|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order to achieve higher forum ranks, you need both activity points and merit points.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
mayax
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1004
|
 |
January 05, 2015, 04:27:08 PM |
|
it is NOT Bitstamp reserve. it's the CLIENT's money. |
|
|
|
|
mike81
Member
Offline
Activity: 62
Merit: 10
|
|
January 05, 2015, 04:30:39 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
justforbtc
|
|
January 05, 2015, 04:34:32 PM |
|
it is NOT Bitstamp reserve. it's the CLIENT's money. My mistake, so Bitstamp lost about 10% of client's BTC. |
|
|
|
|
|
justforbtc
|
|
January 05, 2015, 04:35:14 PM |
|
Just don't care about it as there is only very small balance. |
|
|
|
|
mayax
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1004
|
|
January 05, 2015, 04:39:01 PM |
|
how did you calculate this "small" balance? it's around of 5 MIL USD. How much does have Bitstamp? 50 MIL? Let's get real.  Even so, Bitstamp MUST have these money in bank, right? I think most of these money came from bank deposits. |
|
|
|
|
|
justforbtc
|
|
January 05, 2015, 04:42:28 PM |
|
how did you calculate this "small" balance? it's around of 5 MIL USD. How much does have Bitstamp? 50 MIL? Let's get real. Even so, Bitstamp MUST have these money in bank, right? I think most of these money came from bank deposits. I meant the balance in https://blockchain.info/address/1Drt3c8pSdrkyjuBiwVcSSixZwQtMZ3Tew is very small and we don't need to care about it. |
|
|
|
|
|
fran2k
|
|
January 05, 2015, 04:48:08 PM |
|
lololol
Here we go again...another service bites the dust...mt gox part 2379248723897234879234. This shit will never end until it takes bitcoin down with it. Unbelievable.
Im thinking they currently just have a technical issue, im not using them or have any money in there but its doesnt look like a gox situation. The fact of the matter is...regardless how 'bad' this situation really is...it shows that bitcoin money is safe nowhere. Exchanges can basically take your money and run at any instant and claim they were hacked...with no repurcussions or explicit proof. If that isn't enough to scare away any potential future adopters, I don't know what is. Having lost various amounts at cryptorush and coinex...hearing stories like this don't even phase me...it's just another broken record that you basically expect. Addtionally...anyone ever notice how these exchanges just so happen to conveniently go bust right when bitcoin is experiencing huge price volatility (either good or bad). It's like the scammers don't even really care about hiding their motives anymore, because they know they can get away scotch free. Most businesses who stole money are gone to have or are already having legal charges. Is not so easy. |
|
|
|
|
|
fran2k
|
|
January 05, 2015, 04:54:43 PM |
|
Very interesting address. Specially the very high fees payed for ultra fast confirmations. Could just they made proof of reservers, like signing the twit with some cold storage addresses ? |
|
|
|
|
mayax
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1004
|
|
January 05, 2015, 04:56:08 PM |
|
ask the money back from Bitstamp.
Almost all their BTC should be backed by real money (USD or EURO). these money are into their bank account.
they "lose" the BTC but the real money will remain to them if you will accept the "loss".
So, ask your money back by bank wire asap. Their bank will froze the account shortly.
|
|
|
|
|
redsn0w
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1778
Merit: 1042
#Free market
|
|
January 05, 2015, 04:59:23 PM |
|
...
Very interesting address. Specially the very high fees payed for ultra fast confirmations.
It is not true , with 1btc you have the same time/chance to receive confirm (include in a block) as 0.0004 btc . It's a question of lucky .... |
|
|
|
|
|
fran2k
|
|
January 05, 2015, 05:00:12 PM |
|
it is very curious that the Bitcoin price didn't fall YET.
normally, any real "stock" market would have reacted until now. the "players" would have sold...I think Bitcoin foundation is not strange of this.
Totally. I bet this is Bitstamp themselves making some tricky maneuvers. Market making you say? Hehe.. This is actually good news! |
|
|
|
|
|
fran2k
|
|
January 05, 2015, 05:04:37 PM |
|
...
Very interesting address. Specially the very high fees payed for ultra fast confirmations.
It is not true , with 1btc you have the same time/chance to receive confirm (include in a block) as 0.0004 btc . It's a question of lucky .... If the space is limited, and i.e. we have a tx with lot of inputs/outputs (high size) then a high fee creates incentive for priority inclusion. |
|
|
|
|
Rampion
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1018
|
|
January 05, 2015, 05:11:23 PM |
|
...
Very interesting address. Specially the very high fees payed for ultra fast confirmations.
It is not true , with 1btc you have the same time/chance to receive confirm (include in a block) as 0.0004 btc . It's a question of lucky .... If the space is limited, and i.e. we have a tx with lot of inputs/outputs (high size) then a high fee creates incentive for priority inclusion. That's true but the commissions of those transactions are unnecessarily big. You don't need 1, 0.5 or even 0.1 BTC to guarantee that your transaction will be in the next block. With a transaction of 0.001 BTC you are pretty much sure you are paying a fee big enough for the faster confirmation possible. |
|
|
|
Nagle
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1000
|
|
January 05, 2015, 08:12:34 PM |
|
Bitstamp CEO probably on an extended vacation in his newly acquired island mansion in Dubai. No, Vegas: Bitstamp retweeted:Nejc Kodrič @nejc_kodric · 9 hours ago Due to circumstances I skipped my connecting flight and spend the night in NYC. I am flying to Vegas today to attend CES. |
|
|
|
|
General_A
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
January 05, 2015, 08:17:04 PM |
|
it is very curious that the Bitcoin price didn't fall YET.
normally, any real "stock" market would have reacted until now. the "players" would have sold...I think Bitcoin foundation is not strange of this.
Maybe the price drop of the last few days was whales factoring this news in. |
|
|
|
johnyj
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1988
Merit: 1012
Beyond Imagination
|
|
January 05, 2015, 09:50:38 PM |
|
On bitstamp: "Customer deposits made prior to January 5th, 2015 9:00 UTC are fully covered by Bitstamp’s reserves. Deposits made to newly issued addresses provided after January 5th, 2015 9:00 UTC can be honored."
But if you look at the transactions of that possible hacked bitstamp address, the first transaction happened on January 4th, 2015 2:26:20 UTC. and the last transaction happens 2015-01-05 18:12:07, it is still accepting transactions after 9:00
|
|
|
|
pawel7777
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2422
Merit: 1559
|
|
January 05, 2015, 10:03:17 PM |
|
On bitstamp: "Customer deposits made prior to January 5th, 2015 9:00 UTC are fully covered by Bitstamp’s reserves. Deposits made to newly issued addresses provided after January 5th, 2015 9:00 UTC can be honored."
But if you look at the transactions of that possible hacked bitstamp address, the first transaction happened on January 4th, 2015 2:26:20 UTC. and the last transaction happens 2015-01-05 18:12:07, it is still accepting transactions after 9:00
Someone wasn't aware of what's going on and send to the old address maybe? |
|
|
|
johnyj
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1988
Merit: 1012
Beyond Imagination
|
|
January 05, 2015, 10:09:06 PM |
|
On bitstamp: "Customer deposits made prior to January 5th, 2015 9:00 UTC are fully covered by Bitstamp’s reserves. Deposits made to newly issued addresses provided after January 5th, 2015 9:00 UTC can be honored."
But if you look at the transactions of that possible hacked bitstamp address, the first transaction happened on January 4th, 2015 2:26:20 UTC. and the last transaction happens 2015-01-05 18:12:07, it is still accepting transactions after 9:00
Someone wasn't aware of what's going on and send to the old address maybe? The transactions after 9:00 are all small, maybe some testing going on, so most likely it is a cold wallet that still belongs to bitstamp. My guess is that this is not the compromised hot wallet, the compromised hot wallet is still unknown |
|
|
|
|
|
|
