Exchanges are rebelling against constant hard forks

[X-ray]

exchange could just ignore hardfork if they feel burdened by always listing every hardfork existed anyways. for example, ethereum is not dead after hardfork happening and most of the exchange that didn't list the hardfork of ethereum are fine with it and to be honest coinfloor decision is just overly exaggerate the problem involving hardfork.

[DooMAD]

They are just lazy. 

coinfloor decision is just overly exaggerate the problem involving hardfork.

Any how many exchanges have you both run?  If it's zero, then let's assume you aren't qualified to make such sweeping assertions and that Coinfloor are probably in a better position to judge the demands on their business than you are.  Almost every other post in this topic highlights the fact that this is a small exchange, which means they may employ only a small number of people.  They may not be equipped to handle frequent changes in multiple coins.  Whatever the case may be, it's ultimately up to them how they choose to run their company.

[hunterWood]

One exchange is not going to be enough. I understand if it's a meaningless fork, but to delist Ethereum?

[Broly46]

Nobody know what the ❤️❤️❤️❤️ Is coinflood, prolly some foolish exchange that self proclaim themselves the biggest in the universe, btw thank for the laugh so we can avoid this dodgy exchange knowing they can simply bend the rules to fulfil their own agenda.

[audaciousbeing]

Its a statement and action that is expected to happen eventually because the developers have turned hardfork to a joke. They just prefer to create a coin from thin hair and ready to start expecting the owners of exchange sites to use their liquidity to support such coin. This is even a welcome development because the statement did not go after the small coins but the big ones which shows that they meant business. However, I think they should focus on the forked versions of coins and not the coin itself.

[alyssa85]

It would be bad if all altcoins were delisted, but it would be better if only a few altcoins which according to them have no power to develop. As far as we know, there have been many new altcoins that have appeared in recent years, and on average altcoins become shitcoins, this should be delisted and let potential coins continue to be updated.

I too wish the exchanges just concentrated on a few altcoins.

What ruined the altcoin space was the exchanges listing shitcoins because they were paid to. Once that happened, all sorts of dross got onto the exchanges, most of it designed for one pump and dump. The amount of money investors have lost on these is huge.

[1Referee]

What ruined the altcoin space was the exchanges listing shitcoins because they were paid to. Once that happened, all sorts of dross got onto the exchanges, most of it designed for one pump and dump. The amount of money investors have lost on these is huge.

Markets are very flexible. They adapt to the need of the people and we have seen that happen within crypto as well. I don't like it either, but it's something we have to accept and move on. It's pointless to blame exchanges for everything because they do what they are supposed to do, offer what people want and make money in the process.

People might not want to admit it, but altcoins are a huge demand factor for Bitcoin. Another thing is that most altcoiners eventually turn into Bitcoiners. Most of the people that I know (including myself) started out as an altcoiner, then got fucked over many times and realized that Bitcoin is the only coin of value. It all helps Bitcoin, not harm Bitcoin.

Ask what the end goal is of people trading altcoins, most of them will say that they want to grow their satoshi stack.

[beerlover]

That's just coinfloor and not "exchangeS" because that is just one place and not all of them. Yes, this could lead to some sort of movement where exchanges could be doing these kinds of delist thing and it could lead to developers not doing hard forks anymore. Some of them are really useless, it doesn't really make sense to make some of these changes if you ask me.

Definitely, ethereum one looks a bit useful and it does make a good change but there are bitcoin hard forks that are useless for example which means you can't just delist bitcoin. All in all I support delisting hard forks but not the main coins itself.

[DooMAD]

What ruined the altcoin space was the exchanges listing shitcoins because they were paid to. Once that happened, all sorts of dross got onto the exchanges, most of it designed for one pump and dump. The amount of money investors have lost on these is huge.

To be fair, though, the "investors" aren't entirely blameless in this regard either.  So many amateur speculators would basically demand a particular shitcoin was listed on whatever exchange they used because they wanted to be the ones doing the pumping and dumping.  If it bit them in the arse, then they mostly only have themselves to hold to account for that.

[smyslov]

That's why I think coins that don't change much (bitcoin, doge) will end up being the winners. People just want something that works smoothly and that you don't need to do a lot of work to maintain, so that they can focus on the eco-system around the coin.

You're definitely right, these forks comes from people who pretended to fix Bitcoin issues, when there are none and they comes from Nakamoto wannabees, as long as there are new Nakamoto coming expect new forks and new projects associated with Bitcoin, in the end Bitcoin will rule.

[imstillthebest]

that could be the reason of thier de listing  .  on other platforms , coins that currently undergo on fork like eth were still unavailable for use  . it sucks because its been a long time since i can use my eth  .

not just eth but other coins including on the op are the one's that need to do fork the most  . good thing that we still have our own btc which is free from these hassels     . why cant just people see this matter and only support btc and other less hassel coins   ? 

[tsaroz]

Well they are here because of the crypto. And whether be it a scheduled update or a forked coins, it's the duty of Exchages to provide the best service to the users.
One of the reasons why binance dominated every other exchange at that time was due to the treatment of the user from those exchanges. Binance put the users first.
And it's users and user satisfaction that brings profit to the exchange.

[enhu]

Not that its going to be my problem though, I don't think one exchange will really be making the rest of the exchanges delist the altcoins. If it was binance who announced they are delist all altcoins, many exchange will likely to follow the action.

They could just pause the deposit and withdrawal of the coins if they are that lazy to update but delisting is going to be such a drastic. But then anyway I don't have an account in coinfloor. The title of the thread should be revised.

[SaShiRaJaVu]

That's just coinfloor and not "exchangeS" because that is just one place and not all of them.

The heading was misleading, i was looking at the thread to see what all exchanges are planning to rebel against constant fork and it was just one exchange who cannot handle all these forks because they doubt that it might cause some issues with their smooth running and it is not even a huge exchange with huge volumes and i am expecting some exchanges to disable ETH when the upgrade takes place and whether they will be implemented all these changes at one go is still doubtful as i have read somewhere that they are planning to upgrade in stages.

[Mometaskers]

As someone who can't be bothered with technical aspects (I don't even run a node), I mostly see these forks as just a money grab. Oh, your crypto forked, now you have the same amount of two different coins...

Investors probably don't mind suddenly getting a bit more money but I can see why exchanges are getting tired of possible upcoming forks, it costs money to prepare to accept new coins. Our local exchange didn't even started supporting BCH until late last year.

You nailed it - that's what they are, a money grab for both the investors and developers (who have a lot of coins).

But they are destroying the eco-system being built around cryptocurrency by introducing a lot of expensive maintenance for all the support companies.

Well if exchanges get to the point as removing support for some of these forked cryptos then that makes it somewhat easier for the remaining crypto. Less competition for funds. I definitely would like any money being put into BCH into BTC instead to drive up the prices.

[metalglowd]

That's why I think coins that don't change much (bitcoin, doge) will end up being the winners.

Well, sometimes changes are needed (and of course, this is debatable). I think a more careful approach for this fork is needed overall. Instead of planning one or two changes every quarter, they should do 10 upgrades at once while maintaining the compatibility with the previous version.

Pretty sure this is annoying af for small exchanges, so hopefully, this fork thing goes in a better way.

Hardfork and whatever events, I think things like this have no effect anymore, even on the coin itself. So it seems there is no hope of changing hardfork if in essence it only provides additional features. Did they even learn about "log activities" ?
Crypto should be flexible, right ?

[atjiat]

Its a statement and action that is expected to happen eventually because the developers have turned hardfork to a joke. They just prefer to create a coin from thin hair and ready to start expecting the owners of exchange sites to use their liquidity to support such coin. This is even a welcome development because the statement did not go after the small coins but the big ones which shows that they meant business. However, I think they should focus on the forked versions of coins and not the coin itself.

You are 100% correct and the point is that the administration of the cryptocurrency exchange themselves makes their choice regarding trading pairs and all cryptocurrencies that are listed on their exchange.  Based on this, I can not understand how exchanges can be indignant about a hard fork.  Of course, the benefits and benefits of hard fork should be discussed in a separate Topic, but I don’t see any problems for exchangers, since it is the trading exchange that dictates the rules.

[Febo]

Any how many exchanges have you both run?  If it's zero, then let's assume you aren't qualified to make such sweeping assertions and that Coinfloor are probably in a better position to judge the demands on their business than you are.  Almost every other post in this topic highlights the fact that this is a small exchange, which means they may employ only a small number of people.  They may not be equipped to handle frequent changes in multiple coins.  Whatever the case may be, it's ultimately up to them how they choose to run their company.

Yup. And soon will employ even less since the way they are doing business is leading to lose even customers and revenue they have.  This is big problem of crypto startups. Owners since early adopters become way to rich because of simply holding bitcoin, to have will to still doing business seriously.  

[jhontwis]

Exchange must respond to new developments. Those who are older than 3 years on the market knows. How Poloniex lost its popularity. How popular Bittrex became. Then Bittrex was thrown into the back of how to market. Binance follows every current development. They have to.

[BitHodler]

How Poloniex lost its popularity. How popular Bittrex became. Then Bittrex was thrown into the back of how to market.

Poloniex wanted to become a KYC compliant exchange too aggressively and paid the price for it, then they also made a lot of accounts unusable without notice. If KYC wasn't a thing Poloniex would still be a top exchange.

Bittrex is indeed similar, but it seems less affected since it generates more volume than Poloniex and has more Bitcoin in their reserves, which basically means that they made fewer mistakes than Poloniex, which people appreciate.