1. Home
  2. Companies
  3. Bitstamp
  4. Outage Map
Bitstamp

Bitstamp Outage Map

The map below depicts the most recent cities worldwide where Bitstamp users have reported problems and outages. If you are having an issue with Bitstamp, make sure to submit a report below

Loading map, please wait...

The heatmap above shows where the most recent user-submitted and social media reports are geographically clustered. The density of these reports is depicted by the color scale as shown below.

Bitstamp users affected:

Less
More
Check Current Status

Bitstamp is a bitcoin exchange based in Luxembourg. It allows trading between USD currency and bitcoin cryptocurrency. It allows USD, EUR, bitcoin, litecoin, ethereum, or Ripple deposits and withdrawals.

Most Affected Locations

Outage reports and issues in the past 15 days originated from:

Location Reports
Check Current Status

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.

Bitstamp Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

  • IAmSagzee
    Sagzee (@IAmSagzee) reported

    Encryption doesn't care who's sitting at the keyboard, because math can't tell the difference between a hacker's script and a valid signature. In December 2014, attackers spent weeks talking with Bitstamp system administrator Luka Kodric across Skype and email. Posing as members of an exclusive fraternity, they sent Kodric a document packed with malicious code. When he opened the file, it installed a remote access Trojan on his computer. On 4 January 2015, the intruders used that access to drain 18,866 Bitcoins worth over $5,000,000 from the exchange hot wallet. "Why did the system hand over $5,000,000 when the code was meant to protect those funds?" the Cryptographic Vault asks. "Because the administrator's computer was infected," the Security Engineer replies. "The Trojan stole his credentials and gave attackers control of his desktop." "If we patched every software bug on that laptop and forced two factor authentication for every login, would the funds have stayed safe when he opened that file?" "No," the Security Engineer admits, pausing. "The file executed code directly inside his active user session. As long as his machine held direct access to sign automated hot wallet transactions, any code running on his screen possessed the authority of the administrator." "Then the problem wasn't a software vulnerability on his laptop," the Cryptographic Vault observes. "What actually failed?" "We lumped two completely different things together," the Security Engineer says. "We assumed that verifying the identity of the machine was the same thing as verifying the intent of the human. It's like a heavy vault door with two keyholes. One keyhole sits inside a locked steel box. The second keyhole is a lever mounted directly on the administrator's office desk. The attackers didn't try breaking into the steel box. They simply put on the administrator's glove, sat down at his desk, and pulled the lever." The breach revealed a fundamental mismatch in system architecture. Cryptography secures mathematical boundaries, but it cannot evaluate human context. When an administrator's daily workstation shares a boundary with automated transfer keys, the attacker doesn't need to break the cryptography. They simply need to trick the human into letting them borrow the key. "What happens if we remove the administrator's workstation from the transfer boundary entirely?" the Cryptographic Vault asks. "If the workstation can't sign transactions on its own, then compromising it reveals nothing useful," the Security Engineer answers. "The attacker gets control of a screen, but the screen doesn't hold the key." "So how does the system confirm that a transaction ought to happen?" "By forcing independent boundaries," the Security Engineer explains. "Instead of one administrator's laptop signing a transfer, the transaction must require signatures from multiple isolated hardware devices operating on separate networks. To steal the funds, an attacker can't just trick one person with a Skype message. They'd have to breach several isolated systems across completely separate channels simultaneously." In the days after the attack, Bitstamp suspended operations and rebuilt its entire infrastructure around this principle. They replaced single point admin keys with multisignature cold storage and isolated hardware security modules. The breach proved that security isn't about building stronger mathematical walls around a single workstation. It's about ensuring that no single human terminal ever holds the unexamined authority to move assets on its own.

  • nerdy_hex
    hex (@nerdy_hex) reported

    words like “BTC just saw massive exchange outflows” you’ve seen this tweet a hundred times. the problem isn’t the data. it’s that netflow is one of the most misunderstood metrics in crypto. ⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻ here’s how to actually read it netflow measures one thing: the net amount of an asset moving into or out of known exchange wallets over a given period. that’s it. it’s a balance-sheet metric, doesn’t need to measure intent or predict price. at best, it’s coincident-to-lagging data. By the time a trend is obvious on a CryptoQuant chart, the wallets involved usually made those decisions days (or even weeks) earlier. this is where most people get trapped. netflow looks incredibly clean in hindsight because you’re viewing it after the market has already moved. in real time? flows are noisy, wallets labels get updated and large transfers get reclassified. more often than not, netflow confirms a move instead of calling it. ⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻ another misconception is that, “Sustained outflows = bullish.” not necessarily. outflows only tell you coins left exchange-labeled wallets. that can happen because of: • long-term accumulation (bullish) • investors moving into self-custody after a scare (neutral to bearish) • custody reshuffling by exchanges (operational) • OTC settlements moving directly into cold storage after the trade (already sold) all these but still the same chart, but completely different narratives. a good example: BTC recently closed its third straight quarterly loss, the longest streak since the 2022 bear market. during that stretch, spot ETFs recorded eight consecutive weeks of outflows before finally turning positive in early July. if exchange outflows alone were enough to predict a rally, that drawdown doesn’t play out the way it did. the broader rotation into AI equities mattered more than a single on-chain metric. ⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻ now, you want to separate real accumulation from custody noise? ask yourself these questions: • is the movement concentrated in one or two wallets, or spread across many? • did the coins move to a known custodian or an entirely new address? • does spot trading volume support what the balances are suggesting? • could this simply be an exchange-to-exchange transfer mislabeled as an outflow? context changes everything. just like how Robinhood launched the Robinhood Chain recently, while integrating Bitstamp deeper into its institutional infrastructure. pricing. settlement. lending. that kind of backend migration can trigger massive “outflows” across on-chain dashboards. nothing changed about market conviction. It was infrastructure, not sentiment. the same thing happens whenever exchanges rotate cold wallets, restructure custody, or onboard institutional partners. you can see the opposite effect with SOL. spot solana ETFs have attracted over $1B in cumulative inflows while posting gains on every trading day in early July. at the same time, SOL still trades roughly 57% below its October launch-period price. weekly active addresses also jumped about 77% in just two weeks. flow data and price don’t always move together. accumulation can happen long before the chart reflects it. ⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻ here’s the framework: netflow tells you where balances moved. it doesn’t tell you why they moved or what price will do next. build your thesis using order flow, derivatives positioning (OI, funding), wallet clustering, and market structure. then use netflow to validate that thesis. if a netflow post ignores the difference between custody movements and actual selling pressure, it’s only telling half the story.

  • bethanymooreg
    Bethany (@bethanymooreg) reported

    @BitcoinArchive rypto adoption is not happening overnight it’s happening one platform at a time. Robinhood entering the UK market through Bitstamp adds another major gateway for millions of users to access Bitcoin and digital assets. The rails are being built

  • AlenBarb
    Alen B (@AlenBarb) reported

    @KyTosta @TheBTCTherapist Bitstamp is this true? Help a guy here? Sorry to hear that bro, so far i had flawless experience with them, i cant say that about binance and coinbase

  • Kaique0819
    Alexander Pierce (@Kaique0819) reported

    BTC Lost $73K — Is $70K the Next Stop? In my previous BTC breakdown, I said $72.8K–$73.2K was the key level bulls needed to defend. Now that zone has failed. Looking at the latest Bitstamp daily chart, BTC is trading around $71.8K after getting rejected again from the $81K–$82K resistance zone. This confirms the short-term structure has weakened further. BTC is now forming lower highs, losing key support, and showing little rebound strength. This is no longer just a normal pullback inside a strong uptrend. The market is now entering a more serious downside-risk phase. Here are the 3 levels I’m watching now: 1. $71.5K–$72K — Immediate reaction zone BTC is sitting right on this area. If buyers step in, a short-term bounce toward $73K–$74K is possible. 2. $73K–$75K — Reclaim zone This is now the key upside test. Old support has turned into resistance. If BTC cannot reclaim this zone, sellers remain in control. 3. $70K–$71K — Next support zone If the current area breaks, the next major downside target opens near $70K–$71K. A clean break below $70K could trigger a much deeper correction. My view is simple: Above $75K: structure starts to improve Below $73K: sellers still control the chart Below $70K: downside risk accelerates I’m not trying to call the bottom. I’m watching the levels that confirm the next move. Does BTC bounce here — or is the real flush still ahead? Follow me for more real-time BTC chart breakdowns. Not financial advice.

  • DefiIgnas
    Ignas | DeFi (@DefiIgnas) reported

    Ironically, the more 'compliant' the exchange, the more I worry about the problems they'll cause me. Bitstamp bombarded me with extra SoF documents and wallet address verifications. Want to switch to Coinbase but worried it'll be the same or worse. How common are proof-of-wealth / source-of-funds requests on Coinbase these days? Coinbase already closed my account once. Since creating a new one I worry to actually use it. Btw Binance, Bybit, and OKX (before it moved to OKX EU).... not a single issue since 2017. CS is great, no extra documentation requests, just KYC doc updates. But Binance has been shady with their listings, pumps & dumps etc. Not really a fan anymore. Also for fiat in/out, banks probably prefer Coinbase... Is Kraken any better? Their fiat deposit limits are relatively low and they won't raise them for me. Not a great sign. Thoughts?

  • BlesdAbroad
    BlesdAbroad (@BlesdAbroad) reported

    Over the last 11 years I've used Kraken, FTX, Coinbase, Binance, Bybit, Bitstamp, and many others One thing remains true @coinbase provides the worst user experience of any CEX. Has the worst support, the highest fees, and the most downtime Truly.. why does anyone use Coinbase?

  • SyAzCrypto1
    SyAz (@SyAzCrypto1) reported

    Every exchange collapse gets called "the bottom is in." But data says only the last one in the chain ever is, and knowing the difference is the whole edge. A crypto bear isn't one single event. It's a chain of blow-ups that fires over months, and the bottom only prints on the final one, when the last leveraged player dies and there's nothing left to force-sell. The collapse everyone remembers is almost always the first domino & not the last. 2014–15: The Gox cycle → Nov 2013: ATH $1,163 → Feb 7 2014: Mt. Gox halts withdrawals → Feb 28 2014: Mt. Gox files bankruptcy, 850k BTC gone. Everyone said "bottom is in" BTC $550 → Then eleven months of grind → Jan 4 2015: Bitstamp hacked, 19k BTC, ,arked the actual capitulation → Jan 14 2015: bottom, $152 Gox to bottom: another −72%. the famous collapse was the opener. Bitstamp closed it. 2018: The ICO cycle → Dec 2017: ATH $19,783 → Jan 26 2018: Coincheck hacked, $530M the opener → Feb 2018: BitGrail collapses, $170M BTC $8k → then a full year stuck bleeding around $6k → Nov 15 2018: the BCH hash war, ABC vs SV, breaks the $6k floor. the closer → Dec 15 2018: bottom, $3,150 BitGrail to bottom was another −61%, over ten months. 2022: The leverage cycle → Nov 2021: ATH $69,000 → May 9 2022: Terra/LUNA implodes, $45B gone. the opener → June 12: Celsius freezes withdrawals → June 27: 3AC ordered into liquidation → July 5: Voyager bankrupt. July 13: Celsius bankrupt → Nov 8–11: FTX collapses. the closer → Nov 21 2022: bottom, $15,480 FTX to bottom was just −26%, in 10 days. This is the one case where the famous name was the last domino, which is exactly why it marked the low. So the tell was never the size of the name. It's where it sits in the chain. Terra was bigger than FTX and it marked the top of the crash, not the bottom. Now 2026 → Oct 2025: ATH $126,210 → Oct 10–11 2025: $19B liquidation cascade off the top, the largest in history. this is the opener → Nov 2025: down to $80k now $64k, off by 49% → July 1 2026: AscendEX closes → July 23: BitMEX announces closure → July 26: BitMart winds down Here's what "bottom is in" wrong here. AscendEX, BitMEX and BitMart aren't blow-ups. They're wind downs. Still solvent, withdrawals open, nobody force selling a single coin. They're closing because the mid-tier exchange model stopped making money, not because they detonated. A business shutting on bad math is not a domino. For until now we've had the opener, the Oct 10 Binance cascade but we haven't had the closer yet. No major leveraged entity has detonated into a forced selling panic the way Gox, BitGrail and FTX did. The signal you're actually waiting for isn't an exchange announcing a shutdown. It's an exchange or a fund detonating. The last domino is waiting to happen soon.

  • crypnot_com
    Crypnot (@crypnot_com) reported

    Robinhood is rolling out crypto trading in the UK, giving eligible customers access to more than 50 assets, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP and Hyperliquid, through Bitstamp UK inside the Robinhood app. The company says trading, custody and account-maintenance fees are zero, although FX fees apply. Crypto holdings are not protected by the FSCS or Financial Ombudsman Service. $BTC $ETH $XRP $HYPE #CryptoNews #Robinhood

  • Petersmith12348
    Petersmith1234 (@Petersmith12348) reported

    @Bitstamp Absolutely hopeless never put your crypto with bitstamp worst customer service ever . Have held my assets hostage for weeks over address verification that they decided needed renewal. Never put your money with them if ever want to access it ever again .

  • iLuminaryAI
    Iluminary (@iLuminaryAI) reported

    MiCA is fully in force as of today, July 1. No CASP license means no legal right to serve EU clients. There's no grace period and no in-between status: an exchange is either authorized or in breach. Binance is exiting the EU, KuCoin is banned, and only around 14 CEXs hold full authorization. Two ways to keep your funds safe: Go noncustodial with iLuminary — hold your own keys, and no licensing gap can freeze or restrict your access. Use a licensed CASP — Coinbase, Kraken, OKX, Bitstamp, Crypto com, Bitvavo, Bybit EU and a handful of others. Always verify the exact legal entity in the official ESMA CASP register before moving anything. Don't wait to get locked out.

  • coinbureau
    Coin Bureau (@coinbureau) reported

    🎥 WATCH: VLAD TENEV SAID CRYPTO AND TRADITIONAL FINANCE WOULD "FULLY MERGE" AND THE DISTINCTION WOULD "DISAPPEAR" Nine months ago at Token2049 the Robinhood CEO said everything would eventually be on-chain and that TradFi infrastructure would be too slow to keep up. So Robinhood acquired Bitstamp, built its own exchange, and launched its own chain which has now crossed $560 million in daily DEX volume and $1 BILLION on Uniswap. "I don't think to be at the frontier of crypto you can rely on traditional infrastructure providers. They'll get there eventually, but it'll take a very long time."

  • grok
    Grok (@grok) reported

    @mark1xL @coven_xx @saylordocs In 2015, converting 50,000 BTC (~$13M) to cash was feasible but challenging. You'd need to use exchanges like Coinbase or Bitstamp for sales, likely splitting into smaller batches to avoid liquidity issues or price slippage. OTC desks could help for large volumes. Banks often flagged crypto deposits due to AML/KYC rules, requiring proof of source and possibly tax reporting. It might take days to weeks, with fees and volatility risks.

  • Shockwave_App
    𝐒𝐇𝐎𝐂𝐊𝐖𝐀𝐕𝐄 ⚡️🌊 (@Shockwave_App) reported

    @projectpips @Bitstamp You really don`t grasp the concept of a price glitch. It`s a glitch because a price is being displayed that was never the real price.

  • lowk3y
    ʎ3ʞʍoן (@lowk3y) reported

    @aaaljaz @Bitstamp @BitstampSupport You should have direct contacts there or maybe even "backdoor" access 🙈

Check Current Status