Bittrex Responds to the STEEM situation...

avatar

Bittrex just put out a response to the latest happenings with STEEM and having 23 million STEEM sent to them...

Bittrex says they believe in the sanctity of blockchains above all else...

Here's their response to today's happenings:

(Source: https://bittrex.com/discover/response-to-the-steemit-situation)

My opinion?

From reading the above, it sounds like they are going to be sending funds back to the @community321 account once/if it can prove it is the rightful owner of said funds.

Which is a bit murky in it's own right...

It will be interesting to see how things play out.

Stay informed my friends.

-Doc



0
0
0.000
51 comments
avatar
(Edited)

You can use the same backwards logic to argue that community consensus determined that @bittrex decides who gets the money.

They are just trying to avoid a legal nightmare.

Understandable.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Agreed. The last thing they want to do at this point is pick sides. Part of me has been worried that with all this drama spilling over to Bittrex, they may just say to hell with both projects and delist em both...

0
0
0.000
avatar

So.... it wasn't smart of the "White Knight" to send to Bittrex, after all?

0
0
0.000
avatar

Well, where else could they have sent it?

0
0
0.000
avatar

bittrex was the obvious best choice.

0
0
0.000
avatar

If it's just being sent right back to the thief, isn't that a bad choice?
Why not just send it to the rightful owners? Surely somebody could whip up a script in 15 seconds to pay the 64 people their coins, rather than send it to an exchange, which will drop it faster than a legal hot potato?

0
0
0.000
avatar

Because accounts and wallets of the rightful owners are already frozen DUH....That would be the dumbest thing that could be done. Basically like giving the funds back to Justin…

0
0
0.000
avatar

Which is whats's going to happen anyway, though.... they're going right back to Justin because Bittrex refuses to handle them. Right?

0
0
0.000
avatar

Prolly yop:( An exchange had to be used tho (accounts were frozen...third - exchanges - party that could not be forked out had to be trusted) and from all the exchanges Bittrex was the "safest" bet...but its too risky for them i guess...we shall see soon:) Maybe we havent lost yet...

0
0
0.000
avatar

No, sending it to Bittrex is the smartest move by a huge margin. This is the one big exchange that has had our back the whole time. Sending the coins anywhere else would just get them frozen or stolen again immediately. You don't get to decide which decisions were the best ones to make in retrospect.

If you have a 90% chance of winning a poker hand, you don't fold. If later you think you should have folded because you ended up losing... well then you'll make for a terrible poker player. Same logic.

If nothing else sending them to Bittrex puts us in the news yet again and gives us another round of free publicity.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Ha I thinks it's pretty awesome how it happened no matter how it turns out.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Sounds like they're not going to do the right thing. Sounds like they're taking a copout... and already making excuses for doing so. "Not our problem" etc etc.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

"Not our problem"

Well, it isn’t a problem of their creation.

0
0
0.000
avatar

It kind of is, since they put Sun Yuchen in power over Steem by stealing their customers funds so they could vote for Sun using them.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Bittrex didn't do that. That was Binance, Huobi, and Poloniex.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I'm assuming whoever has hijacked 321 is still in control of it. Therefore once the steem inevitably gets returned to that account, the White Knight can then return it to the rightful owners.

Might need to be coordinated with all of the rightful owners though, so they can quickly move it themselves once received, before yet another fork happens...

0
0
0.000
avatar

They said they will return the funds to the “original wallet owner”, NOT necessary to the original wallet. So hopefully the wallet owner that sent them the funds can work with them about how to properly direct them.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

…the consensus of the blockchain, regardless of how it was reached, agreed that the funds from those 64 accounts be moved to the “community321” account.

This would seem to indicate that the original owner of the wallet (very likely a sock puppet or Justin himself) would eventually get the funds back from Bittrex.

0
0
0.000
avatar

What they said amounts to a generic response that could go either way. They either give the Steem to Justin Sun or give it back to the rightful owners. Who knows what they will do.

0
0
0.000
avatar

How's JSun going to prove he's the rightful owner of Community321? He doesn't hold the keys, clearly. He never posted from it, identifying himself. If anything he distanced himself from the whole fork before it happened.
I think they're using that against him, and when he can't prove he owns it, they'll honour the wishes of the sender/rightful owner and reimburse those who've been robbed.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I don't think that the issue of JS being the owner or not is relevant, if they get their funds back to Community321, he will have them anyways. Moreso if someone has to prove that is the owner and that owner isn't JS much better for him in the legal actions to come.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Does JS own the keys to community321 now? I figured he'd be locked out.

0
0
0.000
avatar

That's a good question, if the keys have changed and the owner of them is the person who sent the funds to Bittrex still, they are fucked up.

Anyways imo the next move for all this mess should be take legal actions against Bittrex, the consensus in a blockchain don't change the law in a country, I mean the private property can't be confiscated by consensus in USA. (at least is what i think) And Bittrex is american so they should be careful with what they do.

Could happen that Bittrex end paying the JS stupidity.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I can't wait to watch the TV series of this. The guy who did it was asked who should they get to play him, and he said, Rami Malek. An excellent choice.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I think the legal fallout is exactly why they respond this way.

They need to be absolutely sure that they are not complicit to theft. Especially because they are in the USA.

I think they will not do anything until the legal owner is determined or their legal advisors tell them what is best for bittrex.

There will be a legal case for sure if they don’t send the funds back. Justin won’t let this slide. So they need to know what position they have.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

I think they will not do anything until the legal owner is determined or their legal advisors tell them what is best for bittrex.

The legal owner can't be discussed in terms of law, I think is very clear who are the legal owners, the blockchain policy or the rules of it don't apply in that matter. That's why this kind of statement from Bittrex that seems to be more of the sockpuppets side is dangerous for Bittrex.

As you said perfectly could be considered complicit to theft.

0
0
0.000
avatar

And that’s why they will play it safe.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Bittrex is obviously not stoked about getting dragged into a muddy water.

0
0
0.000
avatar

That's very bad news

the consensus of the blockchain, regardless of how it was reached, agreed that the funds from those 64 accounts be moved to the “community321” account.

All this seems to benefit to the sock puppets. Anyways was an epic move, I guess that this will need to be resolved by legal actions if Bittrex don't recognize the property of the stolen funds from those users.

Any blockchain can steal funds by consensus then?, and what are the implications of that?.

0
0
0.000
avatar

We need to make Bittrex understand that while generally "code is law" in crypto, when that code violates the law of the land (ie by actually stealing) it is the latter than takes precedence.
Justin Sun is acting as though Steem were a centralised game where the in game currency was completely controlled by the developer and there were numerous T&Cs saying that the in-game currency wasn't an asset and that the developer has complete control and can seize or destroy or do whatever he likes.
In contrast, Steem is a recognised crypto asset and there are no legal T&Cs permitting Sun to seize or transfer funds from one account to another. Thus it is theft under general law and the general law over-rides "code is law"

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Actually while reading other comments and the story, I am laughing! I can't express my full feelings of what happened to JUSTIN SUN! Hahahaha... He is a crazy CHINESE guy...

Sending to BITTREX, yeah! Thanks to community321! Lol... Now BITTREX is in neutral, any investor can prove the owner of the steem! What ever JUSTIN do even to the higher court, he will never win! Crazy guy!

0
0
0.000
avatar

I guess it can't be true. Returning the money back to community321 will look like everything was plan from the beginning. It's obvious that people right were taken wrongfully by depriving them of their assets all in the name of criminal offence against the blockchain which can not be prove. I believe bittrex should look into this matter very well before taking decision before affecting the feelings and hope of many towards them. From now they are just the last resort.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Haha, now what? I don't even want to get into all that drama anymore. It's a battle of programmers and businessmen at this point.

0
0
0.000
avatar

"The fact is, we only interpret the data on the blockchain..."

That had better not be true, because ignoring actual laws and pretending Sun Yuchen's sockpuppets can do whatever they want, as Sun has done, will put CZ in the same legal hazard Sun is now in.

Don't these people have lawyers?

JFC. I mean possession is 9/10 of the law, but bags of loot being in a speeding getaway car with cops in hot pursuit does not make that loot the rightful property of the guy driving the getaway car. Just because the sockpuppets took the tokens using code doesn't make those tokens theirs, nor Sun's.

Sun should go to jail for this.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Possession isn't 9/10ths of the law in the first place.

0
0
0.000
avatar

The point of the saying is that law enforcement is all too corrupt and all too often leaves thieves the owners of what they steal. You're not wrong, but the law isn't justly prosecuted.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I think you're confusing Bittrex and Binance. CZ is Binance. I don't think CZ would be that conflicted if he was put in this position.

That would be like giving the ring of power to Sauruman for safe keeping.

0
0
0.000
avatar

lol

You're absolutely right. I have confused the two, because I have never used either.

Thanks for setting me straight.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Out of curiosity, what do you use? I used to use Binance and switched to Bittrex.
Played a little with ionomy but found it inconvenient compared to those two.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I don't like this episode very much, i am expecting the next one.

0
0
0.000
avatar

That statement is a bad joke...

0
0
0.000
avatar

Well, to my mind it is simple.
The true owners of the amounts (our guys) just have to send proof of ownership to bittrex and they must return the funds to them. That would be the legal thing to do, as then bittrex cannot be held accountable and the argument will be between sun and his cohorts and the original owners.!

0
0
0.000
avatar

This situation is totally unbelievable! I hope this ends soon so the Steem can go back to normal!

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Under GDPR law couldn't an account be deleted? It has happened once before on that blockchain with the the code here for the user mentioned here.

What happens if the community321 were deleted or if its ability to make transactions
were disabled? Not sure if this is something that can be be done on a user level or if it would require a fork but if that account was inoperable then the funds would be stuck on Bittrex.

Maybe I am reading the info on deleting the account wrong and it was only removed from the frontend?

0
0
0.000
avatar

It's a clever way to deal with this. They can't openly go against Steem witness votes (or Justin votes) but they can return it to the account where it came from. This way they are "neutral" while keeping the funds with the white knight, which is good for those who got stolen.

0
0
0.000
avatar

At this point, I think Bittrex is still consulting with their lawyers on what to do. The last thing they want is a lawsuit from Justin Sun & Co.

For those HIVE witnesses and stakeholders who got their STEEM stolen from Steemit, it would be a good time to start coordinating on how to get it back, and maybe get on the horn with Bittrex.

Time is of the essence!

0
0
0.000