Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Bans Notorious Bitfinex and Tether Critic Bitfinex'ed (thenextweb.com)
Twitter has officially suspended Bitfinex'ed -- a notorious internet sleuth who has long speculated that popular exchange desk Bitfinex has quietly been printing its dollar-pegged Tether digital tokens out of thin air, a move that could lead to the collapse of Bitcoin and perhaps even the entire market, The Next Web reports. From the report: In an email to TNW, Bitifinex'ed said that Twitter has yet to clarify the reasons for the suspension. "This account has been suspended," the message reads. It is worth noting that in addition to the claims made against Bitfinex and Tether, Bitfinex'ed has previously accused other well-known figures within the crypto-community of foul play. Indeed, earlier in January the anonymous investigator suggested Litecoin Charlie Lee might have engaged in insider trading during his time at Coinbase. Lee ultimately denied these claims. In the aftermath of this altercation, waves of Lee supporters took to Twitter to condemn the premises of the piece Bitfinex'ed authored.
I wonder why was he banned, I mean the true reason. Was he breaking the EULA or some Twitter rules?
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Am I alone in not understanding what the fuck this article is going on about? I mean, I know what Twitter is, and that people can get banned from it, but what's all the other garble?
letting nazis and jihadists take over your site just for the sake of inflating user growth stats for investors is quite frankly evil, and i say fuck twitter to hell.
I hat twatter and do not use it, but from all I have read bitfinex and tether are suspect at least and deserving of criticism. Do not know about Lee and coinbase, but I just sold a bunch of etherum and coinbase had my cash in the bank within a day, so no anecdotal issues from my end.
Silence is a state of mime.
Punctuation is your friend. Use it.
Oh look, another Russian spy troll sent here to make Progressives look like imbeciles.
Oh look, another Russian spy troll sent here to make Progressives look like imbeciles.
No, that's pretty much exactly how progressives talk these days. The level of unhinged, reality-disconnected Trump Derangement Syndrome that started the night Clinton's contempt for most of the country cost her the election ... it's pretty spectacular. That's not a troll post, that's what Democrats sound like now.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
i lol'd
1) Trump lost the popular vote, so "most of the country" is simply an invalid assertion.
2) Why are you complaining that progressives sound like Trump ? Are you Anti-trump ?
your troll game is weak, son.
Trump lost the popular vote
We don't actually conduct national elections based on the popular vote. That's so that the people in 48 other states in our republic aren't ruled by the dense urban populations in a couple of coastal counties. Which you know, but are trying to pretend you're too dumb to understand. Why? Who do you think you're communicating to or persuading when you try to pretend you don't understand the constitution or the structure of the republic and how we've been conducting elections for centuries?
Why are you complaining that progressives sound like Trump?
I'm just savoring the toxic, vitriolic, laughable hypocrisy on the part of the unhinged left. And just when you think the sting from losing the political power they want would have been fading a bit, they get even more insane. It's fantastic.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Twitter was a company that was born by accident. The technology was a side project that took off on its own. The four founders were more interested in playing musical chair with the CEO spot. The revenue model came years after burning through VC funding. One founder pulled a Steve Jobs by quoting Steve Jobs, listening to the music that Steve Jobs liked, dressing up in a Steve Jobs uniform (same clothes, simple style), and staging a Steve Jobs comeback after starting another company. Mark Zuckerburg called Twitter a clown car that fell into a gold mine.
Source: "Hatching Twitter: A True Story of Money, Power, Friendship, and Betrayal"
These guys are great, providing video evidence of all sorts of unethical behavior by government/companies:
https://www.projectveritas.com...
People have been fired/charged by their findings.
> That's so that the people in 48 other states in our republic aren't ruled by the dense urban populations in a couple of coastal counties.
Demonstrably false. the US has an electoral college for historical reasons having to do with the representatives' travel time. You are either lying/trolling or genuinely need to go back to highschool history classes. If you think the people who own the US *EVER* cared about equality, you rrrrrrreally haven't been paying attention.
> I'm just savoring the toxic, vitriolic, laughable hypocrisy on the part of the unhinged left.
1) By being even *more* hypocritical
2) asserting everybody on the left is 'unhinged' when you are clearly cherry-picking hipster edge-cases. Also asserting homogeny in any group of people with shared political interests. (LOL)
3) people on the neo-nazi right would assert that the Deep State is still in power.
Your trolling is the weakest of sauces.
1) Trump lost the popular vote, so "most of the country" is simply an invalid assertion.
"Most of the country" is most certainly valid if you are talking about area, or do you believe those votes in "flyover states" aren't as important as yours?
The majority of people in the majority of the states voted for Trump.
The majority of the people in the entire country voted for Hillary.
the US has an electoral college for historical reasons having to do with the representatives' travel time
And yet you can't admit out loud WHY travel time would matter. Why not simply get a tally of votes from all of the states and send them in to DC for a nation-wide count? Because we don't run the country like a PTA meeting. We're NOT, for very good reasons, a democracy. We're a republic of (now) 50 states and some associated territories. Just as we use the different structures of our bicameral legislature to prevent high-population members of the republic from lording it over the lower-population members, the electoral college is a structure that's explicitly designed to buffer the impact of a bunch of urbanites hundreds of miles or a continent away running the lives of the people in the middle who do things like grow their wheat for them.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
we don't conduct national elections on the popular vote because the wealthy landowners who ran the country when our constitution was written wanted to give themselves a disproportionate amount of voting power over the rabble from the cities. They weren't much worried about the rural voters because, well, if you think voter suppression is a thing today then you don't know voter suppression.
Oh, and progressives sound like Trump because Trump _lied_. He said whatever it took to get elected. Just ask the folks at Carrier who's jobs are on the way to Mexico.
And why are you bothering to defend Trump? What possible good does it do you? He's backed off on controlling the flow of immigrants and even come out in support of Amnesty. His Admin could have sent 500,000 illegal immigrants on expired H1-B visas back home and instead protected them and he still hasn't recinded the Obama executive order allowing their spouses to work here. He's done exactly 1 tariff on solar panels and he's in the process of implementing TPP in pieces so you won't notice. He staffed his admin with billionaires and Goldman Sachs folks. His tax cut is just us borrowing $1 trillion and giving it away to the 1%. He killed Net Neutrality. He's done the exact opposite of everything he claimed he would do. These are facts. Every single one of them is a fact.
So I say again, why are you defending Trump? Is it just out of spite? Racism? General hatred of Hillary Clinton? Can you point to a single policy he's done that you can legitimately support (assuming you're not a multi-millionaire)?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Congratulations, Hillary won a game she wasn't playing, by cheating.
Where can I "invest" all my monies in tjis amazing bitcoin wealth generator??
Maybe one of the Mods knows..
Bitfinex'ed has previously accused other well-known figures within the crypto-community of foul play.
The crypto community would be folks like Schneier, Daemen, Rijmen, Rivest, Shamir, etc.
"the electoral college is a structure that's explicitly designed to buffer the impact of a bunch of urbanite"
You have a citation for this? Wasn't the population mostly rural before ag got mechanized?
They will ban literally anyone making waves about anything ever for any reason and at 10x speed if they're anti-far left liberal.
We don't actually conduct national elections based on the popular vote. That's so that the people in 48 other states in our republic aren't ruled by the dense urban populations in a couple of coastal counties.
I don't really care about all of this Trump vs Hillary bullshit, but this is mathematically not true. I really wish people would look at a map.
Those dense urban population exist in states with really high electoral counts. Think about it for even a second. Where are your "dense urban populations"? California, New York, Florida, Texas. Where do you get all of your electoral votes? California, New York, Florida, Texas!!!!
The electoral vote vs the popular vote is really only different in close elections. If you changed the rules, it wouldn't even change the outcome of elections(except Washington D.C. would suddenly matter).
It has nothing to do with urban vs rural. It hasn't mattered since the Civil War.
THE REAL REASON FOR THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
Electoral votes are awarded based on population, not on eligible voters. Even illegal immigrants count towards the total.
Originally, very few people were eligible to vote(land owning white males in most states). Voter turnout was around 5% of total population. The Southern Plantation States figured out that they would be at a big disadvantage if 'electoral' votes were based on eligible voters. They devised a system based on total population. This meant that slaves, women, native Americans, children, etc ALL counted towards your 'electoral' votes.
It was so lopsided, that they actually had to come to a compromise where slaves were only partially counted.(The 3/5ths Compromise). Why? Because Plantation states were sweeping the table on Presidential elections.
So instead, we have hayseeds in the middle of the country making bad decisions for the bulk of the people who live in this country. Yeah, that's much better. That makes so much more sense.
I don't respond to AC's.
One vote in a flyover state being equally valuble to one vote in a big city would support the statement that "most of the country" is equivalent to "the popular vote".
To interpret most of the country by land area you have to think space containing no people is of equal value to people.
Really though the way the electoral college distorts the vote is that the high population but not sharply aligned states give all their electoral votes to one candidate even if the popular vote was a close to even split. If you win Florida by 1 vote you get 29 electoral votes, and if you lose Delaware by a landslide you lose 3 electoral votes. That one vote in Florida was worth rather a lot more than any one vote in Delaware.
If we wanted to fix this we could just have the electoral votes split according to the breakdown of actual votes (favoring the candidate who won over-all to deal with fractions). So if you win Florida by 1 vote you get 15 electoral votes to your opponent 14, and if you win Delaware by a landslide you get 2 or 3 depending on how big a landslide.
This would still give small states more say than their raw population would merit as they get the minimum 3 if they dont; qualify for more but would remove the disproportionate say from "swing" states.
You've been a Republic for over 200 years, and yet you are still banging on about how great/shitty the system is. Free speech and all you'd think you would have this sorted out by now (or are you all just a pack of whiners?)
Think of this victory as a victory of some little people. You like supporting the little guy, don't you? You like supporting people who are powerless, don't you? The people who won have little power. They have little voice in anything. They are mostly invisible. When you lose, we have to hear all about your hurt feelings, but when we lose, we are ignored.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
At least we have an opportunity to change their minds and those people have the freedom to make the choice.
If the coasts were running our country, we would be doomed. Take a look at Detroit to see a glimpse into the future of a completely Democrat-run city.
Your snide comments about the middle of the country being stupid and uneducated is exactly why Trump won. Democrats should have licked their wounds and admit their mistakes. Instead, they are doubling-down on the lies, hatred of America, and witch hunts.
Do you seriously think Trump is just another President? He's not. His deficiencies go far beyond the usual partisan politics of conservatives. Everyone worldwide knows this except a certain subset of American conservatives. Probably because they ingest so much right-wing propaganda they don't know what's real or normal.
So instead, we have hayseeds in the middle of the country making bad decisions
You want to know why Democrats lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, and the good will of millions of two-time Obama voters? Because Hillary got caught expressing her contempt for millions of Americans out loud. Just like you're doing right now. You've just told me that a person who runs a business in, say, Wisconsin, employing hundreds of people to manufacture high-end equipment that your local fire department drives when they come to your house to save your life, are hayseeds that can't be trusted. Hillary thought that, too. Which is why she didn't even set foot once in that state during her campaign, and narrowly lost that state. To someone who seems interested in making the business environment for such manufacturers and their employees more attractive and sustainable. Keep calling those people homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, irredeemably deplorable hayseeds just like your preferred candidate. You'll get the same results, and probably once again scratch your head about what went wrong.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Extraordinary claim required extraordinary proof. The burden is on the side of Tether to proof they really have the money. They have been "printing" money like crazy without any audit at all!
heh, that's rich coming from the rabid racism of the anti-Obama fuckheads
So instead, we have hayseeds in the middle of the country making bad decisions for the bulk of the people who live in this country. Yeah, that's much better. That makes so much more sense.
And that's the argument for less federal power and more state rights.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
We're NOT, for very good reasons, a democracy.
If only Americans admitted that... Then at least it would be honest. But nooo, they want to exclaim they have the greatest Democracy in the world, and at the same time explain how it is better that the Demos does not actually have the power and it is a Republic...
And yet those have still been the rules for over 200 years; and pitching a fit about the rules doesn't win you the game.
Either learn to play by the rules, or use the Amendment process to change them. And good luck with that.
CAPTCHA win: clarify
I've heard this argument before in recent months, but it's not true. I took a look at the ratio of population to electors in our various states and there isn't all that much spread.
If you research it, I think you'll find the original motivation behind the electoral college had several facets, but rural representation was not one of them. Part of it had to do with the three-fifths compromise, part of it was simple practicality in the 1700s, and part of it was the idea that electors, being reasonable and educated people, might reject a popular but un-presidential candidate. The last part might seem like a virtue, but historically this has never become a factor.
I've recently enjoyed learning about various voting systems, which generally do not work well with the electoral college. These systems are being studied carefully these days in terms of a variety of criteria, how often those come into play, and how gameable the various systems are. Currently I like the idea of STAR Voting -- see for example www.equal.vote. This seems tangential at first, but it leads back around to the electoral college.
Yeah, because Detroit is a coastal city. Which ocean is it on the coast of again?
Also, we're still free to move around in this country, so your political model.of serfs tied to the land is a bit dated.
> The majority of the people in the entire country voted for Hillary.
False by ANY measure.
48.2% of the "popular vote" (a term with no legal meaning or significance, but generated by dividing the sum of all votes for a candidate and dividing by the sum of all votes cast in the presidential election) were for Clinton/Kaine. That is NOT a majority.
If you want to look at total votes that COULD be cast, then it is sillier: 55% of voters cast a vote, so around 27% of eligible voters cast a vote for Clinton/Kaine (versus, for instance, 31% voting for Obama, who is the last presidential candidate to win the "popular vote").
Yeah, because Detroit is a coastal city.
Worse! It's a border town, like Nogales...
Ok, so in response to being told "you can't be trusted with America's future because you're short sighted idiots" these people decided to elect the worst possible politician out of spite
And you don't think that proves Hillary correct, eh?
decided to elect the worst possible politician out of spite
No, the decided NOT to elect the worst possible politician (Hillary Clinton and her husband, who she promised would be put to work on matters of national policy). The Clinton Crime Machine is bad enough by itself, but the real issue is the Supreme Court. She promised to seat people without significant judicial or constitutional background, who "knew what people are going through out there," because that would be the easiest way to pursue he agenda in the face of a non-compliant legislature. As opposed to Trump, who published his list of prospective nominees - all proper constructionists - and has already acted directly from that list, and seated an excellent justice. We'll live with the consequences of that for far longer than either candidate would be in office.
Regardless, Trump's focus on restoring our crumbling military readiness, rolling back mountains of absurd regulations, making some strides towards a more rational and competitive tax code, and actually paying attention to things like border security - as opposed to the stagnation and corruption promised by Clinton - is a good thing. I don't care how he talks. She's also a horrible human being, and in far more insidious ways. He's just a social-skills throwback who's not a slick, sleazy professional politician who's spent years learning to look you in the eye and lie non-stop a la Hillary Clinton. People didn't vote for him out of spite, they voted to prevent the Clintons - who professed and acted on their contempt for you - from regaining the power they so craved, and which they used to enrich themselves by the millions of dollars.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.