HitBTC defends Bitcoin Private delisting by appealing to cryptography

HitBTC, one of the world’s top cryptocurrency exchanges, has appealed to cryptography in an effort of protecting itself against the team behind Bitcoin Private (BTCP)

The dispute started when HitBTC delisted BTCP from its platform in March. The BTCP team went ahead and accused the exchange of fraud.

According to a recent blog post titled “Explanation of the situation with BTCP” the exchange defended itself claiming that coin’s developers did not provide any code or documentation for specific transaction cryptography used in their blockchain. In addition, the exchange added that the developer team had created a custodial risk and ecosystem instability.

Some might say the matter started earlier last month when BTCP decided to burn some of its tokens. Ideally, this would not have caused a scandal if the team had shared the code of the burnt assets. They should have also provided reasoning for the move. Some of the tokens burned were in HitBTC custody.

Following the burn, HitBTC compensated users whose tokens were burned with its own money. The exchange then accused BTCP of not being compliant with its rules. In their defense, the team BTCP began to accuse HitBTC of having “fraudulent activities” and extortion attempts.

In an official statement released last week, HitBTC stated that people can still withdraw their BTCP from the site, but that the token will not be traded anymore due to the coin burn issue.

Reportedly, the coin burn was scheduled to happen by the team. After breaking from ZClassic (ZCL), BCTP had planned to burn all unclaimed or moved tokens. Before the coin burn, HitBTC had contracted the team to protect their client’s funds and get help in moving their tokens. HitBTC failed to get the support it need thus resulting in asking for 58, 920 BCTCP (about $17,600) as compensation for the loss.

On the other hand, the BCTP team claims that he 58,920 BTCP which were lost were being secretly held in a Segwit wallet by the exchange. They argue that the exchange threatened to delist them if they did not compensate for the amount. They also claim the exchange is at fault for the lost funds.