Bitcoin Cash Soars to $700, Coinbase Customers Threaten to Sue • Hacker News Board

Re: Bitcoin Cash Soars to $700, Coinbase Customers Threaten to Sue

#401

Post by kristopolous » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 5:41 AM UTC

dave7 wrote: post #309

kristopolous wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had no idea that things worked this way until I read this thread. It was not clear in the slightest from what the exchanges were saying that the fork would entitle me to another currency. I transferred things from a private wallet INTO coinbase quite literally on 21:00 on 7/31 because there was absolutely zero indication from them that this was a bad idea - just that they didn't support some new alt coin. You know…

That's exactly what they did say. > If you wish to have access to UAHF coins or you wish to have immediate access to your bitcoin, you should send your bitcoin from Coinbase to your external address by July 31. I received this from then on the 19th, and again twice more before the fork.

Forgive me but I still have no idea what that means. What's a UAHF coin? Why would I have access to them? How is the process of moving the coins at all related?

The connection between UAHF and bitcoins is not established nor is the entitlement of getting UAHF coins via a bitcoin private wallet.

Given that explanation, I don't know what they are, how to get them, where they come from, how it applies to me or why I should care. It sounds profoundly irrelevant.

Besides, those forked coins still exist, and I know who has them. It's not that they aren't supporting it, they decided to keep them for themselves. All that obtuse language is just legal CYA.

They just did a hustle. A wall-street white-collar style one, but a hustle nonetheless. I'm not getting them no matter what happens because they're probably already sold.

Re: Bitcoin Cash Soars to $700, Coinbase Customers Threaten to Sue

#402

Post by PKop » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 5:50 AM UTC

6nf wrote: post #378

traek wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And should Coinbase then be obligated to distribute those useless tokens?

No of course not. If the tokens are useless then nobody will blame Coinbase for not supporting them. But we're talking about BCH here, which is bigger than all other coins save Bitcoin and Etherium. There's a LOT of money at stake here.

At what point do you know if it is useless or not? Who decides? How long should Coinbase wait to decide to support it..before it becomes useful or after?

Re: Bitcoin Cash Soars to $700, Coinbase Customers Threaten to Sue

#403

Post by PKop » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 5:52 AM UTC

dsacco wrote: post #251

PrimHelios wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just anybody can "fork" a company. Anyone and everyone can fork a blockchain multiple times.

That's immaterial, because a company cannot force customers to forfeit assets by giving them a 10 day ultimatum.

Don't store your coins on an exchange then.. like you've been told over and over and over again

Re: Bitcoin Cash Soars to $700, Coinbase Customers Threaten to Sue

#404

Post by jo909 » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 6:46 AM UTC

ccghhjb wrote: post #339

Tyrek wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I'm sure that a lawyer can spin in circles arguing semantics over what is bitcoin , the stance that the SEC has taken is that cryptocurrencies are commodity-assets, and therefore any derived assets (forks, etc) are the property of the asset owner.

In what way is a fork a derived asset? Let's say an advertiser, unprompted, decided to send a free DVD to everyone who owns a sailboat. Your sailboat is in storage at a large marina that stores hundreds of sailboats, so the publisher drops a big stack of these DVDs in front of the marina office. Is the ownership of the marina obligated to accept these DVDs and mail one to each owner at its own cost? Receiving unsolic…

I'll add another (flawed of course) analogy:

You have a shed to store valuables. Because that's inconvenient for selling your stuff as you live far outside the city, you get a storage unit in the city and move some of your belongings there. There is a big government grant for all storage buildings based on the current value they store. Your shed at home is pretty empty, so you don't get much. The owner of your storage unit gets a lot of money. Does he owe you?

Re: Bitcoin Cash Soars to $700, Coinbase Customers Threaten to Sue

#405

Post by colordrops » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 6:47 AM UTC

bdonlan wrote: post #398

SilasX wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you want to extend the analogy... Let's say that JimBob came along offering a lollipop to everyone for every $1000 they could prove they held in a US bank on a particular day. (The BCH network is offering credits to everyone on the BTC network in proportion to how much BTC they can prove they had on a particular day.) You, as a customer, tell your bank, "yes, confirm to JimBob that I had $30,000 in my accoun…

Well, really, the problem is that JimBob is in total control of the interaction here. Maybe your bank says, "Sure, here's an affidavit showing you had $30,000 on date X", but that's not good enough for JimBob; he needs to see the actual, physical bills and needs proof that _those specific bills_ were in your bank's vault at the time. This process puts a fair amount of burden on the "bank", because they need to deal w…

That's a lot of text that dances around the problem. Wouldn't the issue be solved if exchanges just offer IOUs for a particular chain instead of claiming to be a "wallet" or "bank" holding your asset? If they want to claim they are holding a user's "coins" (which is a misnomer to be honest and is an inaccurate representation of how blockchains work), then they better have a particular address and private key somewhere for ever user that holds assets on their exchange.

Re: Bitcoin Cash Soars to $700, Coinbase Customers Threaten to Sue

#406

Post by seanp2k2 » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 7:00 AM UTC

spectrum1234 wrote: post #395

SilasX wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen the same -- I know someone who got in early to BTC, then moved it all into Ethereum early, such that he has enough to comfortably retire today. But he won't cash any of it in except for a small amount each month to live on, while he lives rent free with others. When I explain the logic of hedging and mitigating risk and locking in gains, he was insistent that the right strategy is to hold because it's going…

This isn't that terrible. However its much much less risk and at worst only tiny bit less upside to put 34% in Ethereum, 33% in Bitcoin, and 33% in a basket of all else possible.

I'd suggest S&P index funds for the remaining third. If it's FU money already, taking out a third and putting into a known-decent investment because you don't need it right now should be a good way to ensure that you can actually retire whenever you'd like to.

Re: Bitcoin Cash Soars to $700, Coinbase Customers Threaten to Sue

#407

Post by Atheros » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 7:23 AM UTC

product50 wrote: post #296

PrimHelios wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just anybody can "fork" a company. Anyone and everyone can fork a blockchain multiple times.

If it is so simple, why is this the only fork which has happened to BTC in the past 9 years?

Same reason it took someone three years to create an altcoin. Doing so had no benefit.. until it did.

Re: Bitcoin Cash Soars to $700, Coinbase Customers Threaten to Sue

#408

Post by bdonlan » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 7:28 AM UTC

colordrops wrote: post #405

bdonlan wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, really, the problem is that JimBob is in total control of the interaction here. Maybe your bank says, "Sure, here's an affidavit showing you had $30,000 on date X", but that's not good enough for JimBob; he needs to see the actual, physical bills and needs proof that _those specific bills_ were in your bank's vault at the time. This process puts a fair amount of burden on the "bank", because they need to deal w…

That's a lot of text that dances around the problem. Wouldn't the issue be solved if exchanges just offer IOUs for a particular chain instead of claiming to be a "wallet" or "bank" holding your asset? If they want to claim they are holding a user's "coins" (which is a misnomer to be honest and is an inaccurate representation of how blockchains work), then they better have a particular address and private key somewher…

Well, the problem is that this means exchanges need to actually implement support for every chain. If I tomorrow go muck around with my bitcoin node and make it fork, why shouldn't they be required to issue you IOUs for that altcoin as well, after all? What if they didn't know that a fork happened, went and rotated all their cold storage keys, destroyed the old private keys, and later you ask for your coins on the secret chain?

You have to draw the line somewhere, and, as a practical concern, determining that a fork meets this line retroactively adds a great deal of complexity and risk to the process. Further, as we've seen here, even a short delay in executing the split raises a great deal of ire and threats of lawsuits.

So, as I see it, the only consistent positions to take would be to either:

1. Not require split tracking at all. People who want to enjoy the benefits of such a split can simply move their bitcoins to a wallet under their direct control, or to an exchange who has agreed to track the split. [what happened here - a market-driven solution, essentially]

2. To legally mandate split tracking if proponents of the split agree to make a market - that is, agree to buy at a particular price for a particular period of time - thus ensuring that the coins have value [unlikely to ever come into play due to the enormous cost of such a venture]

3. To legally mandate split tracking for absolutely every altcoin, no matter how awkward or technically difficult it may be to do so.

Keep in mind that implementing 3 means the exchange might need to run software created by the altcoin's promoters - because keeping up with your own software for every altcoin would take too much development resources - and would be exposed to the exchange's private keys in order to perform hot wallet transactions that the altcoin's network will accept. Thus, if exchanges are forced to run software from any random Joe's fork, this would present a real security risk that backdoored software might be slipped in - this means that they would be forced to switch to split wallets by customer so a single customer using JoeCoin won't compromise funds held by other customers, but having this split out makes maintaining cold wallets impractical.

Re: Bitcoin Cash Soars to $700, Coinbase Customers Threaten to Sue

#409

Post by danmaz74 » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 8:19 AM UTC

source99 wrote: post #388

danmaz74 wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the current high price is artificial. That's absolutely clear to me, and I was dying to find a way to short it. I just found out that plus500 allows that... I don't like that platform, but I just placed my shorts (even if now it's "only" $500)

FYI this site(plus500) is not accessible from the USA

Ah, I see!!

Re: Bitcoin Cash Soars to $700, Coinbase Customers Threaten to Sue

#410

Post by chii » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 10:31 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #105

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's something I don't quite get (being a cryptocurrency newbie). Why can coinbase users not simply import their private key into some other wallet that supports both Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash? My understanding is that Bitcoin Cash recognises the old Bitcoin blockchain as their own up to the point of the fork. So as of Aug 1st all Bitcoin balances are Bitcoin Cash balances as well. Or is that not how it works?

Coinbase users don't have a private key for their Coinbase balance. They have an account with Coinbase, and Coinbase has their own private keys for their internal wallets. When you withdraw money from Coinbase, you're asking them to use their private keys to sign a transaction sending bitcoins to an address you specify. What users could have done was withdraw their Coinbase balance into their own wallet, then they'd…

Users of coinbase have no real right to complain because they have given up their control of their bit coin when they sign up for coin base. Unless this wasn't made clear by coin base at the beginning, i don't see how the law suit has any legs.