Bitfinex Outage Map

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:

• 
  ddadybayo (@ddadybayo) reported 4 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.

• 
  DA₿OLOSKOV (@daboloskov) reported 5 minutes ago

  @BFXSecurities @paoloardoino @bitfinex Are you guys can answer to your customer? Your support form certificate is no signed anymore and outdated.

• 
  Matched-Betting.US (@MatchBettingUS) reported 5 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Support will decide

• 
  ForeDex (@ForeDex_Global) reported 7 minutes ago

  Daily ForeDex CVD by Order Size (Spot) Snapshot 📸 🔸 Whales and Mega Whales Only 🔸 Based on a 1 month period (1M) 1. Binance: Decreased 📉 2. Bybit: No Change ➖ 3. Bitfinex (USD): No Change ➖ 4. Bitfinex (USDT): No Change ➖ ✅ Summary: Unlike yesterday’s slight decline, Binance showed a more distinct step down today. The other three exchanges showed no change. [07-28-2026]

• 
  ₿arnabyTheStoic (@BarnabyTheStoic) reported 7 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Wtf are you thinking asking this

• 
  Ari Paul (@AriDavidPaul) reported 8 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 9 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

• 
  Strategy Trader (@strategytraderE) reported 12 minutes ago

  @Karman_1s BNB support fails but Bitfinex BTC longs grow, alt weakness, not isolated crash.

• 
  Jacob King (@JacobKinge) reported 12 minutes ago

  Bitcoin is the most centralized asset ever, marketed as “decentralized.” If you understand how the Bitcoin blockchain actually works, it becomes obvious that it is not immutable or untouchable. The code can be changed, and the chain can be controlled through coordination. For those who don’t know, Bitcoin runs on a single public blockchain, and control of that chain comes from who produces the blocks. Today, block production is dominated by only 4 mining pools: Foundry USA (30%), AntPool (18%), ViaBTC (11%), and F2Pool (10%). Together, the top pools routinely control over 65% of total hash power, and the top 5 over 75%. Officially, these pools are “separate” on paper, but they all work together. They share the exact same private funding, have same aligned incentives, and overlapping miners. This creates a de facto centralization where a single group influences block production, censors transactions, or pushes protocol changes at will. In reality, fewer than 10 people control most of Bitcoin through the top mining pools and core developers. Revealed from the Epstein files, Israel also funded much of this early development, covering over 60% of the core developers’ salaries. “Decentralized” is purely marketing. Stablecoins give this same cabal another lever over Bitcoin. They want prices up? Easy. They print unbacked Tether or USDC out of thin air and inject it into exchanges they control or influence, like FTX (before it collapsed), Binance, Bitfinex, Coinbase, and others. They want prices down? Just pretend to burn the coins, trigger panic, and the market enters a bear phase. These mechanisms make Bitcoin’s price highly manipulable despite its “free market” image. When a small group produces most of the blocks, transaction censorship, reordering, and enforced protocol changes are no longer hypothetical. Bitcoin is marketed as pseudo-anonymous and seizure-resistant, yet governments have seized millions of dollars in BTC with ease. Do you ever wonder how? The 2021 Colonial Pipeline ransomware payment was traced and recovered almost immediately by the FBI, which they later admitted they got access to the wallet’s private key (Very sus!). Similar seizures occurred with Silk Road, the Bitfinex hack funds, and multiple darknet and ransomware cases. This level of enforcement is incompatible with claims of true privacy or sovereignty. They clearly have backdoor access. Bitcoin functions like a Trojan horse. It was hyped as a financial miracle, sold to the masses, and accepted without skepticism. In reality, it is a speculative gambling chip, heavily surveilled and quietly managed by insiders. Strip away the mythology and it is no more valuable than a digital beanie baby with better marketing.

• 
  Bitcoin Consultants (@BTCConsultantNL) reported 15 minutes ago

  @ChrisFromAT @AquaBitcoin What do you mean? Can’t you send it without sideshift? Trade on HodlHodl, Peach Bitcoin, Bitfinex? They all support liquid network?

• 
  The Block (@TheBlockCo) reported 22 minutes ago

  THE BLOCK: Bitcoin bitcoin:native sat near $64,000 despite $211.5 million in spot BTC ETF inflows Tuesday and a record S&P 500 close. Bitfinex, Glassnode, and Wintermute all read the same tape: bottom signals forming through boredom, not capitulation, with no demand engine behind them yet.

• 
  Thomas (@ThomasOyxxx) reported 25 minutes ago

  𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐚 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐞. 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐛𝐥𝐮𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐨𝐬𝐚𝐮𝐫 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐞. Culture isn’t designed. It’s discovered, usually by accident. A toy photo, a broken render, a nickname that stuck. That’s how $FEFER was born. Not from a whitepaper, not from a marketing plan. From CT deciding a jaw that never loaded was funnier than anything a team could have scripted. ➜ First launch failed ➜ Team stepped back ➜ Community didn’t That sequence matters more than people give it credit for. Most memes die the moment the original push loses steam. Fefer got a second life because the people holding it treated the token like it was worth continuing, not restarting. ➜ Relaunched on @coinsdot + @Stable ➜ Snapshot of 4,827 original holders ➜ Airdropped directly, no claim forms, nobody left behind That’s not a small detail. Snapshotting the original holders instead of starting a fresh cap table is the difference between “new project borrowing an old joke” and “same community, new chapter.” Where it stands right now: ➜ $3.9M market cap ➜ $569K liquidity ➜ Live on a USDT-powered L1 backed by Bitfinex and PayPal Ventures Stable is still early. Its identity is still being written in real time, and the projects active in it now are the ones that end up shaping what people associate with the chain later. $FEFER isn’t trying to win on utility. It’s trying to win on being unforgettable, and a meme that survives its own failed launch and still gets airdropped back to the exact people who believed in it the first time is hard to forget. Nobody decides which meme becomes the face of a chain. The timeline does. 👀 Fefer didn’t restart. Fefer continued. CA: 0xDEeE8f25fe3B5C33AeF78637278ACBFF23EeBFa6 Always DYOR and verify the contract before interacting. @savefefer

• 
  Julitta Ayan (@_Tyrano_) reported 27 minutes ago

  @dahongfei @BitMEX Bitmex was never a surprisingly large exchange, while Bitfinex where $neo was delisted is vastly bigger and far more active. Long-term survival does not equal success; on the contrary, ur persistent problems continue to cause full or partial delistings across multiple platforms.

• 
  𝐓𝐗𝐌𝐂 (@TXMCtrades) reported 28 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Miners sell. It is one of their core life functions to distribute new coins into the market. Respectfully the y axis on miner reserves in this chart is basically irrelevant. Third decimal point type ****.

• 
  Samson Mow (@Excellion) reported 28 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.