I haven't heard of anyone not being able to. Show evidence of this.

The end game is to create a fully fungible digital cash equivalent which can be used for legal or illegal activities. You might say that no one has any need of such a thing, but continuous government monitoring only happens because encryption isn't built into everything by default and the monitoring is therefore possible. With technology like Monero governments will have to return to honest law enforcement. Furthermore, sometimes you might have good cause to do something illegal. What if a pain medication that you need has been banned by the government but the only way you can get it is to buy it on a dnm? Just look at all the new efforts by governments to ban opiates. Chronic pain sufferers must be in a state of horror witnessing this. What if you support an illegal cause (Monero development might be illegal in the future)? You could donate with Monero, otherwise you might find it impossible to contribute.

I don't know if that was Satoshi's goal or not since I haven't actually read the original white paper. For me it's sufficient to do be rid of perpetual inflation. I'd also lilke to see income and capital gains taxes eliminated and if crypto ends up giving people a weapon to fight against this kind of demoralizing taxation then that's a good thing.

As you are implying, anonyminity built into a coin (any coin) is presently insufficient to protect would be tax evaders. However, most people already acknowledge this. I don't honestly know if I would pay income/capital gains tax if I thought i could successfully evade them, but, since I have made a more or less good faith effort to report and pay my crypto profits, I consider this to be in the realm of the hypothetical. Monero doesn't pretend to help you dodge the taxman. Just what is your point?

I don't see this as a Monero problem in particular. There's no point in trading if you don't plan on taking profits at some point, and if you take profit you're going to have to convert the crypto to cash, and it's going to be hard to do this without the involvement of an exchange and a bank. If you do manage to sell tons of crypto to some guy on local bitcoins, you're still going to have a problem when you buy a condo. The IRS will notice and ask you where the money came from. A circular economy where everything is done in crypto will help but won't definitely solve the problem, because the government will know that a title deed changed hands, and if you don't want to involve title deeds changing hands (or legal documentation indicating ownership changes), you risk forfeiting protection of the law.

He got an error 500......if the hot wallet is empty that's what it should have said..
The bitfinex team is incompetent. Don't make excuses for them.

Do yourself a favour and don't do any more trading on bfx. GTFO unless you want to get goxxed.

soonish

tmlpfs.
Thanks, that's a great idea.

This is what happened.
I had a quite profitable short and the ticker went to about 230 and I decided I wanted to close out, so I hit close. I refreshed and nothing happened as in no pending order was listed in the active orders section and the position remained unchanged. I don't really remember the details but I probably hit close about twice over a period of minutes waiting for something to happen but nothing did. This is when my cascade of crime started. I hit "close" again. Then I hit refresh and so on (I might have close on more time too, I just don't remember), and then I saw that I now had a long whereas before I had a short, and then I tried to close the short. I admit I had had a long day and was very tired so I didn't clue into what was happening until after the damage was done.

There are two reasons why I think the preponderance of the blame is on bfx:
1) Close and "close this position" can never be interpreted as meaning open.
2) Their server wasn't just lagged. It was feeding the users wrong data in real time. It was not saying anything about pending market orders and it was saying that my position was open *long after it had actually been closed*. It would be better for their server to simply time out than be responsive with wrong info.

So far they have given me nothing back (even the fees) and they have admitted no culpability. At first I had a 6k+ loss but they gave 2300 back because of trade engine screw ups. (They're giving nothing back that stems from my double closing).

Giancarlo Devasini's assertion that preventing closes from become open upon the issuance of a close request is somehow technologically insurmountable is complete horse manure. If he thinks it's some sort of technologically hard problem he shouldn't be working in technology in the first place.

They stuck me for over 4k usd because I hit close twice. As far as I'm concerned they're scammers or the moral equivalent.

Maybe paying a little bit extra in fees is the price of not having to contend with incompetence and dishonour. Don't do business with Bitfinex even if they're paying you to trade on their platform. We should encourage the other exchanges to add margin trading instead.

That's the way I see it. "Close" cannot mean "open". Even "Close this position with a market order", can't mean "Open a new position with a market order". "With a market order" just means that a market order will be the instrument by which the close is effected. I'm down over 4k USD because of this and bitfinex isn't giving me anything, even though the vast preponderance of the blame is theirs because of their deceptive UI. I have been trying to identify similarly effected people so we could act in concert somehow. If you make hrumph33 a contact on skype, slavo and I have a chat going called "bitfinex fuckery" and I will add you to the chat. (BTW I'm not responsible for the profanity). To all of you who are smarter than me and knew better than to never double close, I congratulate you, but with bitfinex you don't know what they might do to you next.

No one should ever do business with them again (and those of us who unfairly lost money should be made whole). This is a shout out to others. They gave me back approx 36% of what was unfairly taken, and frankly I have no idea how they made that determination other than using some random number generator. So far they haven't given me anything else back because I committed the mortal sin of hitting the close button more than once (when it appeared to have no effect).

In the support thread, Giancarlo of Bitfinex actually asked me to thank him 


This was in the context of not wanting anything I was saying to be construed as acceptance of an offer (for reasons that should be obvious to most of us). The way forward isn't clear but one thing is for sure no matter what other actions are taken: I'm going to hound them as long as I draw breath.

I'm sort of looking forward to doing business with stamp again except they don't do the margin thing (and they won't say anything about any future plans to implement) which is essential if you're into trading, so I'll have to look at other options besides stamp too.

They're offering to give me back 2344.5 of 6537.61  USD lost from a good faith effort to close a position. I am guilty of hitting close more than once, but I refreshed before doing so and the info displayed in the browser obviously did not indicate that previous market orders had gone through (otherwise their engine would have bounced the new orders because they're not supposed to stack). I got caught in a loop of confusion where i was a short then a long etc, but since their web server was feeding me wrong info during the crash I feel wronged by bfx. I do not know how to respond to the offer.

Hi,
Last night I had a quite profitable short going when I decided to close my position. So then I hit "close" and nothing seemed to happen, so then I hit "close" again, then a while later I see myself as having a long, so I hit "close" again, then I had a short again and so on (I can't remember the details now).

Anyway the long and short of it that instead of having a profit, I'm down over 5k, and as far as I am concerned I was robbed by the exchange. So far the response from support has been along the lines of "suck it up". Even though I realise what happened now, it did not occur to me at the time that hiting "close" more than once (in the face of total unresponsiveness) willl then open a new position (ages later).  Anyway I am now an aggrieved party seeking justice from the bitfinex exchange.

Presumably, many of us want Mark's head and justly so, but this idea is nevertheless our best hope at recovering anything at all of value from mtgox. Lengthy bankruptcy proceedings and liquidation of the assets will take a long time (perhaps years) and leave us with virtually nothing after the parasitic lawyers take their cut.

I personally chafe at the idea of outright forgiving Mark, but, since this is probably our best hope for salvaging anything at all from the wreckage, we must put aside thoughts of vengeance and move forward..

I am not very optimistic about anything now, but this is the best plan that I know of. I do hope that this project succeeds.

For my part, if btc withdrawl is really due to a technical glitch, then they should suspend btc withdrawls. They should have suspended them as soon as the glitch was first detected. Keeping broken half-functioning features alive scares the crap out of me personally as a customer.

Also, for what its worth, I now think that mt gox should have suspended trades and deposits (with the possible exception of Japanese yen trading)
a long time ago. Instead they should have said that they'd do their utmost to help customers get their fiat until
fiat withdrawls were fully online again and under the circumstances keeping trading operational was unprofessional.

I understand that its a fee imposed by Gox's bank for wires in addition to what they're already allotted,
so Gox is just passing it along. Hence, big unfairness on the part of Japanese banks, but no unfairness on the part of Gox.
Of course 5% is a very round amount and I wonder if Gox isn't taking a cut. If they are, in the name of good customer relations
I think they should consider paying any such cut back (to all of us who paid the 5%).

CAD $4,500 fee for a single wire transfer is a painful eye-gouge.  Being happy with that makes me think of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
[/quote]

I paid the fee because A) i was a bit frightened by the circumstances (I won't deny it) and B)
the money is more useful to me *now*.
I understand that the fee covers mtgox's costs for processing the emergency wires so
its more or less fair even if it sucks.