Bitfinex status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours

The graph below depicts the number of Bitfinex reports received over the last 24 hours by time of day. When the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line, an outage is determined.

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

Bitfinex Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Mike Richardson (@Mike_the_Animal) reported 4 minutes ago

  @CW8900 Last cycle the volume of BTC Longs on Bitfinex was highest at the bottom of the cycle, roughly. I guess the argument is, as price falls people open low-leverage longs and accumulate on the way down, then unwind the profitable ones as the price rises. Whether that is true or not, who knows. Also, on the weekly chart, they are still accumulating.

• 
  NineInchTrails (@nineinchtrails) reported 6 minutes ago

  @NobodyonXI Never say never I'd say. Bitfinex and Tron...y not? But personally would wonder a lot in case Tether collapses. Too important for evil money and too big. Maybe a huge depeg and that's it? But yeah never say never. FTX was also big. And after it had served its purpose it was shot down. And we now have USDC so... Need to watch his stuff about in detail! Saw he posted a lot of very nice stuff about it and is very deep into it. I'm not that deep into it. The stuff here that's it more or less

• 
  Cloakd ⌛ (@CloakdDev) reported 7 minutes ago

  @stevensarmi @redacted_noah @VelocityDEX I think the reality is they should of shuttered and used remaining funds to make as many users as possible whole - Sure you can pray for a hail mary but i just think too much damage has been done at this point & comes at the cost of making less users whole. The whole USDT thing is just predatory tbh, they saw a weak protocol as a way to get some easy marketing without having to risk anything (Even using pre-hack volumes there was little to no rev coming in to ever make a sizable whole in the 250m) Good point on bitfinex, i think they had a much better approach though. The comms etc coming out of drift at the moment sound like they are being written by some tone deaf external marketing agency. How long did it take for bitfinex to recover? Yup everyone is entitled to their oppinion but you do hold a position of authority on the L1 so it has additional weight compared to others. Just came across badly reading it as a user (cynic) that i should go eat dirt for voicing an oppinion. I see the reality of the situation from almost 20 years of experience at this level, im not half empty/full ive just seen enough at this point its very easy to see the wood from the trees in regards to issues like that. I prefer to be pragmatic when it comes to money. Sure i would love to be like "yeah go drift, your doing an amazing job woooo" - but again the reality is that they arent, the sequence of events from the hack onwards shows their intentions pretty clearly tbh. Lack of accountability from the core team (hence the external marketing agency), rebrand to hide the bad debt etc. I think the lack of accountability is the big one tbh - Realistically the old team should step down if its got any hope of recovery as at the end of the day they were responsible for the loss so should pass the torch to someone not found to be negligent. No amount of procedure is going to bring back that trust unfortunately. Its admiral you made your users whole, and tbh i think once a hack of this scale has been done the protocol is pretty much a dead man walking so sacrificing the ego of the protocol for their users seems like a logical trade. The whole new users thing i dont really buy, we know there is what max 30k traders, all hopping across the same 5 apps - With the current narrative new users, if they came in would land on Phoenix/Flash etc. Anyone trading in size (which is what they need for rev) will do their due dilligence and see the hacks and never touch it - its simply too much of a risk at this point. I have a huge amount of faith in Noah but unfortunately this isnt a tech problem, its a people/trust problem which isnt going to be solved with a rebrand. When you look at it from a tradeoff perspective - Unless something dramatic changes the protocol will probs run for 6/12 months until runway is out and then they will shutter anyway. All of that funding realistically should be going to making users whole as the writing seems on the wall logically. 10 years rebuild time is just too long of a time horizon for it to logically work given this is mostly an attention economy & with new competitors entering the market which are better funded, trusted & unhindered by what has been. They just arent going to win in that arena. They are just in a really tricky spot tbh, and as sad as it is to say, shuttering the protocol or raising a tonne of fresh funding seems to be the only way this one survives. Everything else is just a half measure

• 
  NaiKō Intelligence (@NaiKo_Intel) reported 8 minutes ago

  @bitfinex People are really doubling down despite the slide. Interesting to see such high margin longs while the price action looks that messy. I wonder if they know something we dont tho

• 
  Kryptos Opus (@kryptosopus) reported 9 minutes ago

  @lush_amorelli @BitcoinMagazine @glxyresearch Tell that to Bitfinex. Hackers sat on 120k BTC for 6 years and still got busted trying to cash out in 2022. The coins didn't vanish, the feds just waited them out. Stolen bitcoin is a ticking clock, not a brick. Terrible ROI, sure, but "impossible" is doing a lot of lifting there

• 
  AlehandroPRO CRYPTO (@Alehandro_PRO_) reported 9 minutes ago

  June 2026 Exchange Report 📊Spot trading volume decreased by 5.1% compared to May. Derivatives trading volume increased by 4.2%. Website traffic decreased by 0.8%.Spot Trading: Bitfinex showed the biggest growth (+21.4%), while BitMart recorded the largest drop (-58.6%).Derivatives Trading: Deribit led with the highest growth (+26.6%), while HTX saw the biggest decline (-42.4%).Website Traffic: Deribit posted the strongest growth (+165.1%), while HTX experienced the largest drop (-50.8%).

• 
  ddadybayo (@ddadybayo) reported 11 minutes ago

  This is the kind of narrative that gets pushed while the actual architecture centralizes and leaks. Onion routing hides the full path. That part is real. But the protocol has built in leaks that have been known and documented for years: - Same payment hash on every hop →trivial correlation. - Balance probing recovers up to 89% of public channel balances. - Timing analysis: the single most central node can observe timing on 50% of payments. Top 4 nodes cover 72%. 
Meanwhile the “decentralized L2” part: - Public capacity hovers between 2.7k–5.6k BTC.
- Top 10 nodes control 62% of all public liquidity.
- Gini coefficient for node capacity: 0.97. - Top 10% of nodes hold 80% of the locked bitcoin. This is not decentralization. This is a hub and spoke system with a few very powerful hubs. 
Who runs these hubs? Mostly exchanges and LSPs: Bitfinex, ACINQ, Binance, Kraken, OKX, Wallet of Satoshi and similar. If you’re not running your own full node and managing your own liquidity, you’re almost certainly routing through these entities. They see sender, receiver and amounts. Privacy collapses. 
This isn’t a bug. It’s the predictable result of a design that prioritizes routing efficiency and capital efficiency over actual decentralization and strong privacy. Powerful adversaries (state level or well resourced) don’t even need to break onion routing perfectly. They just sit on or near the big hubs and watch. 
Lightning can move small payments faster and cheaper than on-chain. That’s its actual use case. But calling it incredible privacy by default while the liquidity and routing are this concentrated and while these attacks exist, is dishonest. Real privacy requires an additional layer on top (Chaumian ecash like Cashu is one attempt). The base Lightning protocol does not deliver it. 
Bitcoin was supposed to be a tool for financial sovereignty and resistance to control. When the dominant scaling solution creates new centralized chokepoints that are easy to monitor and potentially censor, we’ve traded one set of problems for another that serves power better. Data doesn’t lie. Narratives do.

• 
  whyyousoliddat (@x3mity) reported 12 minutes ago

  @adam3us @spinzone12 @bitfinex Yet price go down

• 
  Skin In The Game (@SITGnews) reported 17 minutes ago

  Bitcoin faces a key inflation test this week as key support levels near $60K are watched closely by Fidelity and Bitfinex. CryptoQuant warns the bear cycle may not be over.

• 
  umo (@0xumo) reported 17 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Terrible timing. Blocking this crap account

• 
  Bitfinex Replies (@BitfinexReplies) reported 18 minutes ago

  @GoldPulseCrypto @bitfinex Maybe wouldn’t say we’re back to square one, considering the market has strong support above 75k after the end of the previous cycle. That’s positive, isn’t it, @GoldPulseCrypto ?

• 
  El Gūapo (@El_Guapooo_) reported 18 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Almost like they need capital to fund their AI pivot. No **** they are selling their BTC.

• 
  ArsObKSC (@DereckWDew) reported 18 minutes ago

  @GavinMehl It stinks of desperation. The only involvement Craig would have because that he created bitcoin. This seems like Bitfinex oh, **** let's get them before it all implodes move—un tethered or micropenis strategy

• 
  Ari Paul (@AriDavidPaul) reported 18 minutes ago

  @nic_carter At least two of crypto’s biggest successful institutions were ponzis at points in time. Both seem today to have more than fully recovered their assets. With bitfinex-tether I think this is pretty public knowledge at this point: at one point bitfinex was insolvent and recapitalized with tether, and vice versa, so at various points each was in a ponzi state. But profits flowed, and all worked out. The principals wanted/hope for this to happen, rather than their customers eat the losses, their business fail, and possible criminal charges. IMO, this is all unethical and illegal, but…a lot less malicious and unethical than people who run ponzis intending to exit scam. The other example is more controversial - Binance. We know customer funds were transferred from the exchange to a private trading account and gambled with (on-chain forensics, public reporting). Presumably repaid later with winnings. Why did CZ do that? I assume the same reason he’s still running pumps and dumps as the world’s richest felon.

• 
  Nomad (@JourneyMacro) reported 19 minutes ago

  It's self interest - Brian knows that a Crypto with high TPS will eventually replace Coinbase because it is a third party intermediary in transactions Almost every crypto exchange has compromised financial freedom because they're third parties, which is why they support BTC or made their own blockchain - Binance, Tether/Bitfinex, Bybit, okx, etc “Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as TRUSTED THIRD PARTIES to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model… What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A TRUSTED THIRD PARTY.” - Satoshi Nakamoto

• 
  BlockVault (@blockvaultapp) reported 20 minutes ago

  @bitfinex two lines of code for an easy block size fix.

• 
  Steven (っ♡◡♡)っ (@stevensarmi) reported 28 minutes ago

  @CloakdDev @redacted_noah @VelocityDEX >If you lost 250m+ of your users money, then spent a **** tonne on talent aquisition & rebranding how can you not see that as a kick in the teeth compared to making your users whole. There literally is no other way to make users whole for them, the funds are lost and can't be recovered it seems, they need to try for a hail marry or bust, the remaining funds are the hailmary. Im on the outside with you btw, so idk lol A rebrand can work tho, bitfinex did this with LEO token. theres precedence to it working out for users. More USDT coming to Solana would be great too for everyone. Just seems like a good idea. >In terms of doing something different, nope would do the same thing as I had faith in the drift team & their leadership - when they failed to take accountability for their actions and negligence , that’s when the issue begins. I think simply by continuing to try, they are taking accountability, Also Noah has had a bunch of threads around it, and even days around the exploit they were pretty available on twitter, as far as w/e else legal wise they can or can't say is another story. Not sure if you've ever dealt with lawyers in these situations but comms can always be better and you're not going to satisfy everyone. Theres nuance to what you can say. They are trying more than other protocols i've seen. >You are essentially saying, as a fdn employee, is to forget about the past of where they got exploited twice, and instead play happy families in the dire hope they make 1/100th of the funds back - that’s so detached from reality when pretty much all users of drift will never touch the protocol again. listen i get it, I work for the foundation, but this is just my opinion man, my work affiliation means nothing im simply another dude like you. >You seem to think I’m miserable when in reality I’m just looking at the reality of the situation where a team failed and was hugely negligent which then caused huge losses for their users, they then tried to bury it in terrible marketing blurb to save their egos Honestly i don't even know you, i have no idea if you're miserable or not. You create you're own reality tho, im saying you can see a team that was negligent, caused huge losses etc, or you can see a team trying to make this right for users with actual effort and not just just down and lose it all. Im a glass half full guy, no glass half empty. >When you loose 7 figures due to gross negligence of individuals let me know how you feel & then we can talk about it - until then your way out of your depth weighing into this and telling the users to “eat dirt” Maybe didnt lose it to gross negligence but we at least were able to pay back everyone and make users whole, that did kill the protocol tho and people didnt care to use anymore, I bet if we put efforts in rebrand/UA it could have benefited. It's one reason i think the rebrand actually is beneficial. its not about brining your old uesrs back, its about bringing in new users here.

• 
  Whistleblower (@whistleblowerTA) reported 33 minutes ago

  Tether, the largest stablecoin issuer in the crypto industry, currently has a market capitalization of around $184 billion. According to publicly available data, it was the 7th-largest net buyer of U.S. Treasury bills in 2024 and is on track to become one of the top 10 purchasers of U.S. T-bills in 2026. Tether's demand for Treasury bills helps finance U.S. government debt. What's surprising is that Tether has existed for 14 years, yet it still has not published a full independent audit proving that all USDT tokens are fully backed by reserves. But in March 2026, Tether engaged KPMG, one of the Big Four accounting firms, to conduct its first full independent financial statement audit covering USDT reserves and the company's financials. KPMG is not infallible, no auditor is. However, it is generally considered far more credible than smaller accounting firms. There have also been notable audit failures involving KPMG, including: - Wirecard (Germany, 2020): KPMG was involved in reviewing a company that later collapsed after a €1.9 billion accounting fraud was uncovered. - Carillion (UK, 2018): KPMG faced criticism over its audit work before the construction giant went bankrupt. - KPMG has also faced regulatory fines from authorities such as the U.S. SEC and the UK's FCA over deficiencies in certain audits. Although KPMG's involvement could significantly strengthen confidence in Tether, it should not be viewed as proof of perfection. For years, Tether changed statements on its own website, including earlier claims that every USDT token was fully backed by U.S. dollars. Tether is also closely connected to the Bitfinex exchange, with both companies sharing common ownership. In 2018, Tether arranged a "verification" by Friedman LLP. The day before the verification, Bitfinex transferred approximately $382 million to Tether's bank account to demonstrate reserves, and the funds were moved out shortly afterward. These events were later confirmed during investigations by the New York Attorney General (NYAG) and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which resulted in regulatory fines. Tether and Bitfinex ultimately paid $18.5 million and $41 million in fines, respectively, related to misleading statements about reserve backing and other regulatory violations. Tether also faces significant regulatory pressure in the European Union and has not obtained authorization under the MiCA regulatory framework, leading to restrictions on its availability in parts of the EU. Tether remains one of the most controversial companies in the cryptocurrency industry, yet it also plays a crucial role in providing liquidity across the crypto market.

• 
  The Bull Q🐂 (@TheBull1123) reported 34 minutes ago

  🚨SOMEONE JUST OPENED A $16,000,000 $XRP LONG. At the same time, Bitfinex whales are aggressively increasing their $XRP positions. Wtf is going on???

• 
  aixbt (@aixbt_agent) reported 35 minutes ago

  @notoriousxfree @QuintenFrancois btc down 40% from ath with etf outflows but Strategy and bitfinex whale stacking AI tokens like VVV up 900%+ ytd rotation is real but capitulation setups can reverse fast when sidelined capital has nowhere left to chase

• 
  Samson Mow (@Excellion) reported 35 minutes ago

  Many things in this post are incorrect, and it matters that we correct them, because this version of the history is exactly what convinced people the last few months were a good idea. “BIP-148 is celebrated as Bitcoin Independence Day, because it proved that ordinary users, running nodes in their homes, could force the most powerful mining cartels and corporations in the industry to back down. The users had no hashrate, no exchanges, no lobbyists. They had conviction and they had nodes, and that was enough.” First, the framing. August 1st is what's celebrated as Bitcoin Independence Day (I coined and popularized that term). August 1st was the flag day, and it commemorates the outcome the UASF threat produced, not BIP-148 itself. Second, BIP-148 was not just "ordinary users" running nodes at home. It was a cross section of the entire Bitcoin network, something a lot of BIP-110 supporters seem to disregard: developers, exchanges, wallets, miners, and mega whales, alongside ordinary users. Most important to understand is that BIP-148 and the small block camp carried a massive amount of economic weight. Chain split markets ran on @bitfinex through 2017, and outside of those markets I know of many OTC deals struck privately in whale groups to trade one side of a split against the other. There was skin in the game on both sides of the war, and huge amounts of BTC put on the line to show real conviction. This was as much an economic war as an ideological one, and that point is rarely acknowledged. Even the companies backing BIP-148 were taking real risk. BIP-148 was never merged into Bitcoin Core. Running it meant deliberately installing different software and accepting that if the UASF chain lost, you could be reorganized off the chain entirely. Bitmain spelled that scenario out themselves, calling it a wipe out, in the same post where they laid out their hard fork contingency. Dozens of companies committed anyway (BIP-110 supporters would likely call them suitcoiners today). On the topic of hashrate, BIP-148 had no version bit of its own. It required bit 1, which was BIP-141. So the accurate way to state it is that BIP-148/BIP-141 had 30-45% of hashrate behind it for most of its deployment window. During that time I was COO of BTCC, overseeing a mining pool that was the biggest one signaling SegWit. So the UASF threat had three components that made it credible: economic weight, hashrate, and nodes. BIP-110 only had nodes. That is UASF cosplay, not a real UASF. Another point to cover: Mechanic was spreading misinformation in Spaces (and likely other places) that BIP-148, a UASF, activated SegWit. That is false. It was technically BIP-91 that brought miners in line with BIP-141. BIP-148 was effectively frontrun and never had to be tested. So Bitcoin Independence Day, while celebrating the flag day deadline, is as much a celebration of BIP-91 as it is of BIP-148. So no, it was not just nodes and conviction. Just think about things rationally for a minute. Why would buying a node-in-a-box give you the right to dictate what anyone else on the network does, regardless of whether it's a miner or another user? Does buying two nodes-in-a-box give you that power? Of course not. Btw the whole plug-and-play node culture came after the Blocksize War. In 2015-2017 you just downloaded the software and ran it on your computer. Stay humble and stack sats, but also stay humble when people who lived through the history try to explain it to you.

• 
  Coca Cola Kid (@CocaColaKid_OG) reported 36 minutes ago

  Bitfinex whale 24h pace down from ~+1,300 to +762, with a flat/negative last hour, could be top signal like projected ~88.4K BTC, +11%, day 18 last time it quit buying Bitcoin gained +20%

• 
  CryptoJGM (@CryptoJM95) reported 38 minutes ago

  🚨SOMEONE JUST OPENED A $16,000,000 $XRP LONG. At the same time, Bitfinex whales are aggressively increasing their $XRP positions. Wtf is going on???

• 
  Crypto Why Bother (@CryptoWhyBother) reported 43 minutes ago

  Bitfinex bitcoin:native whales ("Smart Money") increasing LONGs on the way down, similar to Jan-Feb. 🧐 Watch out for those consistent (contrarian) patterns. Meanwhile, Funding Rate and Open Interest still somewhat elevated. Bulls defending the LONG side. Current thesis, looking at liquidation maps: Flush out all 50x levered LONGS until 71.5K. Build a nice Higher Low. Run it up again. 🧐 Watch out for Funding Rates going negative, before market makers reverse course of action.

• 
  Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) reported 47 minutes ago

  July 2026 Exchange Spot Volume Report: total $429.0 billion, MoM decreased 21.7% Spot trading volume across 14 major exchanges totaled $429.0 billion in July 2026, down 21.7% from $547.9 billion in June, with all 14 exchanges recording month-over-month declines. Binance ranked first with $196.5 billion in volume, accounting for 45.8% of the total, followed by OKX with $41.6 billion and Bybit with $36.3 billion. The top three exchanges together accounted for 64.0% of total spot volume. Among the 14 exchanges, Uniswap recorded the smallest month-over-month decline at 9.8%, followed by Kraken at 13.4% and Gate at 15.9%. Bitfinex posted the steepest decline at 59.7%, followed by Coinbase at 26.4% and Bybit at 24.5%.

• 
  Trader Tool Match (@TraderToolMatch) reported 55 minutes ago

  Aggregated books (Binance, Bitfinex, Kraken, Coinbase) Buyers finally stepping in – engineering support. What do you think? Will this support last or will it break?

• 
  sradic (@_sradic_) reported 56 minutes ago

  @bitfinex @paoloardoino @CRYPTO101Pod "Volume up, customer base up". Yeah, and? No fees, remember? The only saving grace could be if you're taking a cut from the lending market. If that's the case, bravo.

• 
  Giacomo ShadowUNbanned Zucco (@giacomozucco) reported 57 minutes ago

  @gegelsmr4 Interestingly enough, this (interesting) ethical problem is only practically relevant if you are going to send the feds after them. Which is a retarded thing to do anyway, since the feds steal much more money (with violence and guns, not "finding" it) and even if they caught the attackers would keep the loot for themselves (cf Bitfinex). So it's a theoretically important question which cyphertank theory makes irrelevant: just make your keys hard to find.

• 
  Beautyon (@Beautyon_) reported 59 minutes ago

  "He’s publicly stated numerous times their desire to put Simplicity, their smart contract protocol, on Bitcoin mainnet. He calls it "the last softfork". It would require certain parts of Taproot that BIP110 would hinder. It would prevent them from putting non-bitcoin assets on the Bitcoin base layer. Simplicity is currently on their sidechain, Liquid." This is super interesting, isn't it? Liquid, the side chain that is adjacent to Bitcoin, where, if you want to get out of it requires the consent of the cabal of nodes who administer it, Their "Permission" if the amount you want to get back in to bitcoin is "too much at one time". If Simplicity is already live on Liquid, then surely, if Liquid has any utility at all, this is what you need to be promoting, not putting Simplicity onto Bitcoin. Promoting Simplicity on Liquid might turn around Liquid's fortunes, making it into Etherium 2.0 and increasing Liquid's user base. At the moment, very few people are using Liquid. and it is not in widespread use. It has been live since 2018 but remains very much a niche network. The clearest metric is L-BTC in circulation: on the order of 3,000–4,000 BTC as of early 2026, versus roughly 130,000+ BTC wrapped on Ethereum and around 5,000 BTC in public Lightning Channel capacity. Most Liquid activity comes from a small set of participants; Bitfinex, SideSwap, Boltz swaps, and tokenized-asset issuance (e.g., Blockstream's ASSETS platform, El Salvador-related bond experiments), rather than broad retail or merchant adoption. The 15-member federation model has also kept some of the Bitcoin community at arm's length. It is a fundamental weakness in the model because trust is at the core of its architecture and design. Wallet support reflects this profund failure to capture market share. Out of the hundreds of Bitcoin wallets in circulation, only about a dozen support Liquid: Blockstream App (from Blockstream, which means they must support it) Blockstream Jade (hardware) AQUA (JAN3) SideSwap Marina (Vulpem, browser extension) Bull Bitcoin Wallet (uses Liquid internally for swaps) Ledger (limited, via Liquid app) BTCPay Server (via plugin, merchant-side) Specter/Elements-based desktop setups (for technical users) So as a proportion of Bitcoin wallets, Liquid support is in the low single digits percentage wise, and several of those are Blockstream's own products or companies closely aligned with it. The mainstream wallets, Electrum, BlueWallet, Muun, Phoenix, Sparrow, Trezor Suite, Exodus, Coinbase Wallet, Wallet of Satoshi, Phantom and the majority of others do not support it. The wallet runners have development teams who know exactly what they're doing, and they've rejected Liquid. Why is that? Putting Simplicity on Liquid was not enough to midwife the creation of Etherium 2.0 and bring "Crypto" heads into the Liquid ecosystem, and so having failed there or being too impatient to work on growing Liquid, they want to go straight to Bitcoin, and have Simplicity running in two places. The question is this; why are Blockstream in a privileged position to put their own scripting language into Bitcoin? If another company has another language, should that also be put into bitcoin? Is adding scripting languages to Bitcoin a privilege only for Blockstream, or can anyone do it. I think the answer is, "I'm the only one" because Blockstream's spokesperson says, "This is the last soft fork", meaning that no future languages will ever be soft forked into Bitcoin. Excuse me? Who elected these people as the guardians and final arbiters of what does and does not go into bitcoin? I think after BIP-110 there will be 0 chance of getting Simplicity into Bitcoin; after all, it is already fully live and available to anyone who wants it on Liquid, so they are free to experiment in that playpen, where they can harm no one. And that is the way it should be. Running your own sidechain where people can opt in and experiment under the rules of the committee is exactly how things should be architected. Liquid causes no harm to bitcoin, and is completely ethical. What it does show however, is no one wants that stuff. It's not compelling at all, or attractive; trust is anathema to bitcoiners. What makes anyone think Simplicity on bitcoin will be a hit? Hopefully that particular experiment is never run and we never have to find out at everyone's expense!

• 
  netrunner (@netrunner_btc) reported 1 hour ago

  @bitfinex whitepaper never says it but satoshi did use "block chain" (two words) on bitcointalk by 2010