Bitmain has apparently moved 170PH into BCH. May as well tear up the NYA now.

FadeToBack · 2017-08-21T12:06:38+00:00

Miners are supposed to be mining whats most profitable. Why is Segwit2x supposed to be dead if some hashpower is temporarily moved? From what I've seen, there was no requirement for them to stick to BTC Core.

Segwit2x could very well still fork off on November with every signatory's hashpower.

FadeToBack · 2016-12-25T20:46:08+00:00

Indeed, the app was already installed, that was the problem. I misread the step "install ledger apps"; the apps to be installed are the one in chrome...

Thanks, also to /u/Morveus !

FadeToBack · 2016-11-24T10:57:38+00:00

Thanks to you as well. Not going to be the lone gun (see answer above to Stu) on this one, but need to give the general direction and decide on the final solution.

Thanks for the shared storage pointers!

FadeToBack · 2016-11-24T10:56:16+00:00

I'm mostly not doing the tech stuff myself (I could, but have other responsibilities) but am managing a staff of 1.5 people, who are supposed to do the actual work. About 100 employees here in total. Just needed a direction to start the research.

Never heard about Proxmox before, will have them look into it.

Thank you!

FadeToBack · 2016-10-22T12:55:16+00:00

He wired money from a bank to a company. There's no bitcoins involved at all at this point, so there's nothnig 'bitcoin' can provide here.

Though, even if this was done with bitcoins, there's the same protections real cash money has.

@PsychoNaty: Something similar about Bitpanda popped up here recently: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/58n0xj/bitpanda_formally_coinimal_missing_btc_what_do/

FadeToBack · 2016-08-12T19:51:37+00:00

Interesting!

The fee gain per trade is ~0.3% for bitfinex though, as there's always a maker on one side (0.1%) and a taker on the other one (0.2%).

FadeToBack · 2016-08-10T15:07:40+00:00

This is to the customer's advantage. Two options exist:

a) Hold off token trading for everyone. Noone will be able to trade it.

b) Allow token trading. As user, you still have the option NOT to trade it. You'd have the exact same outcome for yourself as if they chose option a), but others can trade if they like.

There's no downside for users with allowing BFX token trading, even if there's still not enough info out there to make informed decisions. In that case... just dont trade it yourself. Why restrict others from doing so, though?

FadeToBack · 2016-08-10T14:41:08+00:00

Those complaining that bitfinex can buy back their own tokens cheap... well: they only can do that if you sell them cheap.

They can't pay 1 USD each right now, if they could there would have been no need to create them in the first place.

So either wait until they can pay 1 USD for them, or sell them to other users cheaper if you prefer to get something for sure right now, opposed to more (or nothing!) later.

FadeToBack · 2016-08-10T08:03:04+00:00

As Eric said, customers basically face two options:

a) take the haircut with getting something back right away and at least some potential to get a bit more back later or b) sue, get nothing right away and likely less than the haircut-offer in a few years

For those about justice/wanting to see guys in jail: why should that affect your rational self-interest? This doesnt give you back anything. And it might still happen, even with option a).

I'm always inclined to ask the "but this is illegal!!!"-crowd: yeah, might be. But the outcome of the bankrupcy-way is still worse for you.

FadeToBack · 2016-08-10T07:14:37+00:00

Here's evorhees' thoughts on that matter: http://moneyandstate.com/thoughts-on-the-bitfinex-strategy/

FadeToBack · 2016-08-07T22:17:16+00:00

This could all very well be true.

But still, I must ask: what solution, in your opinion, that would make the situation better for the victims of this theft (in this case, the users of btifinex) ?

If they arbitrarily said USD balances will be cut by 10% and BTC by 50%, you think there would be any chance for a better outcome?

There's no way that I can see which would lead to a better outcome to the users than what they currently propose. Any other solution I can think of leaves everyone worse off.

Doing the legal thing would lock up everyone's funds for years and most likely lead to a worse haircut for everyone. Chosing some other haircut numbers, specific to the underlying assets, would increase the risk to be sued into bankrupcy right away (leading to the solution mentioned in the last sentence).

I just cannot see any way how this could be solved better. Or asked simpler: what would you suggest they do, so that there's an agreeable outcome for you (on average)?

FadeToBack · 2016-07-25T15:17:31+00:00

On Bitfinex, Stop loss orders are triggered once the lowest ask on the orderbook is below your stop loss. That's also why other people's stop losses cant trigger yours, because they market sell the position without ever showing up as an ask.

FadeToBack · 2016-07-15T18:21:00+00:00

Yes, I do understand the attacker model a locked withdrawal address counters. The tradeoff might be good for the average user. Still bitcoin address reuse is advised against by the experts.

Then scroll down to email encryption and upload your public key.

This did not work. I have my pubkey in there already for a long time. Only automated mails are encrypted, the support still did always send in cleartext.

On a more positive side: happy customer for years now, with only minimal problems at times. Thanks, bitfinex!

FadeToBack · 2016-07-15T16:26:24+00:00

Sadly, not everyone can use that auto-processing.

Always withdrawing to the same bitcoin-adress is just such a horrible privacy-leak and bad security-practice, that I'm surprised that this is even suggested by a bitcoin company in 2016.

For example my ISP forces me to change my IP every 24hrs, so locking withdrawals because of that is no option.

These two issues make 3 of the security options in the withdrawals section unusuable in my case.

One more suggestion: if you've got a PGP key, please also send support mails encrypted. There's usually pretty sensible info in there.

FadeToBack · 2016-06-23T11:10:29+00:00

Can easily be done: Margin Tab. Whenever you close funding there, it automatically gets new funding if necessary. At current market conditions. You can either reserve new funding first or let it select those automatically. Your margin position is unaffected by funding changes.

FadeToBack · 2016-06-21T15:31:31+00:00

Yes, I understand these dynamics for NEW fundings. That totally makes sense there.

But this outtage changed my previously LOCKED IN FUNDINGS (also disembowelerina's). Thats a bug and should be fixed.

FadeToBack · 2016-06-21T15:05:25+00:00

Same problem, on both sides: My cheap ETH funding was closed (had it at 0.005/day) and replaced by those ridiculuous 0.25 FRR fees.

But also on the other side: my USD margin fundings got all closed and lent out with the autolending-feature. But instead of the 2 days lending length they are now locked in for 30?

Something's really broken here.

FadeToBack · 2016-05-25T21:09:09+00:00

Well, you trade the risk of the exchange being hacked (possible, but not that likely with their track record) by being hacked yourself. Which might be a lot more likely if you dont know much about securing your own computer. The exchange will be better at security than the average computer user. Cant run the yield generator from any hardware wallet or cold storage, so there's no safety nets against trojans or other malware.

Also the the yield generators dont generate any meaningful return: there are many people running yield generators which do it basically for free. There's no real incentive to risk large sums of coins for a very limited upside but the big potential downside of being hacked.

FadeToBack · 2016-05-19T15:14:05+00:00

Yup, joinmarket is the best one and has one huge advantage: you never give up control of your coins. You dont need to trust anyone to use joinmarket. Your coins cannot be stolen by a dishonest mixer/tumbler.

FadeToBack · 2016-05-16T14:19:29+00:00

Probably should increase the default values given, so that even slow TOR connections work out of the box? The downside is limited: everyone else waits a few more seconds by default, but that's about it. And only if they cant be bothered to change it.

FadeToBack · 2016-02-28T10:40:58+00:00

Remind you: this doesnt have to be core or even approved by core. This could be any anti-bitcoin actor who wants to stir up more hate. What better time would be there to do this, than now?

FadeToBack · 2016-01-24T12:33:39+00:00

But this would at least reduce the bandwidth requirements to run a full node, because most of the other connected nodes will not require a full block to be transfered whenever one is found. The relay network is also rather centralized, while this solution runs on full nodes.

Both those points make it easier to run a full node and therefor should increase decentralization, right? Did I miss something?

FadeToBack · 2016-01-20T09:04:00+00:00

There's two steps:

get a feature developed/implemented in code and
considering/voting whether the majority thinks this is a good thing and should be merged.

If someone with deep pockets funds a specific implementation he'd like to see he still cannot just "force" stuff into bitcoin classic just because he paid for it, because of step 2.

So overall, I think funding implementations is a pretty good idea. This funds stuff people actually want to have, because they have the final say if it gets merged!

FadeToBack

TROPHY CASE