Quote from: Artemis3 on December 13, 2019, 02:07:11 AM

Quote from: raindropactual on December 13, 2019, 01:19:44 AM

When you say 'banks have been doing this' what do you mean? Fractional reserve is one thing. Selective scamming ran by an anonymous team pretending to be conducting AML? Very weak analogy. I see the direction you're trying to go here, but it's apples and oranges -- and I'm critical of banks, too.

This year. we can make HitBTC fail. I concur such efforts should not be isolated to Proof of Keys, but how fitting would it be to have that be the time HitBTC is too insolvent to even pretend to function?

The whole Proof of keys thing is just an exercise against fractional reserve. I have no idea what other type of scam you refer to, as i have not been checking the services discussion (or scamming) about that particular exchange. The event itself is general directed at no specific site but to all of them.

From your intention, simply convincing their customers, and their customers alone would do. A sort of boycott. If their customer base doesn't get in panic, even if some of them withdraw slowly, they will have time to shrink (same as banks). Unfortunately i doubt all their customers read Bitcointalk, let alone your message. I bet many don't even speak English. Only a scandal and people unable to withdraw would get their attention, and by then it is too late. That's how all of the earlier failed exchanges went. Not unlike a bankrun...

I think you should read the blog post: https:/[Suspicious link removed]/ZxJSZ3RuH0?amp=1 -- no offense intended (in fact, it seems you and I see eye-to-eye on some things like banks) but I think you're missing some context.

Proof of Keys is not just an exercise against fractional reserve. In fact, fractional reserve really isn't the most appropriate terminology -- it'd be "solvency." Exchanges, by premise of being a custodial service, are evaluated on solvency. If exchanges were permitted/expected to run on fractional reserve, man, we'd be in a way worse spot with the industry right now, lol. The point is that exchanges shouldn't be on fractional reserve at all (under the model of most centralized exchanges) and if they can't prove that (via solvency) than... it should speak for itself.

You are correct in that it will require a ton of elbow grease. Warning their current customers and preventing future customers is, indeed, a hell of an undertaking; hence the call to arms on this. I agree with you -- Bitcointalk constitutes a slice demographic of HitBTC users, hence why this has been shared on varied platforms -- let alone, as you mentioned, the language barrier, which is why the blog post encourages translation and sharing. Ultimately, the goal is to get this information in front of as many people as possible -- less victims of HitBTC's scheme is a good thing for the industry.

The best case? So many people (existing HitBTC users) withdraw, and so few people (would-be HitBTC users) deposit, that HitBTC is forced into the 'scandal' you describe. This ultimate goal is described in the blog post. So, in reality, we're on the same sheet of music, friend Grin