The "last updated N seconds ago" message is somewhat confusing.

Right now, when looking at Huobi, the price plot (main section of chart) has not been updated for almost one hour. (It's 17:20 UTC now, the last 5m candle is for 16:20.)

I suppose that their server is to blame for the delay, so that is not the point.  The point is that the message at bottom says that the chart was updated a few seconds ago -- and the count resets after 25-30 seconds max, even if nothing changed.  

I imagine that bitcoinwisdom clients would appreciate a more obvious indication that the plot, specifically, is out of date.  E.g., by painting a gray bar on the right side, where the missing data woud be?  Right now, one can only discover the delay by placing the cursor over the last candle, reading its time, and comparing it with the current time.

Thanks again for the great tool, and all the best.

EDIT: the current price too is out of date.  When I hard-reload the page, it briefly shows 3774 CNY (the current value it seems) but then repaints the out-of-date price plot and posts 3780 CNY, the out-of-date price.

Peace, I must have minsunderstood a remark in this post as claiming that the owners of InstaWallet (or was it Paymium?) refunded themselves before other clients, after the hack and closure of their wallet service.  If that was not the case, apologies for any unwarranted implication, and please forget it.

Wait, is this the longest chain now?

That seems true, but this is now the longest chain, isn't it?

Thanks! Well, it seems that we must wait for Phinn's to provide a reasonable reply to that.  If he lost records of his deposits/holdings,  I don't see much hope of him getting the coins back.

I understod that.  My point was that in legal liquidations the managers of the company have the lowest priority; their claims are considered only after all the others -- even if they are not charged with fraud or negligence.  I suppose that this rule is intended to remove certain obvious temptations from managers.  It seems to be a sensible rule, that bitcoiners should demand when bitcoin ventures collapse, too.

Have you heard about those two teams of computer scientists who were cooperating on computing the digits of pi by working from both ends, and competing to see which would be the first to get to the middle?

Phinn's silence on this thread is worrisome, but so is that of the InstaWallet ex-owners.  I understand that Phinn is not the only person with such claim.  Also, it is claimed that the ex-owners refunded themselves before the customers, which is the opposite of the established rule in legal liquidations.

Is there any post (in some other thread, on reddit, etc.) where they have responded to these claims?

EDIT: I see that the French language thread has 7 pages of discussion on this.  Could someone please provide a one-line summary of the ex-owners counterclaim?  (With my poor French, I think I understood that Davout denies that Phinn had those coins in IsntaWallet, is that it?)

I know who were Newton and Tesla and Volta and Ampère, but who was that Hash guy?

Is is possible to measure the worthiness of a post?

I don't recal if I mentioned it here, but a few years ago Fiat Brasil switched to using cast iron instead of steel for the rear wheel hubs of some model.  The hubs would fatigue-crack after some time, more likely when driving at high speed on highways.  Several fatal accidents happened before the government forced Fiat to do a recall and replace those hubs.

Once I met at lunch the prof from our Mechanical Engineering dept who wrote the report that pointed out the problem and eventually convinced the government to order the recall.  It was not a easy struggle to overcome the Fiat lobbyists and lawyers, and I don't think that he got more than his expenses refunded.

That prof saved lives, perhaps hundreds of them. I will feel good if I can save the economies of a few people from the types of Mark Karpelès, Daniel Brewster, and Barry Silbert.

I was not referring to the people in this thread, but to the general public.  You guys here generally know enough about bitcoin to choose for yourselves.  But when I read something that I believe is wrong, I feel the need to reply.  Is that serious, doctor?

Well, my feeling is that Sunlot may distribute a small fraction of the bitcoins that clients lost (which will make many of those people happy, paradoxically), and they will split among clients according to the unfair final-balance criterion; and that will be it.  There will be no real investigation, no public explanation of what happened, and no one will be prosecuted.  The old management and any clients who cooperated with MtGOX's unethical behavior will get a fat share of what is left, and whoever stole the rest of the coins will walk away, free and rich, with the motivation and resources to commit even bigger crimes.  \

But the reputation of Bitcoin will not suffer, only because it cannot possibly get any worse.

Ignoring arguments that fail to convince me, of course.  I have no power to force anyone to invest or not, all I can do is present my arguments, and people will decide by themselves.

If I do not respond, it means that I agree with the response, or that I disagree but do not see the point of re-replying.  Most of the "arguments" here are merely statements of probability -- one thinks X is "quite likely", the other thinks it is "quite unlikely", and neither can convince the other to change his/her outlook.


To know my real motives you may have to consult a psychiatrist.  If a good excuse suffices, consider this:

I believe it is part of my job to warn my compatriots against computer-based scams and bad investments.

BitPagos itself may turn out to be just another harmless service like BitPay, a way to skim fees from bitcoin owners who need a pretext to unload their bitcoins without feeling like they are betraying the cause.  However, the reason why SecondMarket and Pantera are funding BitPagos is clearly to make bitcoin itself look like a great investment, so that lots of Latin Americans will rush to buy shares of their bitcoin-denominated investment funds.

Need I remind you that those funds will make money even if the bitcoin price crashes after the "LA bubble" that they are counting on, and all their investors lose money? In fact, those funds can make a LOT more money from the collapse of such a bubble than from a gradually rising BTC price.  (I haven't checked recently, but a month or so ago, one could compute that the SMBIT investors, as a whole, had lost money.)

Unfortunately, a prof with a keyboard can do very little against the advertising budgets of such big sharks.

EDIT: grammar

The first quoted parag (in red) is copied from my post. The second parag is not my understanding of what happened in November, as I have already written.  The third parag is a personal attack, something that I try to avoid and wish people avoided too.

Sigh. That was the fake @JorgeStolfi, of course.

"Government employee" is too broad.  That includes being a janitor at an elementary school, a disgruntled scientist at a military research faciltiy, or Edward Snowden.  So, are there any facts that would hint at him NOT being a government employee, in this broad sense?

But I was thinking of Bitcoin being a government project and Satoshi being the team that designed it.  For one thing, the design is too complex but too "final", with all the problems thought of and carefully fixed in some way; that suggests a team with a mission, rather than an individual working alone on a dream.  Also the US government is strangely ambiguous, even friendly, about a project that is openly meant to let people evade its control. Is that enough facts to "support even a remote possibility"?

Suit yourself... meanwhile I have diversified to reduce risk: half of my investment in cryptocoins is now in Bitcoin, half in Monero, and half in Dogecoin. 

Yes, interesting things can happen on either side, like right now.  Only that when China is awake they often stop or reverse the Western moves; when they are asleep, the Western whims tends to prevail.

Trade in China seems to be merely arbitrage robots reacting to the Bitstamp buys and buying into static sell orders that the Chinese had set up before going to bed.  I don't see significant movement in their order books yet, do you?