

There was no such statement here.
Tradesatoshi's attempt to implement KYC:
- was made without any notifications;
- will be applied to all users regardless of the status of information in their profile, which clearly indicates the absence of any other serious reasons for the checking, except the desire of the exchange - this was also confirmed by the exchange staff in support responses;
- the check started with blocking and refusal to return users funds, which were previously recognized by the exchange as legal; there is no a singel evidence that these funds are illegal, so it is clear that this blocking is intended to make users hostages of the situation.
In addition, other clearly fraudulent practices are used by Tradesatoshi: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5118992.msg50347951#msg50347951
That's what I call a scam.

I understood your point and I'm not trying to change your mind - in other case this topic will turn into the flame. Users have enough facts outlined here to make their own decision.

[xtraelv]

An attempt to present Binance as unreliable exchange through the citation of controversial media content looks very unconvincing. The shift of emphasis from the fact that a respectable exchange, on the example of Binance, in a case of blocking users' funds follow a transparent legal and reasonable procedure, to an irrelevant controversial statement about the danger of this exchange for the market, is not only unconvincing, but also intellectually dishonest.

You used method Binance uses in dealing with accounts as the "model" they should follow. Binance are not following any legal process. Binance avoids being regulated and creates the processes themselves.

For example, Binance blocks accounts suspected of committing a crime for 3 days. In the absence of official documents on the beginning of the investigation after these 3 days, the blocking is removed.

Lets just archive this and revisit my comments in 2 years time and see what has developed and see if Binance is still the poster child you claim it to be.

I understood your point and I'm not trying to change your mind - in other case this topic will turn into the flame. Users have enough facts outlined here to make their own decision.

It is good that users are aware that centralized exchanges can block their funds at whim. That is the potential issue with all centralized exchanges.

The current "decentralized exchanges" are far from "decentralized".

Until real decentralized exchanges exist that cannot be taken down by Governments, have a handful of developers that control it or have legal entities that can be sued the reality of KYC and AML is a risk and seizure of funds is a risk.

Never leave funds on an exchange longer than you have to. If you don't control the keys - you don't control the funds.

In addition, other clearly fraudulent practices are used by Tradesatoshi: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5118992.msg50347951#msg50347951

You mention both BTCP and COLX in that post.

BTCP was 51% attacked and COLX appears to have had a fake stake attack.

I agree that raising the withdrawal fee just before delisting looks suspect. They probably lost funds on both of them. Exchanges are the usual targets because it is easy to convert to other crypto before the new chain is broadcast.

How much was used to broadcast the transaction on th blockchain ?

It is probably the reason they have gone to mandatory KYC. Attackers use unverified accounts to withdraw the crypto stolen during such an attack.


EDIT: BTCP also has a massive exploit.

One line of code is missing which allows the fork mine to be exploited due to the nodes not properly verifying the falsified fork blocks. […] The missing line of code is as follows: || tx.vout.size() > 1. We determined this after the CoinMetrics report was released.

[DiHunter]

You used method Binance uses in dealing with accounts as the "model" they should follow. Binance are not following any legal process. Binance avoids being regulated and creates the processes themselves.
Lets just archive this and revisit my comments in 2 years time and see what has developed and see if Binance is still the poster child you claim it to be.

This example was used just to show how a respactable exchange can  follow a transparent legal procedure in case of blocking users' funds.

This is not what this topic was created for. I'm posting all this to let users withdraw their funds prior blocking and not to end up hostages of the situation. But to decide freely whether they want to pass a KYC-check or not!
Along the way, I was glad to reveal some more scam-technics of this exchange.

Never leave funds on an exchange longer than you have to. If you don't control the keys - you don't control the funds.

It's a good point. But it's an ideal behavior, which you probably won't be able to stick to all the time. But we can always keep it in mind.

In addition, other clearly fraudulent practices are used by Tradesatoshi: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5118992.msg50347951#msg50347951

You mention both BTCP and COLX in that post.

BTCP was 51% attacked and COLX appears to have had a fake stake attack.

I agree that raising the withdrawal fee just before delisting looks suspect. They probably lost funds on both of them. Exchanges are the usual targets because it is easy to convert to other crypto before the new chain is broadcast.

How much was used to broadcast the transaction on th blockchain ?

It is probably the reason they have gone to mandatory KYC. Attackers use unverified accounts to withdraw the crypto stolen during such an attack.

It's an old story with this attack. I have no info, has Tradesatoshi lost something or not. Even if they had losses, they have no right to compensate them by robbing their own users. It only shows once more that they are ready to improve their financial situation at the expense of their users, not hesitating in choosing the means.
I doubt KYC will stop a professional hacker. Documents for KYC are traded on the black market. Professional staff and constant monitoring of the situation in the cryptosphere is much more useful. This is all idle speculation, offcourse.
As I said, and I repeat, KYC is not a problem, the issue is how the exchange implements it.

Have checked another few delisted coins, many have similar trend:









If someone is wondering, what all these pics are about, feel free to read this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5118992.msg50347951#msg50347951

[JollyGood]

Oh, how do you like the looks of this, 3 of the most vocal accounts defending Trade Satoshi all "woke up" recently to ridicule people who got locked out of their exchange. They also all reply to comments by typing above the quoted text, which as I mentioned early, almost nobody does... What a weird coincidence:







I'm almost certain they are all operated by the trade-sa-to-shi account.

Thank you for pointing this out with screenshots.

Plenty of scammers have certain patterns in common.

Some use newly woken accounts (which are purchased to be used as sock-puppet accounts) are used for posting propaganda to back-up the scammers. They are used because those with some merit, status and age might give a sense of respectability to their views in the threads.

Usually most sock-puppet accounts are posting so much propaganda that they give themselves away.