[smaili]

Here's what people tried to pull off:

1. Set up an account, borrow one bitcoin, sell it short, collect $2,700.

2. Set up another account, buy a bitcoin, spend $2,700.

3. When the fork happens, your long account ends up with +1 BTC and +0.8 BCH.

4. Your short account ends up with -1 BTC and -0 BCH (because Bitfinex doesn't require you to come up with the BCH).

5. Net, you have $0, 0 BTC and 0.8 BCH.

6. The 0.8 BCH were worth as much as $560.

7. That money was totally free.

[thefalcon]

This is the most clear and concise explanation I've seen. Bravo Mr Levine[1]. It's worth noting that some people tried to pull this off because Bitfinex's official communications seemed to clearly state that this is how Things Would Work, at least until after the fact when they realized what a mistake that would be.

[1] Ninja edit to specify to whom credit is due.

[tanderson92]

You might consider reading the article, it's actually Matt Levine's words copy+pasted.

[tpallarino]

Disclosure: Bitfinex robbed me of BCH according to the terms of the agreement, which was not amended until after the fact.

The money wasn't totally free. There was a huge opportunity cost to holding BTC at that time, and even having any in the margin wallet was a huge liability as opposed to funding your margin account with altcoins. Any serious trader knew that alts would rise immediately following the fork and Bitcoin would drop.

And regardless of whether it was free, their terms explicitly stated that those with a BTC balance in their wallets would receive BCH [1]. They did not issue a follow up post clarifying that hedging was strictly not allowed and thus robbed people. After how they handled both this and their hack, I urge/beg people not to use this exchange.

[1] https://www.bitfinex.com/posts/212

[harryh]

1. Try to make free money in a totally unregulated market when an organization publishes a foolish policy.

2. Get mad when said organization amends policy so you can't get your free money.

If you're gonna try to profit in the wild west it looks kind of unseemly to get mad when your scheme doesn't go off quite as easily as you had hoped.

[tpallarino]

1. Organization implements foolish policy

2. Thousands of people make trades according to foolish policy

3. Organization changes terms of foolish policy, telling nobody.

4. Organization then waits until after the fact to tell everyone that they have changed the policy, which dictate d the actions of a non trivial percentage of their customers.

If you're going to try to look like a legitimate exchange, this kind of thing looks pretty unseemly.

[harryh]

If you're going to try to look like a legitimate exchange, this kind of thing looks pretty unseemly.

Oh I agree! The whole thing has bitfinex looking a little foolish. It was step #1 that was the problem though. Steps 3 and 4 were them fixing it as best they could. Those parts weren't mistakes, it's just them keeping you from stealing Bitcoin Cash from their other customers.

[tpallarino]

I don't really see how it's stealing from their other customers when anyone with a nonzero BTC balance could have shorted BTC with BTC in their margin account.

Somehow I'm penalized for trying to maximize my profit based on the terms that were stated, even though that's what every single other person on the exchange is doing. Basically they chose to favor those who didn't understand the terms or what was going on in favor of those who did.

[harryh]

A bunch of people did what you did. That (before their correction that has you so riled up) lowered the coefficient used to distribute BCH from 0.8539 to 0.7757.

The BCH you attempted to acquire for no cost would have come from other customers in the form of that smaller coefficient.

[shlinx]

Steps 3 and 4 were not fixing it as best as they could. They are just doing another wrong thing trying to cover the earlier mistake by sacrificing another group of their customers instead of Bitfinex itself. This group of their customers are also innocent as they are just lured by the foolish policy. They could transfer their BTC to the personal wallet to get BCH if they were not lured. Everyone playing game in Bitfinex is trying to maximize profits based on its policy, robbing or being robbed. The one who breaks the policy or changes the policy without notifying is the nasty one.

[harryh]

You are ignoring the underlying sense of fairness that bitfinex was trying to achieve and overfocusing on the precise letter of what they wrote. This is a common problem among engineers. It turns out that the former is more important than the latter to the vast majority of humans.

[bduerst]

Yeah, really. At this point, I don't think anyone should be surprised that an investment involving bitcoins is high-risk.

If Bitfinex violated it's own terms with this change, then there might be a case for suing in civil court, but something tells me that Bitfinex covered this with their lawyers before making the change.

[harryh]

I certainly agree. tpallarino seems a little surprised though!

[stouset]

Translation: I took on a tangible amount of risk in order to exploit a loophole I discovered in order to profit at the expense of an exchange and its legitimate customers, and I am upset that they circumvented my attempts.

[tpallarino]

I am (no longer) a legitimate customer. I was told by the service that I would receive BCH if I had BTC in my wallet, which I did. That service then did not make good on their word. They lied, simple as that man.

[callalex]

If only there was some kind of governing body to manage currencies and disputes.