I doubt this was the case, you can always look up blockchain.info if you wanted to see the BTC they received prior to the snaphot, although admittedly that wouldnt be a pleasant task, but achiveable nonetheless, thats the blockchain prevent the fractional reserve aspect. There is no way Bitmex would risk that. All users were instructed what they needed to do prior to the snapshot, so in essence, Bitmex is going out of thier way to honour the owners of the BTC. Thats my take anyway.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Yes but you mean FAVOR the owners of BTC.
Coinbase also had the same (fractional reserve) "business plan," the reason they told us in advance they would not cover.
I dont understand the concept of favoring owners of BTC, its in their interest to do what they can to keep exsiting customers happy, you could argue that they are"favouring" Crypto currency holders (Hodlers ;-)).
Hard forks are no guarantees that any existing holder will get a forked off token if they themselves don't do any due diligence or even make an attempt to claim the token.
In my opinion, as any smart business would do, they would try to please thier customers to survive. If you were a btc holder pre-fork, you were by default a future BCH owner.
If you didn' do what was recomended and move your BTC to a personal offline wallet prior to the snapshot, then I'm afraid there is no one else to blame. What would you call an exchange that didnt
do anything after the fork and left it totally up the the crypto holders to do what they needed to do if they needed to claim thier BCH token? Most exchanges advised that they would not be supporting the BCH claiming or listing of BCH
post Aug 1.
Pardon my ignorace again but how can you fractional reserve a proof of work based decentralised cryto currency? Just no sure what you mean? do you mean some sort of lending of fiat ( which you can frantional reserve) currency tethered to BTC? if thats what you mean,
thats been going on for quite a while with the "tethered tokens" i.e USDT etc.
Re: "I don't understand the concept of favoring owners of BTC..."
I'm trying to understand that point of view. You seem to take it as a foregone conclusion that B-Core is the true Bitcoin. Yes, that idea has been heavily promoted and the counterpoint position deliberately (and unscrupulously) suppressed. But the facts of the matter beg to differ. Perhaps you don't agree BlockStream et all have been trying to destroy BTC? And that the BCH fork is an attempt to save it?
And it is the EXCHANGES that are practicing fractional reserve crypto by not purchasing all the tokens they sell. They are just data entries on the exchange. Capiche.
I neither agree or disagree, I'm playing devils advocate to you comments. Do you have any evidence to your comments?
re: " Perhaps you don't agree BlockStream et all have been trying to destroy BTC? And that the BCH fork is an attempt to save it?"
yes I have heard this and its good to have conspiracy theories. Jeff Berwick is convinced that Blockstream is run by the banking cartel etc..reason for this? it's because, impplementing segwit is a stpe closer for lightening network, wich can create a hub and spoke network, and may cause centralisation, but there really isn't any hard evidence to any conspriracy theories that banking orgniasations or the illuminati thought about that long ago in an attempt to centralise, to me thats all they are conspiracy thoeries . To counter this, increasing block size that bch has done also can more easily lead to centralisation by reducing POW rewards and just favour powerful nodes. Question for you, where is the segwit adoption? and who usues it, once you answer that to yourself then ask how far and how well the BTC destruction is going. Also ask yourself if BTC is destroying itself with or with out segwit. Anyway, thats my two cents, like i said it is healthy to have a conspitacy theory. You stand on the fence and do not support either, but less likey support the increase in blocksize purely based on that its not innovative..