Bitcoin Forum

Bitcoin => Bitcoin Discussion => Topic started by: Jered Kenna (TradeHill) on July 26, 2011, 08:12:24 PM



Title: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Jered Kenna (TradeHill) on July 26, 2011, 08:12:24 PM
Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne  also posted on http://tradehillblog.com/ (http://tradehillblog.com/)

TradeHill no longer accepts Dwolla payments because there are chargebacks occuring.

We have witnessed 9 cases where a Dwolla payment we received (and credited) was reversed days or even weeks later. In another 8 cases, Dwolla payments simply disappeared from the transaction history a few weeks after they were completed.  In all cases these were payments which were listed as CREDITED on our statements and were confirmed via email and the downloadable statement.

In none of these cases did Dwolla notify us of any issues. Instead, the transaction record was silently edited and our account balance simply dropped by a few thousand dollars each time.

The individuals who sent the payment, once credited on TradeHill, immediately bought BTC and disappeared. Our evidence suggests these individuals were well aware of Dwolla’s weaknesses and were explicitly exploiting them.

Our claims are supported by past CSVs, statements, emails, and recorded telephone conversations which we have systematically collected over the last two weeks.

Unfortunately we are currently on the hook to cover these losses and continue to receive no cooperation or explanation from Dwolla.



Therefore we announce An Open Invitation for Dwolla CEO Ben Milne to Call TradeHill:



Ben,

Please call us.

Over the last 2 weeks we’ve been trying to reach someone C-Level at Dwolla so that we could bring to your attention the problems we have found with your service.

Unfortunately with every contact we’ve been stone-walled and given promises that your company would get back to us with clarification.  Never has a telephone call been returned.

We have emailed your customer service rep Ben Murga regarding this issue on the following dates: July 14th, July 15, July 19th, July 21st, July 22nd, July 25th.

We have called your office 15 times over the same time period. Nearly each time we were told that you’d get back to us after we’d described the problem we were experiencing.

To help you take our concerns more seriously, we even provided your representatives with data packages irrefutably demonstrating the bug we see in your system.

However, we have been consistently brushed off and given wrong information. Our interpretation, either:
- Dwolla is well aware of the problem but working to cover it up.
- Your customer service representatives are not escalating the issue.

So, our request is simple. Please contact us and setup a time to speak so that we can make our case for why your system is broken.
Hopefully we can find a way to move forwards to protect your other customers from experiencing the same fraud that we have.

Regards,
TradeHill






Edit: http://www.dwolla.org/blog/retail-merchants-rejoice-web-kiosk-online/  (http://www.dwolla.org/blog/retail-merchants-rejoice-web-kiosk-online/) shows their "no chargeback" policy and is getting some interesting comments, feel free to join in.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Bruce Wagner on July 26, 2011, 08:24:44 PM
Re-Tweet it:

#Bitcoin Show: TradeHill clms Dwolla malfeasance, incommunicado & reversed transactions w/o notificatn. http://t.co/ADJ5w2S


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: evoorhees on July 26, 2011, 08:25:41 PM
Thanks for the note Jered. It's always encouraging to see your frequent communication here on these forums.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: tvbcof on July 26, 2011, 08:34:46 PM
I thought that it was interesting that a blogger was, apparently, able to get right through to Dwolla and obtain fairly detailed information about what the problem is:

  "I contacted Dwolla Customer Service who explained to me it was TradeHill improperly crediting the accounts of users prior to confirmation that the transactions had cleared. "

  From: http://fmqinc.com/tradehill-bitcoin-exchange-fraudulent-scandal/

Hopefully if/when Milne responds, he'll be able to explain the apparent discrepancies between the above statement and the CSVs and/or a little bit more on how the CSVs, balances, etc were supposed to have been interpreted and why.

Failing that, I would add to the list of complaints against Dwolla, defamation and libel.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: bitcoinminer on July 26, 2011, 08:43:52 PM
What is the story with withdrawals?  I have a pending withdrawal of USD->Dwolla I'm waiting on.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Yankee (BitInstant) on July 26, 2011, 08:44:27 PM
I thought that it was interesting that a blogger was, apparently, able to get right through to Dwolla and obtain fairly detailed information about what the problem is:

  "I contacted Dwolla Customer Service who explained to me it was TradeHill improperly crediting the accounts of users prior to confirmation that the transactions had cleared. "

  From: http://fmqinc.com/tradehill-bitcoin-exchange-fraudulent-scandal/

Hopefully if/when Milne responds, he'll be able to explain the apparent discrepancies between the above statement and the CSVs and/or a little bit more on how the CSVs, balances, etc were supposed to have been interpreted and why.

Failing that, I would add to the list of complaints against Dwolla, defamation and libel.

Um, firstly, if you read above Jered mentioned that he has no problem reaching low level customer service, which anyone can do.

This is a stupid blog post which has no merits.
Obviously, if the blogger read tradehillblog.com she would see she's incorrect.

""I contacted Dwolla Customer Service who explained to me it was TradeHill improperly crediting the accounts of users prior to confirmation that the transactions had cleared. ""

So if you read the blog (http://tradehillblog.com/2011/07/25/tradehill-audit-discovers-dwolla-transactions-are-reversible/)

July 11th
Transaction ID 169552 shows “credit”

http://tradehill.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/cleaned-small-blurred-patriccardenas-july-11.png?w=844&h=189

On July 11th we received an email from Dwolla stating that the transfer was good and could be credited.

http://tradehill.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/dwollamail-cropped.png?w=603&h=742

If we look at the CSV 3 days later it shows “pending” by this point the scammer had already converted their funds to BTC and removed them.

http://tradehill.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/blacked-small-blurred-patriccardenas-july-141.png?w=940&h=174

We have asked specifically if a transaction can go from “credited” to “pending” in their system and if we should wait to credit these transactions.  Dwolla has repeatidly assured us that this is not possible and TradeHill should credit anything showing “credited” on their statement / CSV or if we receive an email.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Jered Kenna (TradeHill) on July 26, 2011, 08:46:01 PM
What is the story with withdrawals?  I have a pending withdrawal of USD->Dwolla I'm waiting on.

Withdrawals are processing fine. We are manually doing everything to make sure we don't cash out a scammer so there may be a slight delay.
Shoot an email to info@tradehill.com if it's not taken care of half an hour.

Jered


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: bitcoinminer on July 26, 2011, 08:48:29 PM
What is the story with withdrawals?  I have a pending withdrawal of USD->Dwolla I'm waiting on.

Withdrawals are processing fine. We are manually doing everything to make sure we don't cash out a scammer so there may be a slight delay.
Shoot an email to info@tradehill.com if it's not taken care of half an hour.

Jered

It's been 3.5 hours already.  I'll email, thanks


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Serge on July 26, 2011, 08:51:41 PM
I wish you'd have lawyers get involved in this.   


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: bitcoinminer on July 26, 2011, 08:52:49 PM
On another note, if you guys are their second biggest customer, they will I'm sure notice the sudden lack of money on their side.

I think I should just open a service for changing dollars into bitcoins lol... Cash only!!!  It's crazy how much all of these various merchants (paypal, banks, etc) are slanted towards tolerating scamming.

It's not even just one way - PayPal has managed to f*ck me as a buyer and a seller on numerous occasions.  I always ask them the same question - "I can take someones money through paypal, and you guys wont give it back to them?  AWESOME!"


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: bitcoinminer on July 26, 2011, 08:54:50 PM
I wish you'd have lawyers get involved in this.   

You'd have a decent case considering they have no terms and conditions listed on their website.

You'd also be tied up for months/years trying to get money.

He's doing the right thing - by refusing to allow deposits from them, he is hitting them in the wallet, where they will feel it the loudest and the quickest.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: matonis on July 26, 2011, 09:00:29 PM
I wonder if Dwolla's investors are even aware of this situation,

Veridian Group and TMG investment:
https://www.veridiancu.org/
http://www.themembersgroup.com/


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: bitcoinminer on July 26, 2011, 09:02:18 PM
I wonder if Dwolla's investors are even aware of this situation,

Veridian Group and TMG investment:
https://www.veridiancu.org/
http://www.themembersgroup.com/

Why would they care?  If it were DWOLLA having to shell out the thousands in bogus transactions, they'd care.  When they see income drop from Tradehill not accepting them, then they'll care.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: joulesbeef on July 26, 2011, 09:02:54 PM
This could be a huge screw up for them, especially how they are handling it.
News just said dwolla hit 1 million transactions and a good bit of that comes from bitcoin and I'm sure tradehill.

heck I'm on there I dont know too many people who trade coins who arent. I wonder if they know how many people are watching this crap and are getting pretty damn annoyed, even if they havent been directly effected.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: tvbcof on July 26, 2011, 09:04:47 PM

Um, firstly, if you read above Jered mentioned that he has no problem reaching low level customer service, which anyone can do.


I've followed the details with interest.  Tradehill's statements leaves the impression that an explanation of the problem, much less and acceptable solution, was not forthcoming.  Yet some random blogger can get the details about a third-party's issues out of tech support with no problem?

If the info given to a blogger by Dwolla was factually incorrect, did harm to Tradehill, and was published, that strikes me as 'pretty wrong' on the part of Dwolla.  How wrong?  Time will tell.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Yankee (BitInstant) on July 26, 2011, 09:08:34 PM

Um, firstly, if you read above Jered mentioned that he has no problem reaching low level customer service, which anyone can do.


If the info given to a blogger by Dwolla was factually incorrect, did harm to Tradehill, and was published, that strikes me as 'pretty wrong' on the part of Dwolla.  How wrong?  Time will tell.


I am in 100% agreement with you! Time will tell, let's wait for Dwolla's response.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: jwzguy on July 26, 2011, 09:17:09 PM
Dwolla went back and altered their account statements, and didn't even notify them?

That's FRAUD. Lawsuit time, guys.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: JoelKatz on July 26, 2011, 09:20:27 PM
I wish you'd have lawyers get involved in this.  
I believe you would win at arbitration. Dwolla cannot interplead out of the dispute because they don't have the funds anymore. All Dwolla can do is claim fraud. TradeHill will ask Dwolla to show any evidence that they engaged in fraud. They will have none.

That Dwolla was defrauded by a third party explains their breach, but it doesn't legally excuse it. It creates an obligation on TradeHill to minimize the damages as best they reasonably can once Dwolla notifies them, which it sounds like TradeHill did even though Dwolla never notified them. Dwolla is not liable for the full amount of the transfers, but they are liable for the full amount of TradeHill's damages.

Even Dwolla's change in their ToU doesn't change this. Dwolla retaining a right to chargeback just means they can take the money back before they go to arbitration. It doesn't mean they get to keep it unless they can prove they're entitled to it. I believe they will still lose in arbitration. To be entitled to keep the amount charged back, Dwolla would to prove fraud, unjust enrichment, or the like. There is still no provision of law or in their agreement that makes one customer liable for another customer's fraud or breach. There is no "your money was fraudulently taken from me" defense. That Jill defrauded you out of Jack's money is no defense when Jack wants his money back.

Credit card chargebacks don't work that way only because of specific Federal consumer protection laws. To my knowledge, no such laws help Dwolla. Dwolla is going to learn a hard lesson -- there's a good reason everyone else isn't doing what they're doing.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: bitrebel on July 27, 2011, 12:54:54 AM
Its Tradehill they tried to fuck, by trying to pass on the buck. It's all Dwolla's fault for being greedy. They should have to pay.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Bitcoin Swami on July 27, 2011, 01:02:29 AM
Bastards! I went on their facebook page (I was the only one making a fuss on there) and posted a direct link to the open letter and asked them to please tell their side.  They replied by saying, "we are not a member of that forum, do you have any specific questions that we can answer"

I said yes, I guess my main question would be why are you guys ignoring Tradehills attempts to clarify a huge problem (something like that I dont know exactly what I typed.... I also said that "there are hundreds if not thousands of Dwolla users on that forum, that doesn't bother you? "

I came home to see if they responded and they blocked me from their page or deleted it all together cause I can't access it anymore through facebook.

EDIT TO ADD: if you use facebook it wouldn't hurt to "like" their page and give them a little push. :)


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: geek-trader on July 27, 2011, 01:11:52 AM
Take it to Dwolla's FaceBook!  I just posted there.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: CryptoCommodity on July 27, 2011, 01:15:33 AM
Huge mistake on Tradehills part making this such a public issue.  Not only gives the scammers information but limits what Dwolla can and will be willing to do to make things right with Tradehill since you are basically tarnishing their name to the Bitcoin community.

The way business works, right or wrong, is Dwolla will assess the situation and calculate how long it will take them to recover money that they would have to eat to cover the fraudulent transactions to tradehill.  At $.25 a transaction this would be a hell of a lot.  Being that Tradehill made this such a public issue I would assume they will be less willing to come to any type of settlement and might just want to distance themselves from Bitcoin entirely.

Normal business practices are that if you have a problem with a b2b vendor you make sure it doesn't affect your customers.  Tradehill collects a commission on each sale and that commission should be enough that Tradehill can withstand any type of problem they have with their vendors.  If the commission isn't enough to alleviate this this risk then they aren't charging enough, aren't doing enough to limit their risk, or both.

Very amatuerish on Tradehills part to make this such a public issue.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: The_JMiner on July 27, 2011, 01:19:04 AM
Very amatuerish on Tradehills part to make this such a public issue.

How did you expect them to tell people why they all of a sudden do not accept Dwolla?


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: BillX on July 27, 2011, 01:23:53 AM
Huge mistake on Tradehills part making this such a public issue.  Not only gives the scammers information but limits what Dwolla can and will be willing to do to make things right with Tradehill since you are basically tarnishing their name to the Bitcoin community.

The way business works, right or wrong, is Dwolla will assess the situation and calculate how long it will take them to recover money that they would have to eat to cover the fraudulent transactions to tradehill.  At $.25 a transaction this would be a hell of a lot.  Being that Tradehill made this such a public issue I would assume they will be less willing to come to any type of settlement and might just want to distance themselves from Bitcoin entirely.

Normal business practices are that if you have a problem with a b2b vendor you make sure it doesn't affect your customers.  Tradehill collects a commission on each sale and that commission should be enough that Tradehill can withstand any type of problem they have with their vendors.  If the commission isn't enough to alleviate this this risk then they aren't charging enough, aren't doing enough to limit their risk, or both.

Very amatuerish on Tradehills part to make this such a public issue.
Exactly, Tradehill was very stupid on their part to make this a public issue. This is a private vendor security issue which will now reach other scammers with a checklist of how to defraud other exchanges.

The question I would be asking is what was Tradehill's Fraud Prevention Plan before this happened. It sounds like they just relied on Dwolla to eat their fraud unconditionally. Thants just plain wrong, hire a professional and buy insurance.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: JoelKatz on July 27, 2011, 01:32:19 AM
Exactly, Tradehill was very stupid on their part to make this a public issue. This is a private vendor security issue which will now reach other scammers with a checklist of how to defraud other exchanges.
You can't keep secrets from the scammers. All you can do is keep the good guys ignorant of what they need to protect themselves from. It's not just the big exchanges who accept Dwolla.

Quote
The question I would be asking is what was Tradehill's Fraud Prevention Plan before this happened. It sounds like they just relied on Dwolla to eat their fraud unconditionally. Thants just plain wrong, hire a professional and buy insurance.
It's not clear what you're saying, but I can't find any way to have it make sense. Are you asking what TradeHill's plan was if Dwolla defrauds them? When you say "their fraud", whose fraud are you talking about?

If Dwolla is defrauded by their customers, they should hire a professional, buy insurance, and all the other things you say. But nobody defrauded TradeHill, except arguably Dwolla. The whole purpose of Dwolla is (or at least, they were saying it was until this happened) to make these exchanges like cash.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: BillX on July 27, 2011, 01:48:18 AM
Exactly, Tradehill was very stupid on their part to make this a public issue. This is a private vendor security issue which will now reach other scammers with a checklist of how to defraud other exchanges.
You can't keep secrets from the scammers. All you can do is keep the good guys ignorant of what they need to protect themselves from. It's not just the big exchanges who accept Dwolla.

Quote
The question I would be asking is what was Tradehill's Fraud Prevention Plan before this happened. It sounds like they just relied on Dwolla to eat their fraud unconditionally. Thants just plain wrong, hire a professional and buy insurance.
It's not clear what you're saying, but I can't find any way to have it make sense. Are you asking what TradeHill's plan was if Dwolla defrauds them? When you say "their fraud", whose fraud are you talking about?

If Dwolla is defrauded by their customers, they should hire a professional, buy insurance, and all the other things you say. But nobody defrauded TradeHill, except arguably Dwolla. The whole purpose of Dwolla is (or at least, they were saying it was until this happened) to make these exchanges like cash.
The issue on privacy. This is important to all of us who use Tradehill or thinking about using Tradehill in the future. Because of the public display of the Dwolla issue I can no longer feel secure that that Tradehill will keep my account details 100% private. They have shown that when the chips are down they will go public at the drop of a hat. I feel the majority of us wouldn't want that at all. Tradehill is being VERY childish be discussing it and I won't give me money to children.

What I wasn't clear on. From what it looks like it looks like chargebacks happened. There are many accounts that get affected from the originating bank to Dwolla to Tradehill. The company at the end of the link is Tradehill that is where the "bad" money was supposed to go and ultimately its up to Tradehill to make sure that money is acceptable for use on their system. Dwolla is an intermediary they are not responsible for Tradehills losses only to refund the originating bank if a call for fraud or chargeback is requested. Again, this shows Tradehill's immaturity in financial transactions. They should be insured against fraudulent transactions if/when they happen in the future. This isnt a Dwolla issue, they are just stuck in the middle and no longer want to pay for fraudulent transactions going to Tradehill.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: JoelKatz on July 27, 2011, 02:02:59 AM
The issue on privacy. This is important to all of us who use Tradehill or thinking about using Tradehill in the future. Because of the public display of the Dwolla issue I can no longer feel secure that that Tradehill will keep my account details 100% private. They have shown that when the chips are down they will go public at the drop of a hat. I feel the majority of us wouldn't want that at all. Tradehill is being VERY childish be discussing it and I won't give me money to children.
That's a load of nonsense. We're talking about people committing fraud here. They have absolutely no right to expect their identity to be kept secret. In any event, though most people probably won't say so, they don't want the business of someone who insists they be permitted to secretly defraud them. So I don't think your business will be missed.

Quote
What I wasn't clear on. From what it looks like it looks like chargebacks happened. There are many accounts that get affected from the originating bank to Dwolla to Tradehill. The company at the end of the link is Tradehill that is where the "bad" money was supposed to go and ultimately its up to Tradehill to make sure that money is acceptable for use on their system.
I have no idea what you mean by "acceptable for use on their system" and I suspect you don't either. And you are wrong, the company on the end of the link of the fraudulent transaction was Dwolla, not TradeHill.

Quote
Dwolla is an intermediary they are not responsible for Tradehills losses only to refund the originating bank if a call for fraud or chargeback is requested.
Umm, no. An intermediary is 100% responsible for losses. It has to be this way or no contracts could ever work -- you'd just launder the contract through an intermediary who would then say "sorry, I not responsible. I just intermediary."

Here's the example in case you missed it: Jack wants a graphics card. He hires Jeff to buy one from NewEgg for him. Jeff gives $200 to NewEgg to buy a graphics card and gives it to Jack. Oops, Jack takes the graphics card and refuses to pay Jeff. Now Jeff wants the $200 back from NewEgg, since Jack didn't pay him, he's out the money and the graphics card, and he was "just an intermediary" between Jack and NewEgg.

An intermediary is only not responsible if the agreement is directly between the two parties. If, say, Jeff drove Jack to NewEgg where Jack paid with a credit card. Then, yes, Jeff would not be responsible if Jack committed fraud. But in this case, the agreement with both parties was with Dwolla. Dwolla didn't bring the two parties together so they could make a deal with each other, Dwolla made a deal with each party. Dwolla didn't watch two other people exchange money, Dwolla handed the money to TradeHill.

Quote
Again, this shows Tradehill's immaturity in financial transactions. They should be insured against fraudulent transactions if/when they happen in the future. This isnt a Dwolla issue, they are just stuck in the middle and no longer want to pay for fraudulent transactions going to Tradehill.
This is a Dwolla issue. It's Dwolla that charged back the transaction between Dwolla and TradeHill, despite no evidence that that transaction was fraudulent.

Dwolla's whole point in existing is to make electronic payments "just like cash". That is what they are paid for. That is what they told everyone they did. That is precisely what they failed to do, surprising everyone, in this case.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: CryptoCommodity on July 27, 2011, 02:06:34 AM
To call me a troll is laughable.  Anyone with real world business experience will realize that my observations are 100% spot-on.

How do you inform the public that you no longer accept Dwolla.  No need, you simply remove it from the funding/withdrawal methods.

It amazes me that 99% of the Bitcoin businesses seem to be run by people with no business acumen.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: EricJ2190 on July 27, 2011, 02:25:26 AM
I would just like to point out that I appreciate TradeHill's openness on this issue and feel it has been handled reasonably and professionally.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: tvbcof on July 27, 2011, 02:33:51 AM
To call me a troll is laughable.

I dunno...sounded right to me at first glance to say the truth.

Anyone with real world business experience will realize that my observations are 100% spot-on.

How do you inform the public that you no longer accept Dwolla.  No need, you simply remove it from the funding/withdrawal methods.

It amazes me that 99% of the Bitcoin businesses seem to be run by people with no business acumen.

Tradehilll didn't lose me as a customer.  In fact, I have found their actions thus far to have been about the best that could be done under a very trying set of circumstances.  (Of course we've only heard there side of the story...nothing yet from Milne...)

Had Tradehill dropped Dwolla with no explanation and refused to provide one (and if I as a non-Dwolla user had noticed) I would have been pretty suspicious.  I'm suspicious of everyone, including Tradehill, but less so now.  I still keep as little $$$/BTC as practical with them however out of general principle.

I was not inclined to get a Dwolla account, but if I had been I would be extra thankful to Tradehill for the useful information about their practices and methodologies.  If Tradehill is 50% accurate in their reports, it is hard to see how Dwolla survives.  The main question is who eats the losses...the users or the angel investors.



Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: CryptoCommodity on July 27, 2011, 02:44:16 AM
If asked why they were no longer allowing Dwolla transfers all Tradehill needed to say was a "business decision".  You as a customer have no right to know why they change using a payment processor.

I am not saying Dwolla is not wrong here, I am just saying that Tradehill acted in a way that was not in their own best interest.  We are talking about two Corporations based in the US.  If Tradehill felt they were wronged they have multiple avenues of recourse.  Trying to hold court on the Bitcoin.org forum isn't one of them.

This tells me a lot of Tradehill

1. They have no business experience
2. They have no legal counsel
3. They do not consider their business dealings to be private and confidential


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: geek-trader on July 27, 2011, 02:47:38 AM
I linked to Trade Hill's blog on Dwolla's Facebook page and they blocked me.  I didn't even say anything mean, just brought it up.

We should all post on Dwolla's Facebook page.  Let them know they can't get away with this.

https://www.facebook.com/dwolla?sk=wall


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: CryptoCommodity on July 27, 2011, 02:58:47 AM
I linked to Trade Hill's blog on Dwolla's Facebook page and they blocked me.  I didn't even say anything mean, just brought it up.

We should all post on Dwolla's Facebook page.  Let them know they can't get away with this.

https://www.facebook.com/dwolla?sk=wall

This is a ridiculous course of action that can only harm the Bitcoin community.

This is something that only happened two weeks ago where it is unknown what Dwolla will do to rectify the situation.  Your course of action almost gaurantees that Tradehill will have to shoulder the loss and probably causes Dwolla to quit dealing with Bitcoin companies.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Mistafreeze on July 27, 2011, 03:08:15 AM
I linked to Trade Hill's blog on Dwolla's Facebook page and they blocked me.  I didn't even say anything mean, just brought it up.

We should all post on Dwolla's Facebook page.  Let them know they can't get away with this.

https://www.facebook.com/dwolla?sk=wall

This is a ridiculous course of action that can only harm the Bitcoin community.

This is something that only happened two weeks ago where it is unknown what Dwolla will do to rectify the situation.  Your course of action almost gaurantees that Tradehill will have to shoulder the loss and probably causes Dwolla to quit dealing with Bitcoin companies.

So far they are being very cordial with me. I posted on their page, and simply asked them for some clarification. I didn't demonize them, I didn't try to imply that they had done something improper, and I did not link back to this open letter. My post is still there, but I did notice that posts from others have disappeared. I extended the olive branch to them of responding in a private message if they'd like. So far, so good. I made it a point to let them know I am local and that I bank with their investors. We'll see where it goes.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: a63ntsm1th on July 27, 2011, 03:37:37 AM
Tradehill is performing admirably in this situation.  By spreading the word about the fraud it allows other merchants dealing with Dwolla to do their own audits, and probably find additional fraud. This hopefully prevents more fraud.  As a leading edge industry and technology, businesses must self police and support their industry.

From Tradehill's side of the story it seems like they spent quite a lot of time getting stonewalled before they went public. I think not only was it honorable to go public, but business savvy as well, for a couple of reasons:

1. It may motivate Dwolla to deal with them before this thing get legal (ie. only the lawyers win)
2. It serves the dwolla and bitcoin communities very well by doing what Dwolla SHOULD have done (now they dont get to control the message)
3. IMO (and for me personally) it engenders public support by showing they are open and honest and willing to communicate with the community about what is happening.  Granted this can be a tricky strategy but I think they did well.

@joelkatz

I <3 U! best posts always from you!

Could you or anyone else explain to me exactly what it is that Dwolla does that TradeHill could not do themselves?


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: The_JMiner on July 27, 2011, 03:45:44 AM

Could you or anyone else explain to me exactly what it is that Dwolla does that TradeHill could not do themselves?

Accept money through an ACH i believe. Tradehill's only option is Wire Transfers which are 10$ a pop WAY more expensive than 25cents a pop they had before.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: bbit on July 27, 2011, 03:47:53 AM
F.B Post regarding Dwolla's incident ?

http://supportsean.com/screenshot.jpg


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Meatpile on July 27, 2011, 03:48:29 AM
Lying and deception and keeping quiet is exactly what is WRONG with most businesses and why I am totally uneasy around all salesmen and businessmen.

Bitcoin is the light at the end of a shining tunnel out of that shitpile system and one with alot more transparency and honesty I thought... I think tradehill being open about their problems is a hugely positive thing for their reputation.



Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Bitcoin Swami on July 27, 2011, 04:16:51 AM
F.B Post regarding Dwolla's incident ?

http://supportsean.com/screenshot.jpg

Deleted.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: a63ntsm1th on July 27, 2011, 04:18:52 AM

Could you or anyone else explain to me exactly what it is that Dwolla does that TradeHill could not do themselves?

Accept money through an ACH i believe. Tradehill's only option is Wire Transfers which are 10$ a pop WAY more expensive than 25cents a pop they had before.
I get that part. I mean whats stoppiong TH from accepting through ACH?? Membership in some organization?  A license?

Also, isn't dwolla just trying (and failing) to do exactly what bitcoin does (apart from the denominated in USD part)?


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Alphonso Bedoya on July 27, 2011, 04:19:44 AM
From what I've seen from Tradehill and Jared from the startup of Tradehill I will trust them on this. I have removed all my funds from Dwolla and let them know.    Good luck Jared.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: bbit on July 27, 2011, 04:24:55 AM

was it deleted ? I just posted the screenshot a few minutes ago ?


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Bitcoin Swami on July 27, 2011, 04:27:17 AM
Not there anymore.   It was though. 


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: bbit on July 27, 2011, 04:28:48 AM
Not there anymore.   It was though. 

WOW, you are right!  that means someone from Dwolla is reading this thread  HELLO THERE ?  why don't you guys answer some questions on this thread ? what are you afraid of ? ???


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: bbit on July 27, 2011, 04:42:17 AM
Not there anymore.   It was though.  

WOW, you are right!  that means someone from Dwolla is reading this thread  HELLO THERE ?  why don't you guys answer some questions on this thread ? what are you afraid of ? ???

I seriously doubt Dwolla is lurking here.

How did they know to delete the comment ? it was pulled down within a minute of me posting the screenshot? I highly doubt they would pull it off an hour later all of sudden?


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Bitcoin Swami on July 27, 2011, 04:44:31 AM
Not there anymore.   It was though.  

WOW, you are right!  that means someone from Dwolla is reading this thread  HELLO THERE ?  why don't you guys answer some questions on this thread ? what are you afraid of ? ???

I seriously doubt Dwolla is lurking here.

I think they are definitely reading this thread.  This is a little chunk of their business right here.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Serge on July 27, 2011, 04:52:02 AM
a little off-topic, just found couple of interesting articles re Dwolla and Bitcoin from a month ago


"Now that our name popped up in a Fortune article referencing Bitcoins, the time to be silent is probably over."
- Ben Milne, Dwolla founder
http://www.siliconprairienews.com/2011/06/bitcoin-what-is-it-and-how-is-dwolla-involved-in-its-marketplace


In the following guest post submitted Monday, Dwolla founder and CEO Ben Milne directly responds to questions that have arisen and expresses both Dwolla's take and his personal opinion on Bitcoin.
http://www.siliconprairienews.com/2011/06/guest-post-the-virtual-currency-debate-exchange-and-hysteria


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: bbit on July 27, 2011, 04:55:23 AM
a little off-topic, just found couple of interesting articles re Dwolla and Bitcoin from a month ago


"Now that our name popped up in a Fortune article referencing Bitcoins, the time to be silent is probably over."
- Ben Milne, Dwolla founder
http://www.siliconprairienews.com/2011/06/bitcoin-what-is-it-and-how-is-dwolla-involved-in-its-marketplace


In the following guest post submitted Monday, Dwolla founder and CEO Ben Milne directly responds to questions that have arisen and expresses both Dwolla's take and his personal opinion on Bitcoin.
http://www.siliconprairienews.com/2011/06/guest-post-the-virtual-currency-debate-exchange-and-hysteria

I was just doing the same thing .... same source linked as above ...the irony of  these quotes:

Especially with fraud, exchanges have problems. Virtual or not.

1. In our highly regulated economy, moving money legally and operating anonymously don’t go hand in hand. Converting anything to real cash means at some point you have to prove who you are. It’s part of modern regulation and is there for good reasons. Naturally, it also becomes a point for potential fraud. Eventually, the numbers hit someone’s balance sheet and they will be reported, taxed, or penalized.

2. Any platform will be abused to the fullest extent possible, if not well controlled.

This is prevalent in Paypal’s history and a chapter in any payment network’s history.
Everyone at one point has had a fraud problem and has been targeted by the mafia, drug runners, and an assortment of people who traditionally no one wants to do business with.
3. If allowed, fraud will run free and someone will be held responsible for it


What everyone probably doesn’t want me to say.

Have we found suspicious and fraudulent activity? Yes.

Do we deal with it accordingly? Yes.

There will always be endless amounts of attempted fraud. If it goes unchecked and ignored, the hellishly brutal onslaught of soul (and time) devouring problems that will stem from it will forever alienate any platform and its users.

The way Dwolla looks at it

If you are:

A legitimate US user
Accessing your own money
Engaging in a legal transaction
Then you should probably be able to use Dwolla how you’d like. If your intention is to buy a truckload of bananas and let them rot in the sun for a week so you can make a killing on banana bread, we won’t interfere. Doesn’t seem like a sound idea, but we won’t stop you.

We care about people legally accessing their own money and engaging in a legal transaction. If they are doing that then it’s not really our right to wag our finger and say, "that’s not ok."


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: westkybitcoins on July 27, 2011, 05:41:15 AM
Lying and deception and keeping quiet is exactly what is WRONG with most businesses and why I am totally uneasy around all salesmen and businessmen.

Bitcoin is the light at the end of a shining tunnel out of that shitpile system and one with alot more transparency and honesty I thought... I think tradehill being open about their problems is a hugely positive thing for their reputation.

Sounds about right to me. If one wants to argue that TradeHill isn't acting in their own best interest, then oh well... they have to be the ultimate decider of that. If the argument is simply that that isn't how business is done, then maybe that needs to change.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: haydent on July 27, 2011, 05:49:29 AM
Lying and deception and keeping quiet is exactly what is WRONG with most businesses and why I am totally uneasy around all salesmen and businessmen.

Bitcoin is the light at the end of a shining tunnel out of that shitpile system and one with alot more transparency and honesty I thought... I think tradehill being open about their problems is a hugely positive thing for their reputation.



this +1


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: haydent on July 27, 2011, 05:59:09 AM
also the only reasons exchanges started using dwolla was that it apparently didnt do chargebacks, as it seems and if this is the case and its system can be frauded its only a matter of time that other exchanges get hit or remove it as an option...


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: billyjoeallen on July 27, 2011, 06:28:03 AM
from their website:

What is Dwolla's Phone Number?
Last Updated: Jun 29, 2011 08:24AM CDT
From 9AM to 6PM Monday - Friday Dwolla's customer service is available at 515.280.1000.


I suggest we make some phone calls.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: BkkCoins on July 27, 2011, 07:46:22 AM
If asked why they were no longer allowing Dwolla transfers all Tradehill needed to say was a "business decision".  You as a customer have no right to know why they change using a payment processor.

I am not saying Dwolla is not wrong here, I am just saying that Tradehill acted in a way that was not in their own best interest.  We are talking about two Corporations based in the US.  If Tradehill felt they were wronged they have multiple avenues of recourse.  Trying to hold court on the Bitcoin.org forum isn't one of them.

This tells me a lot of Tradehill

1. They have no business experience
2. They have no legal counsel
3. They do not consider their business dealings to be private and confidential
I very much appreciate Tradehill being open about this. I recently opened a Dwolla account and if they are now changing their terms to allow chargebacks on previous transactions then I for one would not continue to deal thru them.

I applaud Tradehill here and cannot understand what this CryptoCommodity poster is on about. He sounds like an idiot trying to cover up Dwolla bad behavior. The fact that Tradehill as a large customer has not been unable to get a response even acknowledging the problem from higher mgmt at Dwolla speaks volumes. It certainly looks like Tradehill only went public after having considerable problem getting adequate response from Dwolla.

As a new Dwolla customer I can only say I'd rather deal with Tradehill then Dwolla.

So how are we going to transfer in without Dwolla in future?


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: bitrebel on July 27, 2011, 07:53:29 AM
Hey Dwolla, since you are obviously reading this, FUCK YOU!
I will no longer use your services. I trust Tradehill on this one. You are silent and you lose the debate completely.
You have been fronting a service you cannot provide and tried to make it look like you could. Now you are on the road to being a new paypal, only to be dumped like the operation paypal opt-out which is going on now. Your a bunch of losers trying to pass your faults and losses onto others. This will spend the end of you I hope. We need real people to help bitcoin and the people, not another group of con artists. Goodbye Dwolla, it's been fun.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: EhVedadoOAnonimato on July 27, 2011, 08:01:31 AM
Lying and deception and keeping quiet is exactly what is WRONG with most businesses and why I am totally uneasy around all salesmen and businessmen.

Bitcoin is the light at the end of a shining tunnel out of that shitpile system and one with alot more transparency and honesty I thought... I think tradehill being open about their problems is a hugely positive thing for their reputation.

+1


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Jered Kenna (TradeHill) on July 27, 2011, 08:19:47 AM
Huge mistake on Tradehills part making this such a public issue.  Not only gives the scammers information but limits what Dwolla can and will be willing to do to make things right with Tradehill since you are basically tarnishing their name to the Bitcoin community.

Very amatuerish on Tradehills part to make this such a public issue.

Hi CryptoCommodity,

This was our option of last resort.

We have emails going back everyday for about a week wherein we explicitly outlined the issue and asked for it to be handled. We called multiple times per day. We sent them transaction IDs over two weeks ago asking for data/explanation. They replied saying our on line statements were accurate ; we gave them data showing the statements were changing retroactively.

We were not going to continue taking loses. If we stopped using Dwolla, our customers would have been very suspicious.

Our credentials are public and can be found here : http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=19537.0

Adam


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: GeniuSxBoY on July 27, 2011, 08:35:36 AM
nevemind lol


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: CryptoCommodity on July 27, 2011, 08:45:12 AM
Did you ever have your legal counsel contact them?  It's an obvious step that you seemed to have skipped.

All I am trying to point out is that you lose a lot of leverage by going public like you did.  Assume that Dwolla acted within their rights by reversing the transactions.  The ONLY reason they would offer to settle with you is to keep you quiet.  Now that you blew the story out of the water there is no reason for them to offer to deal with you and they are much more likely to just say "sue us".

Two-weeks is not a long time in the business world.  It is very likely they haven't decided what they were going to do, hell they might not even be sure what is happening yet.  I am sure that they want to plug the leak before they set any precedent on how they are going to deal with transactions that went from credited back to pending.  I would bet that the move back to pending was something that was automated in their system and they are probably trying to work with their banks to find out how and why it is happening.

They did tell you they would get back to you with clarification.  You email and call dozens of times combined.  That is amatuerish whether you realize it or not.

Another error you made is your putting someones name out there and calling him a "known scammer".  Doing that is not a responsible action for you or your company unless you are 100% sure of the fact and have proof.  Is it probably true?  It looks like it.  Still if there is any possibility that it wasn't a scam you are opening yourself to additional liability.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: aq on July 27, 2011, 09:03:55 AM
Did you ever have your legal counsel contact them?  It's an obvious step that you seemed to have skipped.

All I am trying to point out is that you lose a lot of leverage by going public like you did.  Assume that Dwolla acted within their rights by reversing the transactions.  The ONLY reason they would offer to settle with you is to keep you quiet.  Now that you blew the story out of the water there is no reason for them to offer to deal with you and they are much more likely to just say "sue us".

Two-weeks is not a long time in the business world.  It is very likely they haven't decided what they were going to do, hell they might not even be sure what is happening yet.  I am sure that they want to plug the leak before they set any precedent on how they are going to deal with transactions that went from credited back to pending.  I would bet that the move back to pending was something that was automated in their system and they are probably trying to work with their banks to find out how and why it is happening.

They did tell you they would get back to you with clarification.  You email and call dozens of times combined.  That is amatuerish whether you realize it or not.

Apparently Dwolla changed one of their single most important selling point: charge-backs. Dwolla altered confirmed transactions behind the back of TH. Dwolla did not respond to communication for 2 weeks. I don't know in what world you live, 2 weeks with increasing frauds is a very long time in the business world. Especially if the other party goes silent. You defending Dwolla inexcusable behavior, one is forced to assume that you are a Dwolla shareholder.

Another error you made is your putting someones name out there and calling him a "known scammer".  Doing that is not a responsible action for you or your company unless you are 100% sure of the fact and have proof.  Is it probably true?  It looks like it.  Still if there is any possibility that it wasn't a scam you are opening yourself to additional liability.

Well, I agree with that.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: CryptoCommodity on July 27, 2011, 09:11:47 AM
I haven't seen any statement by Dwolla that they are now allowing chargebacks so my assumption is that they haven't identified why transactions are going from credited back to pending. 

They did respond, they stated they were investigating and would get back to Tradehill with clarification.

The right move for Tradehill would have been to remove Dwolla as a payment option for the time being and wait to hear back from them one way or another. 


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: aq on July 27, 2011, 10:01:57 AM
I haven't seen any statement by Dwolla that they are now allowing chargebacks so my assumption is that they haven't identified why transactions are going from credited back to pending. 

They did respond, they stated they were investigating and would get back to Tradehill with clarification.

The right move for Tradehill would have been to remove Dwolla as a payment option for the time being and wait to hear back from them one way or another. 

Public statement about chargebacks (Bruce having that Dwolla guy at the phone):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88zTVzT2vL0&start=1745
That Dwolla guy at first denied that they have chargebacks, and later acknowledging they have and apologized for lying to Bruce.
So basically Dwolla was afraid telling TH that they do chargeback, exactly the same like PayPal, Visa, etc.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: JoelKatz on July 27, 2011, 10:16:29 AM
The right move for Tradehill would have been to remove Dwolla as a payment option for the time being and wait to hear back from them one way or another.
That's what they did. They also explained why they removed Dwolla as a payment option and alerted the community to a serious fraud risk. Big exchanges are not the only things that take Dwolla.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: CryptoCommodity on July 27, 2011, 10:30:44 AM
I can see the benefit of making the community aware that Dwolla transactions are reversable.  I still don't think Tradehill acted professionally and definitely hurt their chances of prevailing when this goes to court or arbitration.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Raoul Duke on July 27, 2011, 10:51:24 AM
Regarding Dwolla's facebook page: Do you guys think that a bomb of 10k postings from different facebook users there pointing to this thread would give them any chance to delete them?  ::)
That CAN be arranged! The 10k number can even be multiplied several times ;)


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: JoelKatz on July 27, 2011, 11:11:38 AM
Regarding Dwolla's facebook page: Do you guys think that a bomb of 10k postings from different facebook users there pointing to this thread would give them any chance to delete them?  ::)
That CAN be arranged! The 10k number can even be multiplied several times ;)
I would really like to see the bitcoin community to take the high road on this. We want to keep it easy for Dwolla to do the right thing and resolve this. (There's a huge market for $0.25 transactions. But they have to pass off their fraud costs. It can't work any other way.)


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: nmat on July 27, 2011, 11:55:15 AM
Dwolla and CampBX are discussing a solution to the problem and everything seems to be going fine. MtGox is ok with this (I haven't heard anything from them). Why is TradeHill the only one being ignored? This doesn't make much sense to me...


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: JoelKatz on July 27, 2011, 12:04:52 PM
Dwolla and CampBX are discussing a solution to the problem and everything seems to be going fine. MtGox is ok with this (I haven't heard anything from them). Why is TradeHill the only one being ignored? This doesn't make much sense to me...
We don't know. Perhaps the scammers hit TradeHill first/hardest and Dwolla doesn't yet have an answer to whether they're going to reimburse them or come up with some excuse not to.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: westkybitcoins on July 27, 2011, 12:15:40 PM
Dwolla and CampBX are discussing a solution to the problem and everything seems to be going fine. MtGox is ok with this (I haven't heard anything from them). Why is TradeHill the only one being ignored? This doesn't make much sense to me...

Maybe MtGox and CampBX are just "experienced businessmen" and just know when to be discrete (as in just keeping their mouth shut, accepting a little fraud as part of the way business is done, and keeping everyone else—including customers—in the dark about it.)  :P

Why am I not terribly surprised?


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Mistafreeze on July 27, 2011, 12:21:06 PM
F.B Post regarding Dwolla's incident ?

http://supportsean.com/screenshot.jpg

Yup, they deleted my post. No more messages, nothing. I guess that's all the answer I needed.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: makomk on July 27, 2011, 02:51:39 PM
I get that part. I mean whats stoppiong TH from accepting through ACH?? Membership in some organization?  A license?
The fraud risk mostly, I think. ACH transactions are very definitely reversible and have a somewhat high fraud risk attached; if TradeHill were to start accepting them directly they'd be out a lot of money they'd never see again every time a fraudster used an ACH transfer from some random victim's bank account to buy bitcoins and transferred them out. (What's more, you're not going to find any payment method that's as cheap or easy that's not also reversible: non-reversible transactions require considerably more security, which costs both money and time.)

Dwolla seemed to offer a perfect solution: they appeared to swallow the substantial fraud risk associated with accepting ACH transfers for the low, low fee of $0.25 a transaction. Of course, if it sounds too good to be true it probably is.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: tvbcof on July 27, 2011, 03:24:31 PM
Dwolla and CampBX are discussing a solution to the problem and everything seems to be going fine. MtGox is ok with this (I haven't heard anything from them). Why is TradeHill the only one being ignored? This doesn't make much sense to me...

That seemed very odd to me as well.

As I hypothesized on another thread, perhaps there are NSL's involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Jered Kenna (TradeHill) on July 27, 2011, 03:56:07 PM
Dwolla and CampBX are discussing a solution to the problem and everything seems to be going fine. MtGox is ok with this (I haven't heard anything from them). Why is TradeHill the only one being ignored? This doesn't make much sense to me...

That seemed very odd to me as well.

As I hypothesized on another thread, perhaps there are NSL's involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter

Mt Gox confirmed some transactions have gone missing on IRC and possibly a post. exchangebitcoin.com confirmed it and isn't accepting Dwolla, Bitcoin7 isn't accepting Dwolla and I've been told they confirmed the chargebacks.

It's 100% possible that CampBX didn't receive any chargebacks. If I have to guess it's because they didn't have the open orders to justify defrauding 5k or they thought they would get caught faster with lower volume to hide in. If that's the case good for them. Dealing with fraud isn't fun. I'm assuming if they continue to accept Dwolla and nothing changes they will see fraud.

Jered


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Rob Lister on July 27, 2011, 04:05:35 PM
Dwolla and CampBX are discussing a solution to the problem and everything seems to be going fine. MtGox is ok with this (I haven't heard anything from them). Why is TradeHill the only one being ignored? This doesn't make much sense to me...

That seemed very odd to me as well.

As I hypothesized on another thread, perhaps there are NSL's involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter

Mt Gox confirmed some transactions have gone missing on IRC and possibly a post. exchangebitcoin.com confirmed it and isn't accepting Dwolla, Bitcoin7 isn't accepting Dwolla and I've been told they confirmed the chargebacks.

It's 100% possible that CampBX didn't receive any chargebacks. If I have to guess it's because they didn't have the open orders to justify defrauding 5k or they thought they would get caught faster with lower volume to hide in. If that's the case good for them. Dealing with fraud isn't fun. I'm assuming if they continue to accept Dwolla and nothing changes they will see fraud.

Jered

Excuse the repeated question Jered, but did any of your customers lose money in this?  That's really the only concern I have.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Jered Kenna (TradeHill) on July 27, 2011, 04:18:51 PM
Dwolla and CampBX are discussing a solution to the problem and everything seems to be going fine. MtGox is ok with this (I haven't heard anything from them). Why is TradeHill the only one being ignored? This doesn't make much sense to me...

That seemed very odd to me as well.

As I hypothesized on another thread, perhaps there are NSL's involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter

Mt Gox confirmed some transactions have gone missing on IRC and possibly a post. exchangebitcoin.com confirmed it and isn't accepting Dwolla, Bitcoin7 isn't accepting Dwolla and I've been told they confirmed the chargebacks.

It's 100% possible that CampBX didn't receive any chargebacks. If I have to guess it's because they didn't have the open orders to justify defrauding 5k or they thought they would get caught faster with lower volume to hide in. If that's the case good for them. Dealing with fraud isn't fun. I'm assuming if they continue to accept Dwolla and nothing changes they will see fraud.

Jered

Excuse the repeated question Jered, but did any of your customers lose money in this?  That's really the only concern I have.

Valid question, we are willing to pay out of our own pockets. Had this been higher and we couldn't cover it ourselves yes they would have.
If another exchange is down 50k 100k or 500k and can't afford it then they could go under and their (which a lot are also ours) customers will be hit hard.
It's possible that our mutual customers are going to lose money but it's too soon to say for sure.

To sum it up: We're not going to pass the fraud on to our customers like Dwolla has done. It stops with us because we will eat it if Dwolla doesn't do the right thing.

Jered


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: cypherdoc on July 27, 2011, 04:40:02 PM
Dwolla and CampBX are discussing a solution to the problem and everything seems to be going fine. MtGox is ok with this (I haven't heard anything from them). Why is TradeHill the only one being ignored? This doesn't make much sense to me...

That seemed very odd to me as well.

As I hypothesized on another thread, perhaps there are NSL's involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter

Mt Gox confirmed some transactions have gone missing on IRC and possibly a post. exchangebitcoin.com confirmed it and isn't accepting Dwolla, Bitcoin7 isn't accepting Dwolla and I've been told they confirmed the chargebacks.

It's 100% possible that CampBX didn't receive any chargebacks. If I have to guess it's because they didn't have the open orders to justify defrauding 5k or they thought they would get caught faster with lower volume to hide in. If that's the case good for them. Dealing with fraud isn't fun. I'm assuming if they continue to accept Dwolla and nothing changes they will see fraud.

Jered

Excuse the repeated question Jered, but did any of your customers lose money in this?  That's really the only concern I have.

Valid question, we are willing to pay out of our own pockets. Had this been higher and we couldn't cover it ourselves yes they would have.
If another exchange is down 50k 100k or 500k and can't afford it then they could go under and their (which a lot are also ours) customers will be hit hard.
It's possible that our mutual customers are going to lose money but it's too soon to say for sure.

To sum it up: We're not going to pass the fraud on to our customers like Dwolla has done. It stops with us because we will eat it if Dwolla doesn't do the right thing.

Jered

well thats laudable.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Danzou on July 27, 2011, 04:44:04 PM
If another exchange is down 50k 100k or 500k and can't afford it then they could go under and their (which a lot are also ours) customers will be hit hard.
It's possible that our mutual customers are going to lose money but it's too soon to say for sure.
So does Gox not even know how much it's in the hole for yet?


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Jered Kenna (TradeHill) on July 27, 2011, 04:47:31 PM
If another exchange is down 50k 100k or 500k and can't afford it then they could go under and their (which a lot are also ours) customers will be hit hard.
It's possible that our mutual customers are going to lose money but it's too soon to say for sure.
So does Gox not even know how much it's in the hole for yet?

He's going to have to speak for himself on that one. Could be a little or a hell of a lot.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Jered Kenna (TradeHill) on July 27, 2011, 05:02:39 PM


Excuse the repeated question Jered, but did any of your customers lose money in this?  That's really the only concern I have.
[/quote]

Let me also clarify.

We do not intend to pay for Dwolla's mistakes. Tradehill will not be responsible for the mistakes of others. We only take full responsibility for our own mistakes. Dwolla needs to make good with us and the community.

Dwolla has already refused to respond and only admitted in one email - right before we went public - that 'charge-backs' did/do occur. After which, they promptly changed their TOS on July 25th (the day we went public). Everyone knew they promoted and marketed 'no charge-backs' and this is what made them so attractive to Bitcion exchanges. Why? Because exchanges could credit customer accounts 'instantly' without the risk of loss. Note that none of this explains why transactions just disappear/appear on past statements. Gox, Bitcoin Exchange, and others have now stated they also found errors in Dwolla data.

If Dwolla does not cover the losses incurred from their inappropriate advertising and data inaccuracies, then we will take legal action. In the meantime, we will make good with our customers from our own pockets. We hope people realize what this means to us.

Adam  


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Rob Lister on July 27, 2011, 05:08:27 PM

If Dwolla does not cover the losses incurred from their inappropriate advertising and data inaccuracies, then we will take legal action. In the meantime, we will make good with our customers from our own pockets. We hope people realize what this means to us.

Adam  

Noted.  Thank you Adam.  Given the circumstances, I can't see how you could take any action other than to cover the trades surrounding this fiasco.  Still, the question had to be asked.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: dacoinminster on July 27, 2011, 05:17:01 PM
[POLL] Will you reverse your Dwolla transactions?
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=32354.0


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Smalleyster on July 27, 2011, 05:20:12 PM

If Dwolla does not cover the losses incurred from their inappropriate advertising and data inaccuracies, then we will take legal action. In the meantime, we will make good with our customers from our own pockets. We hope people realize what this means to us.

Adam  

Good stuff!

I want to thank you guys publicly for bringing this out in public. I feel 2 weeks was an appropriate time to wait for Dwolla to answer you.

As a consumer and relatively new and admittedly small client of yours it makes me feel that your instincts are to do the right thing and be as transparent as possible. That means that I plan to continue to do more and more business with you.

Thank you both.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Vod on July 27, 2011, 05:49:42 PM
Dwolla has already refused to respond and only admitted in one email - right before we went public - that 'charge-backs' did/do occur. After which, they promptly changed their TOS on July 25th (the day we went public). Everyone knew they promoted and marketed 'no charge-backs' and this is what made them so attractive to Bitcion exchanges.

I believe it is illegal to unilaterally change terms of service without notice.  I hope you have copies of their old terms so you can sue them.

You are doing a great job Adam.  Ignore the couple trolls who are trying to twist your words.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Rob Lister on July 27, 2011, 05:56:11 PM
Quote
Excuse the repeated question Jered, but did any of your customers lose money in this?  That's really the only concern I have.


Jered,

Can you answer the question directly?


If the answer is no and I highly suspect it is, why did you make this such a public spectacle?

I think the answer he provided was about as direct as possible under the circumstances; that they would not pass on the loss to their customers.  Maybe I'm missing something.

Quote
If the answer is no and I highly suspect it is, why did you make this such a public spectacle?

I don't follow your logic.  The answer to that question, yes or no, has nothing to do with making it public or not.  IMO, making it public was the appropriate course of action.  IMO, they got scammed.  Other words that come to mind are ripped off, defrauded, and cheated

Why wouldn't they make this public?  They did a service by making this public.  It should be made public. 


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Jered Kenna (TradeHill) on July 27, 2011, 06:15:02 PM
Quote
Excuse the repeated question Jered, but did any of your customers lose money in this?  That's really the only concern I have.


Jered,

Can you answer the question directly?


If the answer is no and I highly suspect it is, why did you make this such a public spectacle?

I think the answer he provided was about as direct as possible under the circumstances; that they would not pass on the loss to their customers.  Maybe I'm missing something.

Quote
If the answer is no and I highly suspect it is, why did you make this such a public spectacle?

I don't follow your logic.  The answer to that question, yes or no, has nothing to do with making it public or not.  IMO, making it public was the appropriate course of action.  IMO, they got scammed.  Other words that come to mind are ripped off, defrauded, and cheated

Why wouldn't they make this public?  They did a service by making this public.  It should be made public. 

Thanks, that's essentially what I was about to say. This came out of our users balances so yes they were effected. We're covering them for now but Dwolla is responsible and we are going to get that back from them. Hopefully lawyers won't have to get involved in this. It will draw it out and most likely end up costing everyone involved more money.

Jered


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: tvbcof on July 27, 2011, 06:40:38 PM
Dwolla and CampBX are discussing a solution to the problem and everything seems to be going fine. MtGox is ok with this (I haven't heard anything from them). Why is TradeHill the only one being ignored? This doesn't make much sense to me...

That seemed very odd to me as well.

As I hypothesized on another thread, perhaps there are NSL's involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter

Mt Gox confirmed some transactions have gone missing on IRC and possibly a post. exchangebitcoin.com confirmed it and isn't accepting Dwolla, Bitcoin7 isn't accepting Dwolla and I've been told they confirmed the chargebacks.

It's 100% possible that CampBX didn't receive any chargebacks. If I have to guess it's because they didn't have the open orders to justify defrauding 5k or they thought they would get caught faster with lower volume to hide in. If that's the case good for them. Dealing with fraud isn't fun. I'm assuming if they continue to accept Dwolla and nothing changes they will see fraud.

Jered

Thanks for the reply Jered, but...

On a recent Wagner interview, CampBX (Keyur?) seemed to indicate that he is having detailed discussions with Dwolla about how to mitigate the fraud that you guys have uncovered.  And that the announcement of a solution was to be forthcoming.  The question of why the disproportionate level of attention and communications between Dwolla's customers is what I am interested in in this particular post.

In other news, I just added to my TH funds so I could be positioned more flexibly should any unpleasant and unexpected fallout come out of 8/2/2011.  That is to say, while all of my eggs are by no means in one basket, Tradehill's word to do right by their customers has some level of equivalence to my faith in Wells Fargo's ability to look after my assets.  You guys alone seem to have detected, quantified and communicated the damages and told us how you expect to handle situation.  That means a lot to me.



Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Jered Kenna (TradeHill) on July 27, 2011, 06:50:00 PM
Dwolla and CampBX are discussing a solution to the problem and everything seems to be going fine. MtGox is ok with this (I haven't heard anything from them). Why is TradeHill the only one being ignored? This doesn't make much sense to me...

That seemed very odd to me as well.

As I hypothesized on another thread, perhaps there are NSL's involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter

Mt Gox confirmed some transactions have gone missing on IRC and possibly a post. exchangebitcoin.com confirmed it and isn't accepting Dwolla, Bitcoin7 isn't accepting Dwolla and I've been told they confirmed the chargebacks.

It's 100% possible that CampBX didn't receive any chargebacks. If I have to guess it's because they didn't have the open orders to justify defrauding 5k or they thought they would get caught faster with lower volume to hide in. If that's the case good for them. Dealing with fraud isn't fun. I'm assuming if they continue to accept Dwolla and nothing changes they will see fraud.

Jered

Thanks for the reply Jered, but...

On a recent Wagner interview, CampBX (Keyur?) seemed to indicate that he is having detailed discussions with Dwolla about how to mitigate the fraud that you guys have uncovered.  And that the announcement of a solution was to be forthcoming.  The question of why the disproportionate level of attention and communications between Dwolla's customers is what I am interested in in this particular post.

In other news, I just added to my TH funds so I could be positioned more flexibly should any unpleasant and unexpected fallout come out of 8/2/2011.  That is to say, while all of my eggs are by no means in one basket, Tradehill's word to do right by their customers has some level of equivalence to my faith in Wells Fargo's ability to look after my assets.  You guys alone seem to have detected, quantified and communicated the damages and told us how you expect to handle situation.  That means a lot to me.



Thanks and as much as I would love to have "everyones eggs in our basket" I'll say it over and over. Don't do it. Diversify and minimize risk. This goes for exchanges, walllets, banks, credit cards and more.
I'm assuming their lawyers have told them to keep quiet because we still haven't received a response from Dwolla beyond "we'll look in to this".
I'm curious to hear this solution that makes "non-reversible reversible payments non-reversible" again. Or how we will know ahead of time if it's going to be reversed.

We're open to work with Dwolla in the future if they can get it straightened out and come clean.

Jered


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Jered Kenna (TradeHill) on July 27, 2011, 07:02:51 PM
Quote
Excuse the repeated question Jered, but did any of your customers lose money in this?  That's really the only concern I have.


Jered,

Can you answer the question directly?


If the answer is no and I highly suspect it is, why did you make this such a public spectacle?

I think the answer he provided was about as direct as possible under the circumstances; that they would not pass on the loss to their customers.  Maybe I'm missing something.

Quote
If the answer is no and I highly suspect it is, why did you make this such a public spectacle?

I don't follow your logic.  The answer to that question, yes or no, has nothing to do with making it public or not.  IMO, making it public was the appropriate course of action.  IMO, they got scammed.  Other words that come to mind are ripped off, defrauded, and cheated

Why wouldn't they make this public?  They did a service by making this public.  It should be made public.  

Thanks, that's essentially what I was about to say. This came out of our users balances so yes they were effected. We're covering them for now but Dwolla is responsible and we are going to get that back from them. Hopefully lawyers won't have to get involved in this. It will draw it out and most likely end up costing everyone involved more money.

Jered


You're playing word games Jered.

The only way this comes out of User's balances is if you pass on YOUR loss on to the customers. This is an issue between Dwolla and Tradehill, not Dwolla and TradeHill's customer base. This doesn't have to involve TradeHil's customer base if you don't want it to.

The only decision you need to make is if you are going to eat the $37K or pass it on. Quite playing word games.

I don't believe I'm playing word games. We have an account with user balances in it. Dwolla went in and pulled $37,000 out of our user balances.  We've said that we want that back from Dwolla. If they don't return those funds then we will compensate our users out of our company funds. Users will be able to withdraw their funds from TradeHill.

Does this answer your question?

Jered


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Jaime Frontero on July 27, 2011, 07:04:45 PM

Thanks, that's essentially what I was about to say. This came out of our users balances so yes they were effected. We're covering them for now but Dwolla is responsible and we are going to get that back from them. Hopefully lawyers won't have to get involved in this. It will draw it out and most likely end up costing everyone involved more money.

Jered

You're playing word games Jered.

The only way this comes out of User's balances is if you pass on YOUR loss on to the customers. This is an issue between Dwolla and Tradehill, not Dwolla and TradeHill's customer base. This doesn't have to involve TradeHil's customer base if you don't want it to.

The only decision you need to make is if you are going to eat the $37K or pass it on. Quite playing word games.

and you're just looking to start a fight where the basis for one doesn't exist.

Quote
yes they were effected

Quote
We're covering them for now but Dwolla is responsible and we are going to get that back from them.

your 'yes or no' question has been answered with a yes.

the decision about eating the dough has been made - and no, nobody would let it stay there:  of course they'll go after dwolla if they need to.  but do you seriously believe TH is going to go into its user's accounts sometime in 2012, if dwolla doesn't pay up, and extract $50k?  grow up.



Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: tvbcof on July 27, 2011, 07:18:51 PM

Thanks and as much as I would love to have "everyones eggs in our basket" I'll say it over and over. Don't do it. Diversify and minimize risk. This goes for exchanges, walllets, banks, credit cards and more.

I cannot help but add my suggestion to that list: currencies/monetary systems.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: MaGNeT on July 27, 2011, 07:43:04 PM
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r254/MaGNeT76/dwolla_vs_tradehill.jpg


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Raoul Duke on July 27, 2011, 07:59:09 PM
Now it's clear, so you don't have enough funding to insulate your customer's funds from your operational account. Dwolla withdrew or debited your account which essentially was your customer's money. Not a very smart way to do business. Wreckless at best. BTW I work on Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park and I know that has VC meaning to you. I'm no dummy.

You're up a creek if a lot of people suddenly withdraw USD from TH aren't you?

Keep airing this out in public, saying more than you should and that is exactly what will happen. If you have any sense at all, you will stop making this public, arbitrate with with Dwolla and settle this quietly.

If your users start an attack on Dwolla based on your postings here in this forum as they have indicated, you are done in the VC world and you can take that to the bank.

Once again, if you're smart, you'll stop the public whining and settle this quietly.

So, why are you trying to make matters worse by asking questions whose answers can hurt TradeHill so much?

Are Dwolla's VC's paying you for it? F*ckin' SockPuppet...


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: datguywhowanders on July 27, 2011, 08:01:33 PM
Quote

I don't believe I'm playing word games. We have an account with user balances in it. Dwolla went in and pulled $37,000 out of our user balances.  We've said that we want that back from Dwolla. If they don't return those funds then we will compensate our users out of our company funds. Users will be able to withdraw their funds from TradeHill.

Does this answer your question?

Jered

Now it's clear, so you don't have enough funding to insulate your customer's funds from your operational account. Dwolla withdrew or debited your account which essentially was your customer's money. Not a very smart way to do business. Wreckless at best. BTW I work on Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park and I know that has VC meaning to you. I'm no dummy.

You're up a creek if a lot of people suddenly withdraw USD from TH aren't you?

Keep airing this out in public, saying more than you should and that is exactly what will happen. If you have any sense at all, you will stop making this public, arbitrate with with Dwolla and settle this quietly.

If your users start an attack on Dwolla based on your postings here in this forum as they have indicated, you are done in the VC world and you can take that to the bank.

Once again, if you're smart, you'll stop the public whining and settle this quietly.

Wow, that sounded an awful lot like a threat. So the typical business world would rather we all play in the dark and hide in the shadows instead of dealing openly and fairly? Did I get that right?


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: MaGNeT on July 27, 2011, 08:01:52 PM

Now it's clear, so you don't have enough funding to insulate your customer's funds from your operational account. Dwolla withdrew or debited your account which essentially was your customer's money. Not a very smart way to do business. Wreckless at best. BTW I work on Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park and I know that has VC meaning to you. I'm no dummy.

You're up a creek if a lot of people suddenly withdraw USD from TH aren't you?

Keep airing this out in public, saying more than you should and that is exactly what will happen. If you have any sense at all, you will stop making this public, arbitrate with with Dwolla and settle this quietly.

If your users start an attack on Dwolla based on your postings here in this forum as they have indicated, you are done in the VC world and you can take that to the bank.

Once again, if you're smart, you'll stop the public whining and settle this quietly.

BitcoinExpress is working for Dwolla...
But he will state he isn't...

Dwolla wants to cover things up... That's for sure...


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Jered Kenna (TradeHill) on July 27, 2011, 08:08:58 PM
Quote

I don't believe I'm playing word games. We have an account with user balances in it. Dwolla went in and pulled $37,000 out of our user balances.  We've said that we want that back from Dwolla. If they don't return those funds then we will compensate our users out of our company funds. Users will be able to withdraw their funds from TradeHill.

Does this answer your question?

Jered

Now it's clear, so you don't have enough funding to insulate your customer's funds from your operational account. Dwolla withdrew or debited your account which essentially was your customer's money. Not a very smart way to do business. Wreckless at best. BTW I work on Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park and I know that has VC meaning to you. I'm no dummy.

You're up a creek if a lot of people suddenly withdraw USD from TH aren't you?

Keep airing this out in public, saying more than you should and that is exactly what will happen. If you have any sense at all, you will stop making this public, arbitrate with with Dwolla and settle this quietly.

If your users start an attack on Dwolla based on your postings here in this forum as they have indicated, you are done in the VC world and you can take that to the bank.

Once again, if you're smart, you'll stop the public whining and settle this quietly.



We can cover 37k, it is a lot of money to suddenly go missing without warning but it's not something we can't handle.
We're not up a creek.

Thanks for the warning though.

Jered


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: JoelKatz on July 27, 2011, 08:14:14 PM
You're playing word games Jered.
I'm not sure what else he can do. Money is fungible. Exchanges keep their customer's money in a big pile. Dwolla took from that pile.

Quote
The only way this comes out of User's balances is if you pass on YOUR loss on to the customers.
You mean like Dwolla did?

Quote
This is an issue between Dwolla and Tradehill, not Dwolla and TradeHill's customer base.
TradeHill is not the only Dwolla customer affected. TradeHill isn't even the only bitcoin exchange affected. This is an issue between Dwolla and their customer base.

Quote
This doesn't have to involve TradeHil's customer base if you don't want it to.
It has to if for no other reason than that TradeHill had to at least temporarily stop accepting Dwolla. There are TradeHill and Dwolla mutual customers who relied on TradeHill to provide a service that they now cannot.

Quote
The only decision you need to make is if you are going to eat the $37K or pass it on.
We're still waiting to hear Dwolla's answer to that question. The difference is, Dwolla promised not to pass it on.

Quote
Quite playing word games.
Again, the Dwolla business model. "Our transactions are not reversible, except when they are."


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Raoul Duke on July 27, 2011, 08:47:00 PM

Now it's clear, so you don't have enough funding to insulate your customer's funds from your operational account. Dwolla withdrew or debited your account which essentially was your customer's money. Not a very smart way to do business. Wreckless at best. BTW I work on Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park and I know that has VC meaning to you. I'm no dummy.

You're up a creek if a lot of people suddenly withdraw USD from TH aren't you?

Keep airing this out in public, saying more than you should and that is exactly what will happen. If you have any sense at all, you will stop making this public, arbitrate with with Dwolla and settle this quietly.

If your users start an attack on Dwolla based on your postings here in this forum as they have indicated, you are done in the VC world and you can take that to the bank.

Once again, if you're smart, you'll stop the public whining and settle this quietly.

Wow, that sounded an awful lot like a threat. So the typical business world would rather we all play in the dark and hide in the shadows instead of dealing openly and fairly? Did I get that right?


Not just Dwolla's VC are watching this thread, so are the ones that Jered potentially can get support from. Jered will have little chance of securing any seed or Series A money if he continues to turn this into childish back and forth. While I  am only a "Jr. Member" here I have been involved with Bitcoin since 2009.

As an account executive and analyst in VC world of Silicon Valley it is my job to find  potential new investments and more so in vetting them out.

Are people looking at TradeHill, of course they are. It has potential.

All I am doing is trying to help Jered from flushing himself out of the system. The method he is employing is unprofessional at best in dealing with Dwolla. TradeHill has damaged it's image. Sure they look great to you guys, but none of you guys are going to drop a couple of million in seed either.

Once again Jered, consider what I said previous about going quiet and furthermore, if I were you I would definitely make statement strongly discouraging any coordinated attacks on Dwolla in your behalf.

Now... This ^^ WAS a threat! LOL


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: wolftaur on July 27, 2011, 08:47:40 PM
Not just Dwolla's VC are watching this thread, so are the ones that Jered potentially can get support from.

I'm sure if Dwolla's VCs are terribly intelligent, they're ignoring everything you say. After all, you're the one who's sitting there being either incredibly moronic, or intentionally disingenuous.

Let's simplify this.

Fraud occurred. Dwolla ended up not having enough money to actually cover all their customers' balances if they kept all the profit they wanted. They solved this problem by retroactively editing Tradehill's balance.

Fraud occurred. Tradehill ended up not having enough money to actually cover all their customers' balances if they kept all the profit they wanted. You insist that they declare they won't solve this problem by retroactively editing their customers' balances...

The fact that you're apparently perfectly fine with Dwolla doing it, but not with Tradehill doing it, is why I've been having a very enjoyable afternoon laughing at pretty much everything you're posting here.

It's worth noting, as well -- I don't even have an account on Tradehill. Or on Dwolla. And bluntly put? I wanted to get a Dwolla account because my roommate's home business has lost a pretty big amount in the last year due to fraud -- a type of fraud that, supposedly, Dwolla would have insulated us from. As far as I'm concerned, Tradehill did me a massive favor by disclosing what risks actually still exist. So if I end up deciding I need to go to an exchange to sell coins, Tradehill's got pretty damn good odds of getting some of my business now.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Mistafreeze on July 27, 2011, 08:49:49 PM
So....did everyone else get a "customer service check-up" call from Dwolla just to make sure that they're happy with the service? I assume it's just coincidence that I get this call less than 24 hours after I posted the comment that's been screen-captured earlier in this thread on their Facebook page....


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: hugolp on July 27, 2011, 08:50:59 PM



So, why are you trying to make matters worse by asking questions whose answers can hurt TradeHill so much?

Are Dwolla's VC's paying you for it? F*ckin' SockPuppet...

Not just Dwolla's VC are watching this thread, so are the ones that Jered potentially can get support from. Jered will have little chance of securing any seed or Series A money if he continues to turn this into childish back and forth. While I  am only a "Jr. Member" here I have been involved with Bitcoin since 2009.

As an account executive and analyst in VC world of Silicon Valley it is my job to find  potential new investments and more so in vetting them out.

Are people looking at TradeHill, of course they are. It has potential.

All I am doing is trying to help Jered from flushing himself out of the system. The method he is employing is unprofessional at best in dealing with Dwolla. TradeHill has damaged it's image. Sure they look great to you guys, but none of you guys are going to drop a couple of million in seed either.

Once again Jered, consider what I said previous about going quiet and furthermore, if I were you I would definitely make statement strongly discouraging any coordinated attacks on Dwolla in your behalf.

The more you talk the more convinced I am you are just a troll or have some personal interest on the issue.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: dacoinminster on July 27, 2011, 08:51:35 PM
. . . I have been involved with Bitcoin since 2009.

But you only registered on the forum last month?

As an account executive and analyst in VC world of Silicon Valley it is my job to find  potential new investments and more so in vetting them out.

Are people looking at TradeHill, of course they are. It has potential.

All I am doing is trying to help Jered from flushing himself out of the system. The method he is employing is unprofessional at best in dealing with Dwolla. TradeHill has damaged it's image. Sure they look great to you guys, but none of you guys are going to drop a couple of million in seed either.

Once again Jered, consider what I said previous about going quiet and furthermore, if I were you I would definitely make statement strongly discouraging any coordinated attacks on Dwolla in your behalf.

Check this guy's posting history. Laugh at his spelling and grammar. Notice almost all his posts have been a frantic attempt to get TradeHill to keep this scandal quiet.

I've been a TradeHill booster since the day they launched, and their transparency only increases my loyalty.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: aq on July 27, 2011, 08:53:05 PM
As an account executive and analyst in VC world of Silicon Valley it is my job to find  potential new investments and more so in vetting them out.

Guys, it could be that BitcoinEXpress already recommended Dwolla to some of those investors, and is now trying to minimize damage to Dwolla, and  his own recommendation.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Raoul Duke on July 27, 2011, 08:53:16 PM
So....did everyone else get a "customer service check-up" call from Dwolla just to make sure that they're happy with the service? I assume it's just coincidence that I get this call less than 24 hours after I posted the comment that's been screen-captured earlier in this thread on their Facebook page....

They should've made that call to TradeHill as they are/were one of their biggest customers...  ::)
WTF  ??? Am I the only one to see the stupidity in this? Please tell me I'm not crazy...  :-\


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Mistafreeze on July 27, 2011, 08:54:33 PM
So....did everyone else get a "customer service check-up" call from Dwolla just to make sure that they're happy with the service? I assume it's just coincidence that I get this call less than 24 hours after I posted the comment that's been screen-captured earlier in this thread on their Facebook page....

They should've made that call to TradeHill as they are/were one of their biggest customers...  ::)
WTF  ??? Am I the only one to see the stupidity in this? Please tell me I'm not crazy...  :-\

Exactly why I'm asking.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: wolftaur on July 27, 2011, 08:56:53 PM
I've been a TradeHill booster since the day they launched, and their transparency only increases my loyalty.

I'm not a customer, but I do appreciate the service they did to the community by issuing a public warning, even when it was potentially detrimental to their business by calling into question whether they were now fractional reserve...

As such, when I am looking for an exchange to sell on, I will be giving very serious consideration to them. Thumbs-up to Jered for the honesty and open disclosure!


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: w1R903 on July 27, 2011, 09:01:47 PM
As someone who has done a lot of business with Dwolla, and some with Tradehill, I will say categorically that if BitcoinEXpress's attitude represents the established, "VC" way of doing business, and if Dwolla is adhering to that model, I will have no hesitation about taking my custom with Dwolla elsewhere.  I'm also saying this as someone who has seriously considering using Dwolla's API in a business product.  BitcoinEXpress is spouting off about Business 101, but as Michael Dell can tell you from bitter experience, Rule No. 1 is to communicate with your customers.  TradeHill is communicating clearly with their customers. Dwolla seems more interested in hiding and/or communicating via what appears to be a sock puppet.  I know Dwolla is reading this thread, why not explain your side?  Hundreds, perhaps thousands of your customers are interested and listening.  

I suspect that I know at least partially the answer to my question, which is that Dwolla is loath to associate themselves in public with the very instrument that played a major role in putting them over that million USD per day transaction mark: Bitcoin.  That and the fact that they clearly do chargebacks in spite of what they told their merchants.  And that they want to stick Trade Hill with the bill for the fraud committed against Dwolla.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Jaime Frontero on July 27, 2011, 09:15:09 PM
I know Dwolla is reading this thread, why not explain your side?  Hundreds, perhaps thousands of your customers are interested and listening.  


they are afraid.  clearly.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Raoul Duke on July 27, 2011, 09:22:52 PM

@Hugolp
Are you speaking as a member or a mod?


Clearly you are not very smart...

Taken from hugolp signature:
Quote
My opinions and commentaries are always as a simple user of this forum. If I am talking as a moderator it will be clearly noted.

OMFG, what a tool you are, BitcoinEXpress... May god have mercy on you...


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Jaime Frontero on July 27, 2011, 09:24:50 PM

...but by Jered's own admission he never talked to Dwolla.

what a bunch of self-serving crap.

by jered's own admission - since you appear to be somewhat reading-challenged - he never talked to dwolla because they wouldn't respond to more than a dozen each of phone calls and emails.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: deadserious on July 27, 2011, 09:31:48 PM
There's a lot more in play here than the elementary understanding you guys have of how this works.

Spoken like someone who wants people to think they know more than they really do.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: indio007 on July 27, 2011, 09:43:42 PM
Notice how this thread has gotten derailed from the main topic? Now we are talking about Vulture capitalists.
The fact is Dwolla just added a previously undisclosed risk to any transaction through their service. That is undeniable fact.
bitcoin2Cash seems like the most reliable place ATM. Hope to god they don't use Dwolla themselves.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Smalleyster on July 27, 2011, 09:44:04 PM
Wreckless at best. BTW I work on Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park and I know that has VC meaning to you. I'm no dummy.
...
Once again, if you're smart, you'll stop the public whining and settle this quietly.

Be very careful with this guy. I remember him being "less than helpful" in other threads.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Newton on July 27, 2011, 09:53:09 PM

Now it's clear, so you don't have enough funding to insulate your customer's funds from your operational account. Dwolla withdrew or debited your account which essentially was your customer's money. Not a very smart way to do business. Wreckless at best.

Needs some more explanation I'm not sure what this means.

- Why would general funding be in the same account as customer deposits from dwolla?
- What is the smart way to do business?
- What is "reckless" about this?


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: casascius on July 27, 2011, 09:59:55 PM
It's that I want people to think I know more, it's just that I do know more about the VC world than 99.99999% of you posting here.
I know for fact TradeHill is trying to for VC in the Valley.

Am I wrong Jered?

Jered aka TradeHill was reacting emotionally and not really considering the overall consequences. I can assure you he is rethinking his plan in dealing with Dwolla.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

BitcoinEXpress, you sound like a complete douche.  People actually succeed in creating businesses from the ground up without needing to wear the feces of your hoity toity buddies in your own little "world" on their lips.  I don't normally use much profanity in my postings on here but here goes: fuck off.

TradeHill, +100 respect.  Thanks for doing the right thing.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOMIoBAAoJEFou6PHxF1ojbhUH/2FRqeYc4duQQ5D88adcI4L2
VAkMlCao8C9PUkTQhAlthJUR9jlDtaELxYJNMVpiHEgaN7Kvl6nbfRnpfZFzpD4F
H9+2VJzZjnsHipPgNj8onAqzzqYINq+uZ0KQkgqug7XfzR5IrRH0qh6cTIlZQgMY
ncm0pVgZLhyPkUWSyk0c1Fa3EeNkn27Re428BbnV4rRpwpUZ1f1aaiP7SM2roM05
DtamzvLC16iCWuerj8hEVudGXYouckNhx/Nd6o5JQ0aK9RqgUAIrdETANwcJ1uLN
qCQMc7BBxkkd9h9N7mVGhIIneKk7LoUAlQhpQwOoaokuosOc/MAQfsfc5kmrSk0=
=d2+m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: bbit on July 27, 2011, 10:03:23 PM
There's a lot more in play here than the elementary understanding you guys have of how this works.

Spoken like someone who wants people to think they know more than they really do.

It's that I want people to think I know more, it's just that I do know more about the VC world than 99.99999% of you posting here.
I know for fact TradeHill is trying to for VC in the Valley.

Am I wrong Jered?

Jered aka TradeHill was reacting emotionally and not really considering the overall consequences. I can assure you he is rethinking his plan in dealing with Dwolla.




BitcoinExpress why don't you be transparent and really tell people who you are and what your involvement is - are you just a shill for dwolla or do you have some kind of financial motive here ?  the facts are un-deniable  Dwolla f'up'd and is making it worst by doing nothing about it ?


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: dacoinminster on July 27, 2011, 10:09:21 PM
I know we aren't supposed to feed the trolls, but . . .

It's really fun to gang up on the guy nobody likes and deliver a virtual beating from all sides. It really helps let out some of the tension.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: bbit on July 27, 2011, 10:09:57 PM
I know we aren't supposed to feed the trolls, but . . .

It's really fun to gang up on the guy nobody likes and deliver a virtual beating from all sides. It really helps let out some of the tension.

+1 lol


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: hugolp on July 27, 2011, 10:20:30 PM
the facts are un-deniable  Dwolla f'up'd and is making it worst by doing nothing about it ?

To be fair, Bruce has said the CEO from Dwolla will be on his program: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=5952.msg403956#msg403956

Im waiting for the episode to be aired to get their side of the story, but, honestly, it does not look very good for them.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: coblee on July 27, 2011, 10:25:47 PM
It's that I want people to think I know more, it's just that I do know more about the VC world than 99.99999% of you posting here.

Wouldn't a VC be aware of the significance of each digit?  There are not one hundred thousand people posting here - should have simply put 100%. The fact that you made up a number shows me you know little about money, and in fact are just a troll trying to protect Dwolla's fraud.  

PSY, I wish you would determine this guy's forum worth as a mod, and act on it.   >:(

Actually 99.99999% means that out of 10 million people, he would know the most about the VC world. Let's see... population of US is a bit over 300 million. That means in all of US, there's only about 30 people that knows more about the VC world than him. I call bullshit! :)

BitcoinEXpress, either your math is bad or you are a super VC. If the latter, who are you, and which VC firm do you work for? If the former, then try not to fund a startup a billion dollars when you meant to fund them a million dollars. :p


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: aq on July 27, 2011, 10:32:56 PM
This will be the last post I make in this thread.

Best of luck BitcoinEXpress, I'm glad you took the advice.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: coblee on July 27, 2011, 10:33:52 PM
This will be the last post I make in this thread.

Best of luck BitcoinEXpress, I'm glad you took the advice.


LOL! Now that was funny!


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: bbit on July 27, 2011, 10:52:28 PM
the facts are un-deniable  Dwolla f'up'd and is making it worst by doing nothing about it ?

To be fair, Bruce has said the CEO from Dwolla will be on his program: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=5952.msg403956#msg403956

Im waiting for the episode to be aired to get their side of the story, but, honestly, it does not look very good for them.

I don't think that is true ?


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: willphase on July 27, 2011, 11:04:37 PM
interesting thread.

Will


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: bbit on July 27, 2011, 11:13:31 PM



BitcoinExpress why don't you be transparent and really tell people who you are and what your involvement is - are you just a shill for dwolla or do you have some kind of financial motive here ?  the facts are un-deniable  Dwolla f'up'd and is making it worst by doing nothing about it ?


This will be the last post I make in this thread. Who am I? A simple forum member but I will make this prediction. In the next day or so Jered will make an anoucement, post or whatever stating that the problem was resolved amicably by both sides and it was all just a big misunderstanding. Then the real arbitration will start to occur in private.

I have it on good authority that the chains have been jerked sufficiently.

Best of luck Jered, I'm glad you took the advice.



it's best you go run because eventually your going to be out'd as a dwolla employee   I mean this comes from the guy who claims he has been a forum member since 2009 ?  yet when you look June 25, 2011, 03:07:12 am   he registered a month ago ? lol ...


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Smalleyster on July 27, 2011, 11:14:42 PM
I just got another non-response from dwolla:

Dwolla Support
JUL 27, 2011  |  05:28PM CDT
David,

We'd be happy to answer any questions you have.

If you could please let me know which questions you would like me to answer, I would be happy to do so.


David
JUL 26, 2011  |  06:42PM CDT
http://tradehillblog.com/


Charise
JUL 26, 2011  |  12:27PM CDT
David,

We'd be happy to walk you through our processess.

Dwolla has a return and dispute process which is pretty straight forward but in the past has been fairly manual.

Is there any specific question I could possibly answer? I'd be happy to do so.


David
JUL 26, 2011  |  08:46PM CDT
Original message
Please make me feel you are "doing the right thing" in reference to the following line of discussion in the bitcoin community.

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=31712.0

I am a relatively new client of yours and I used your services to interact with TradeHill, among others. I am at this moment extremely nervous about using your services unless and until this matter is cleared up.

Thank you


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Smalleyster on July 27, 2011, 11:26:17 PM



BitcoinExpress why don't you be transparent and really tell people who you are and what your involvement is - are you just a shill for dwolla or do you have some kind of financial motive here ?  the facts are un-deniable  Dwolla f'up'd and is making it worst by doing nothing about it ?


This will be the last post I make in this thread. Who am I? A simple forum member but I will make this prediction. In the next day or so Jered will make an anoucement, post or whatever stating that the problem was resolved amicably by both sides and it was all just a big misunderstanding. Then the real arbitration will start to occur in private.

I have it on good authority that the chains have been jerked sufficiently.

Best of luck Jered, I'm glad you took the advice.



I wasn't going to post any further but your reading comprehension truly defines you as an idiot. I said I have been in BITCOIN not the forum since 2009.

it's best you go run because eventually your going to be out'd as a dwolla employee   I mean this comes from the guy who claims he has been a forum member since 2009 ?  yet when you look June 25, 2011, 03:07:12 am   he registered a month ago ? lol ...

"This will be the last post I make in this thread. "

This now means we have proof positive that we have no reason whatsoever to believe anything else you have said or will say.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: willphase on July 27, 2011, 11:38:07 PM
...sounds like bitcoin and cash transactions are really the only truly non-reversible payment forms around at the moment.... going to be hard to buy bitcoins when the only way to buy them is with cash.

Will


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: tvbcof on July 27, 2011, 11:45:30 PM


Null posts still counts as a post.  Were you lying when you said you would vamoose, or did you just forget to change your socks?

BTW, it must suck for someone who knows so much about VC to have dumped the steaming pile of shit that is Dwolla into your clients brief cases.  Good luck in your recovery.

And as for your prediction the Tradehill is going to do something that they have offered to do at every opportunity, forgive me if I am unimpressed by your prescience.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: casascius on July 27, 2011, 11:47:42 PM


Null posts still counts as a post.  Were you lying when you said you would vamoose, or did you just forget to change your socks?

BTW, it must suck for someone who knows so much about VC to have dumped the steaming pile of shit that is Dwolla into your clients brief cases.  Good luck in your recovery.

And as for your prediction the Tradehill is going to do something that they have offered to do at every opportunity, forgive me if I am unimpressed by your prescience.

His post wasn't a null post - he called somebody an idiot for not knowing how to read as brilliantly as he (which of course would "prove" that he's not really a newbie), but he accidentally inserted that inside the quote tag instead of below it.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Raoul Duke on July 27, 2011, 11:50:05 PM


Null posts still counts as a post.  Were you lying when you said you would vamoose, or did you just forget to change your socks?


It wasn't a null post... The super-smart VC advisor replied inside the quote...

Like I said some pages back, clearly he's not very smart  :D


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: bitprotection on July 28, 2011, 12:24:27 AM
Beenlyingexpress another person on their Highhorse telling people how great his/she is please find another forum to do your dirty work on and let grown up's do the talking....

Clearly you are retarded to think Dwolla was going to get any sympathy from it's main client base after what it's doing...


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: jondecker76 on July 28, 2011, 12:25:34 AM
I normally don't get into posts like this... but

After being defrauded using MtGox(meaning that their database leak lead to 20.19BTC being stolen from my account (and being reported to them before the leak went public) - with it taking 10+ emails from me to even get a reply)...

I applaud your efforts of  being up-front with your userbase. Whether people agree with your decisions or not,  at least they know what is going on and they are receiving answers to their questions.  I hope things get settles for you guys, as you provide a great service to this community.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: gusti on July 28, 2011, 12:41:20 AM
...sounds like bitcoin and cash transactions are really the only truly non-reversible payment forms around at the moment.... going to be hard to buy bitcoins when the only way to buy them is with cash.

Will


I find western union very convenient too (if you label it not as "cash", but as "transfer") 


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Piper67 on July 28, 2011, 01:28:57 AM
Aside from everything else, Tradehill found itself in the unenviable position of having to choose between their customers and one of their main sources of funding... I for one applaud them for their choice of loyalty.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: PatrickHarnett on July 28, 2011, 01:35:33 AM

As an account executive and analyst in VC world of Silicon Valley it is my job to find  potential new investments and more so in vetting them out.

Are people looking at TradeHill, of course they are. It has potential.


Sorry for joining late.

As someone who actually puts money into ventures, I find VC analysts quite irritating - they don't understand what risking your own money is like and often suffer a gap between their models and the real world.

Personally, I find TradeHill ok.  In my dealings with them they are smart enough to listen and act as appropriate.  Dwolla have made a big mistake and it will cost them down the track.  Yes they have some PR from this event, but have not exactly covered themselves with glory either.  If I was investing on either/both sides of this, I'd be pretty pissed off with both companies, but would pick TH as being on the ultimately winning side.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: frozen on July 28, 2011, 01:54:05 AM
I initiated a dwolla withdrawal from my TH account almost 24 hours ago. It has not been processed yet. Sent an email to info@tradehill.com not too long ago, waiting for a response.

Withdrawal was processed successfully


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Jered Kenna (TradeHill) on July 28, 2011, 03:01:48 AM
I initiated a dwolla withdrawal from my TH account almost 24 hours ago. It has not been processed yet. Sent an email to info@tradehill.com not too long ago, waiting for a response.

Pulling it up right now. We've got a lot going on. We are finalizing several options to replace Dwolla with that should work well.
We'll process your Dwolla transfer, it shouldn't take long.

Jered

Edit: information on the new methods will be released tomorrow.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: frozen on July 28, 2011, 03:02:41 AM
I initiated a dwolla withdrawal from my TH account almost 24 hours ago. It has not been processed yet. Sent an email to info@tradehill.com not too long ago, waiting for a response.

Pulling it up right now. We've got a lot going on. We are finalizing several options to replace Dwolla with that should work well.
We'll process your Dwolla transfer, it shouldn't take long.

Jered

Thanks Jered


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: the founder on July 28, 2011, 03:15:10 AM
As an account executive and analyst in VC world of Silicon Valley it is my job to find  potential new investments and more so in vetting them out.

Are people looking at TradeHill, of course they are. It has potential.

What is it with VC and bitcoins?  

Seriously we got approached no less than 1/2 a dozen times even though Flexcoin is still invite only... if only for another night... oh did I say that too loud :)





Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: OrangeSun on July 28, 2011, 03:27:10 AM

Tradehill does have a history of sloppiness:

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=31094.0;all

Perhaps the people name calling me a troll should take another look at Tradehill and ask the necessary questions about their operations.  Missing $37,000 in first two months is hard to pull off without spectacular sloppiness.



Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: tvbcof on July 28, 2011, 03:27:59 AM
What is it with VC and bitcoins? 

Probably some of them became aware of Bitcoin as an alternate to their Cayman Islands accounts.

Seriously we got approached no less than 1/2 a dozen times even though Flexcoin is still invite only.   

Did any of them seem to not take it as a matter of principle that two businesses should silently collude to screw their mutual customers?

Hopefully Bitcoin will not devolve toward a business-as-usual cesspool of corruption.  I'm not holding my breath, but I do have some hope because there it seems to me that us peons have a much greater potential to vote with our feet using this monetary system.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: LightRider on July 28, 2011, 03:29:05 AM
Quote
"And I think that the unfortunate side is that you know there's an air of uncertainty about Bitcoins as a whole, and I don't think this is probably any exception to that rule," Milne said.

http://www.siliconprairienews.com/2011/07/as-bitcoin-exchanges-drop-dwolla-milne-says-company-stays-focused

Seems like Milne is trying to spread some FUD about bitcoin as opposed to face the issue at hand. Sad really.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: fcmatt on July 28, 2011, 03:34:21 AM
As a TH user I appreciate them making this public and will continue to use their services.

As a Dwolla user I fully expect them to make things right with TH or I will stop using their services because the
only reason I use them is related to bitcoin/TH.

If in the end, the exchanges stop using Dwolla, I am completely done with them as a customer and will no
longer recommend them to my friends. Hopefully they have an easy way for me to delete my account via a few clicks of
the mouse.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: the founder on July 28, 2011, 03:34:35 AM
What is it with VC and bitcoins? 

Probably some of them became aware of Bitcoin as an alternate to their Cayman Islands accounts.

Seriously we got approached no less than 1/2 a dozen times even though Flexcoin is still invite only.   

Did any of them seem to not take it as a matter of principle that two businesses should silently collude to screw their mutual customers?

Hopefully Bitcoin will not devolve toward a business-as-usual cesspool of corruption.  I'm not holding my breath, but I do have some hope because there it seems to me that us peons have a much greater potential to vote with our feet using this monetary system.


Correct and Correct...   flexcoin is backed by Yooter Interactive...  VC funding wasn't required at this time..  (or any time in the near future)  hence I wasn't at all impressed with the pitch...  which was literally "we'll give you a few million to build the company we'll virtually own,  in turn you'll get 8 bosses and we can fire the inventors and owners at any time"  

not exactly what I was expecting considering it wasn't solicitated.  









Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Smalleyster on July 28, 2011, 05:01:01 AM

Tradehill does have a history of sloppiness:

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=31094.0;all

Perhaps the people name calling me a troll should take another look at Tradehill and ask the necessary questions about their operations.  Missing $37,000 in first two months is hard to pull off without spectacular sloppiness.

The term "Sad Sack" comes to mind. Sheesh!


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Vod on July 28, 2011, 05:04:15 AM
If in the end, the exchanges stop using Dwolla, I am completely done with them as a customer and will no
longer recommend them to my friends. Hopefully they have an easy way for me to delete my account via a few clicks of
the mouse.

IMHO you should have stopped recommending them the instant they unilaterally changed their terms without notice.  That's illegal.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: geek-trader on July 28, 2011, 05:08:12 AM
As many of you have, I've dealt with both Dwolla and Trade Hill.  I've had the reason to contact customer service at each business.

Both were resolved to my satisfaction, BUT:

Trade Hill responded to me and resolved my issue in about an hour.

I heard no word from Dwolla for 2 days, but then it was resolved.

Combine this with Trade Hill's excellent record of communication on these forums, and Dwolla's continued absence, even though it's obvious bitcoin is directly responsible for Dwolla's much touted growth, and I'll take Trade Hill's side ANY DAY.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Smalleyster on July 28, 2011, 05:10:13 AM
"we'll give you a few million to build the company we'll virtually own,  in turn you'll get 8 bosses and we can fire the inventors and owners at any time"  

That is exactly what happened to friend of mine. He was stunned and on the verge of tears when they threw him out. And the $ he ended up with wasn't that much.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: fcmatt on July 28, 2011, 05:16:52 AM
If in the end, the exchanges stop using Dwolla, I am completely done with them as a customer and will no
longer recommend them to my friends. Hopefully they have an easy way for me to delete my account via a few clicks of
the mouse.

IMHO you should have stopped recommending them the instant they unilaterally changed their terms without notice.  That's illegal.

This thread, after reading it, is the first time I realized they actually did change their terms of service. And as a regular
user I am not sure if the terms were even modified for me versus a merchant/developer. So how does one even know to
stop recommending Dwolla when the very nature of a unilaterally modified terms of service means the other party does
not even know it was modified due to never accepting it?



Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: alkor on July 28, 2011, 05:22:08 AM
How can I close my account with Dwolla? They have no option to close your account.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: sequence on July 28, 2011, 05:26:12 AM
How can I close my account with Dwolla? They have no option to close your account.

I second that!


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Yeti on July 28, 2011, 05:40:21 AM
Not just Dwolla's VC are watching this thread, so are the ones that Jered potentially can get support from. Jered will have little chance of securing any seed or Series A money if he continues to turn this into childish back and forth. While I  am only a "Jr. Member" here I have been involved with Bitcoin since 2009.

As an account executive and analyst in VC world of Silicon Valley it is my job to find  potential new investments and more so in vetting them out.

Oh, so it's better to secure a couple of bucks in seed money and alienate your customers than to build a loyal and happy customer base that will support the business? Rrrrriight... that's why our company did not go for VC money and grows from its own strength. It's slower, true, but as has been said, you don't have several bosses that rather want Powerpoint slides of what went wrong and explaining how this affects their risks than to actually deal with the problem.

Maybe TradeHill is even better off without the VC money if they really should recommend screwing your customer base for profit / to mitigate loss. That's not the right way to do business! Apart from all the New Economy bubble crap, real customers paying you real money is what makes a business model succeed, ultimately. Should you have to decide between pleasing investors and pleasing customers, I'd advise to go with the latter. It's just more sustainable.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Meatpile on July 28, 2011, 05:46:23 AM
Yeah if they have a loyal fan base then they already have customers... So fuck your VC money?


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: westkybitcoins on July 28, 2011, 05:50:08 AM



BitcoinExpress why don't you be transparent and really tell people who you are and what your involvement is - are you just a shill for dwolla or do you have some kind of financial motive here ?  the facts are un-deniable  Dwolla f'up'd and is making it worst by doing nothing about it ?


This will be the last post I make in this thread. Who am I? A simple forum member but I will make this prediction. In the next day or so Jered will make an anoucement, post or whatever stating that the problem was resolved amicably by both sides and it was all just a big misunderstanding. Then the real arbitration will start to occur in private.

I have it on good authority that the chains have been jerked sufficiently.

Best of luck Jered, I'm glad you took the advice.



Wow.

And people wonder why Wall Street, and in large part due to them, the global economy,  is in the shape that it's in.

This is why the world needs bitcoin in the first place.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Chris Acheson on July 28, 2011, 05:58:57 AM
2 BTC says BitcoinEXpress is really just some big-talking nobody living in his mom's basement.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: wolftaur on July 28, 2011, 06:01:15 AM
2 BTC says BitcoinEXpress is really just some big-talking nobody living in his mom's basement.

Nah, I'm sure he's making semi-big bucks as a customer service rep for Dwolla. Hey, if he almost manages to use a forum, like putting his reply in the quote body, he might even be a manager.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: tvbcof on July 28, 2011, 06:16:53 AM
2 BTC says BitcoinEXpress is really just some big-talking nobody living in his mom's basement.

Nah, I'm sure he's making semi-big bucks as a customer service rep for Dwolla. Hey, if he almost manages to use a forum, like putting his reply in the quote body, he might even be a manager.

My guess is that BitcoingEXpress/OrangeSun is an escapee from the Republic of Sockistan.  Happily forum.bitcoing.org has the good sense to offer refugee status for general amusement.  It must be dawning on him by now that this isn't the typical day-trader/silver-bug forum.  Maybe not though...he does not seem all that quick on the uptake.

Another hypothesis is that he is actually trying to bring Dwolla down and elevate Tradehill.  Seems like every time he shows up he gets his balls pounded flat and Dwolla gets another shiner.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: wolftaur on July 28, 2011, 06:19:49 AM
Nah, I'm sure he's making semi-big bucks as a customer service rep for Dwolla. Hey, if he almost manages to use a forum, like putting his reply in the quote body, he might even be a manager.

My guess is that BitcoingEXpress/OrangeSun is an escapee from the Republic of Sockistan.  Happily forum.bitcoing.org has the good sense to offer refugee status for general amusement.  It must be dawning on him by now that this isn't the typical day-trader/silver-bug forum.  Maybe not though...he does not seem all that quick on the uptake.

Another hypothesis is that he is actually trying to bring Dwolla down and elevate Tradehill.  Seems like every time he shows up he gets his balls pounded flat and Dwolla gets another shiner.

Funny you should say that. I was relating some of the content of his posts to a friend of mine on AIM, and got as a response, "Hm. Dwolla has no cancel feature."


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: chickenado on July 28, 2011, 08:33:16 AM
This thread illustrates the problem with the Bitcoin community.

You are all a bunch of arrogant, naive, utopian amateurs who automatically dismiss any good advice from people with experience.  That's why Bitcoin businesses are bound to fail.

To make it in the Real World of entrepreneurship, you must resort to deception, blackmail, and nepotism.  Only in the fantasy world of immature idealists does honesty, customer loyalty, and creating real value get you anywhere.

That was all the Venture Capitalist was trying to say to you, and your knee-jerk reaction was to gang up on him. How predictable.   ;D


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: wumpus on July 28, 2011, 08:45:53 AM
To make it in the Real World of entrepreneurship, you must resort to deception, blackmail, and nepotism.  Only in the fantasy world of immature idealists does honesty, customer loyalty, and creating real value get you anywhere.
To be fair, "honesty, consumer loyalty and creating real value" can get you a long way. It's better to only start screwing your customers (and each other) after your initial growth otherwise you're up for an early crash.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Chick on July 28, 2011, 10:05:57 AM
2 BTC says BitcoinEXpress is really just some big-talking nobody living in his mom's basement.

Troll, GTFO. If you're going to express that childish attitude here, then you are the nobody living in your mom's basement. The fact that he is providing insightful information that most of you cannot take seriously of really makes me sick of the Bitcoin community.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Chick on July 28, 2011, 10:06:23 AM
This thread illustrates the problem with the Bitcoin community.

You are all a bunch of arrogant, naive, utopian amateurs who automatically dismiss any good advice from people with experience.  That's why Bitcoin businesses are bound to fail.

To make it in the Real World of entrepreneurship, you must resort to deception, blackmail, and nepotism.  Only in the fantasy world of immature idealists does honesty, customer loyalty, and creating real value get you anywhere.

That was all the Venture Capitalist was trying to say to you, and your knee-jerk reaction was to gang up on him. How predictable.   ;D

I agree 100%.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Chick on July 28, 2011, 10:09:14 AM
Yeah if they have a loyal fan base then they already have customers... So fuck your VC money?

It's not his VC money, it's potential VC money coming from potential investors. I'm pretty sure TradeHill could use some extra bucks and strategic management to have some serious competition with Mt.Gox.

With the attitude Jared is expressing now, he will still be left with nothing but you trolls. Sad.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Chick on July 28, 2011, 10:11:43 AM
As many of you have, I've dealt with both Dwolla and Trade Hill.  I've had the reason to contact customer service at each business.

Both were resolved to my satisfaction, BUT:

Trade Hill responded to me and resolved my issue in about an hour.

I heard no word from Dwolla for 2 days, but then it was resolved.

Combine this with Trade Hill's excellent record of communication on these forums, and Dwolla's continued absence, even though it's obvious bitcoin is directly responsible for Dwolla's much touted growth, and I'll take Trade Hill's side ANY DAY.

Because Dwolla is much bigger than TradeHill and have focuses other than Bitcoin itself?


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: rate5 on July 28, 2011, 10:18:43 AM
It looks like MtGox has frozen Dwolla deposits:
https://support.mtgox.com/entries/20317576-important-notice-dwolla-deposit-delays


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Oldminer on July 28, 2011, 10:20:40 AM
It looks like MtGox has frozen Dwolla deposits:
https://support.mtgox.com/entries/20317576-important-notice-dwolla-deposit-delays

Timely...


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: hugolp on July 28, 2011, 10:40:15 AM
Because Dwolla is much bigger than TradeHill and have focuses other than Bitcoin itself?

Actually no. Between MtGox and TradeHill they are the 90+% of the Dwolla bussiness. And in the rest there are other Bitcoin exchanges. Dwolla does not like to talk about it, but Dwolla is tied to Bitcoin. Without Bitcoin Dwolla would be nothing.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: da2ce7 on July 28, 2011, 10:58:30 AM
Because Dwolla is much bigger than TradeHill and have focuses other than Bitcoin itself?


Yay for adblock and to get rid of your stupid goxed banner!


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: becoin on July 28, 2011, 11:14:18 AM
This thread illustrates the problem with the Bitcoin community.
The bitcoin community has no problem. Dwolla's VC have because this is the end for Dwolla. All those 'keep silent' appeals are just pathetic...


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: wumpus on July 28, 2011, 11:24:04 AM
This thread illustrates the problem with the Bitcoin community.
The bitcoin community has no problem. Dwolla's VC have because this is the end for Dwolla. All those 'keep silent' appeals are just pathetic...
But still it is part of the bitcoin community so why not be a bit sympathetic with it? Why all the hostility against people that are sticking their head out and trying to do business using bitcoins, such as MtGox, Tradehill (and indirectly Dwolla) etc?


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: JoelKatz on July 28, 2011, 11:46:11 AM
But still it is part of the bitcoin community so why not be a bit sympathetic with it? Why all the hostility against people that are sticking their head out and trying to do business using bitcoins, such as MtGox, Tradehill (and indirectly Dwolla) etc?
I personally am very sympathetic to Dwolla. I think they handled this particular situation awfully, unless there are some massive extenuating circumstances we don't know about (such as a sting operation in progress involving one of their employees or something). But I think Dwolla is a great idea, deserves to succeed, and will succeed once they make it clear that they must pass on their fraud costs to their customers if they're only making $0.25 on each transaction.

But I do understand the hostility. A huge fraction of Dwolla's income is indirectly from Bitcoins. Yet there's a somewhat justified impression that Dwolla is not just indifferent to Bitcoins but hostile to them.

Dwolla will survive without Bitcoin, they'll just grow more slowly. And Bitcoin will survive without Dwolla, there will just be a bit of awkward time while exchanges switch over to other mechanisms. But they really should embrace each other. This is like the part of the chick flick where the girl thinks the guy's a jerk.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Smalleyster on July 28, 2011, 11:55:50 AM
It looks like MtGox has frozen Dwolla deposits:
https://support.mtgox.com/entries/20317576-important-notice-dwolla-deposit-delays

~"Turn out the lights..the party's over"~


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: becoin on July 28, 2011, 12:03:21 PM
Dwolla will survive without Bitcoin, they'll just grow more slowly.
Sure they can survive without bitcoin, but they can't survive without their "no chargeback" policy because this is the core of their business model.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: datguywhowanders on July 28, 2011, 02:00:57 PM
2 BTC says BitcoinEXpress is really just some big-talking nobody living in his mom's basement.

Troll, GTFO. If you're going to express that childish attitude here, then you are the nobody living in your mom's basement. The fact that he is providing insightful information that most of you cannot take seriously of really makes me sick of the Bitcoin community.

Chick, I don't think your post is quality material either.


Tradehill,

I think you've handled this marvelously so far. You contacted Dwolla prior to a public disclosure, and the fact that you gave them two weeks over $37,000 is more than sufficient in my book. They refused to address the issue competently. Like you said, it could have been a failure to get the attention of the right people, but at this point and in light of recent actions by Dwolla, I think it is safe to assume that they are in the wrong on this. Please continue to keep the community informed in the manner you have started. It's obvious from the majority of the posts in this thread that your actions are supported and that your customer base appreciates full disclosure.

Dwolla,

Your failure to fully address this issue is losing you customers. At this point, I personally believe that you're hiding and will not make a statement, and if you are as badly off as some people, myself included, think you are right now, then there is no statement you can make to fix this. However, deleting comments from public spaces, sending out empty email responses that don't address the issue, and changing your terms of service without notifying any of your customers will not leave a good impression with anyone you are currently doing business with or those who may bring you business in the future. I will be cancelling my account with your service, but I wish you the best in improving your business.

All VCs and Dwolla supporters,

Your advice and expertise are appreciated. However, the BitCoin community is not your average customer. We don't want to do business in the same manner as the current model. If we did, we probably wouldn't be excited about BitCoin. We want an open discussion between all parties involved, and we're tired of the lying, cheating, and stealing that is the current system. We don't want another company funded by Wall Street or Silicon Valley that offers outsourced customer service and hidden fees around every corner. That change won't come overnight, and most of us know that. We still don't want you in here preaching silence and backdoor deals. So next time, instead of offering unsolicited advice to either protect a current investment or a future one, just leave.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: bitbot on July 28, 2011, 02:04:14 PM
this officially makes mtgox the top exchange


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: tvbcof on July 28, 2011, 03:48:06 PM

Nicely put Panda, but I'll abbreviate and add an option...


All VCs and Dwolla supporters,

Your advice and expertise are appreciated. However, the BitCoin community is not your average customer. We don't want to do business in the same manner as the current model. If we did, we probably wouldn't be excited about BitCoin. We want an open discussion between all parties involved, and we're tired of the lying, cheating, and stealing that is the current system. We don't want another company funded by Wall Street or Silicon Valley that offers outsourced customer service and hidden fees around every corner. That change won't come overnight, and most of us know that.

We still don't want you in here preaching silence and backdoor deals. So next time, instead of offering unsolicited advice to either protect a current investment or a future one, just leave.

Or alternately, please stick around and keep reminding us why it could be a better world if the Bitcoin project evolves in a particular way and to keep an eye out for the armies of slimy degenerates who will be trying to creep in.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Yeti on July 28, 2011, 03:48:43 PM
this officially makes mtgox the top exchange
Which also has problems with Dwolla... (https://support.mtgox.com/entries/20317576-important-notice-dwolla-deposit-delays)


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Viceroy on July 28, 2011, 04:03:01 PM
http://www.siliconprairienews.com/2011/07/as-bitcoin-exchanges-drop-dwolla-milne-says-company-stays-focused


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Bitcoin Swami on July 28, 2011, 04:05:57 PM
http://www.siliconprairienews.com/2011/07/as-bitcoin-exchanges-drop-dwolla-milne-says-company-stays-focused

What a douchebag


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: tvbcof on July 28, 2011, 04:07:20 PM
this officially makes mtgox the top exchange
Which also has problems with Dwolla... (https://support.mtgox.com/entries/20317576-important-notice-dwolla-deposit-delays)

Cool!  Keep the users calm while Dwolla loads the lifeboats with their money.  In trade, Dwolla can kick back enough to keep you solvent.  Mutually promise not to sue one another.  Keep it silent and noone will be the wiser.  Everyone wins.  Modern business 101.

Just kidding...I of course don't know that Mt. Gox is doing that and I highly doubt it.  I'm sure our VC brain trust here would highly approve of the strategy though.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: bitbot on July 28, 2011, 04:23:08 PM
so will people be able to withdraw funds via dwolla?


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Vladimir on July 28, 2011, 04:28:00 PM
Dwolla went back and altered their account statements, and didn't even notify them?

That's FRAUD. Lawsuit time, guys.

+1


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Einewton on July 28, 2011, 04:37:26 PM
Dwolla went back and altered their account statements, and didn't even notify them?

That's FRAUD. Lawsuit time, guys.

+1

+1


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: indio007 on July 28, 2011, 04:45:49 PM
Will the kleptocracy ever end?
Theft and fraud are the modern business model.
WTF happened to honor and being honorable.
People would fight to the death over being called a liar. Now, it's just a way to enrich yourself.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Vladimir on July 28, 2011, 04:49:51 PM
Who cares about VC's sabotaging TH funding efforts. We can fund TH with bitcoins.

BTW... losing a lawsuit with fraud related allegations would almost certainly finish Dwoola at this stage. Even a potential of such lawsuit probably devalues Dwoola already.

Here is an idea for TH: sue Dwoola and take 70% of their equity as settlement.





Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Newton on July 28, 2011, 04:58:22 PM
Who cares about VC's sabotaging TH funding efforts. We can fund TH with bitcoins.

BTW... losing a lawsuit with fraud related allegations would almost certainly finish Dwoola at this stage. Even a potential of such lawsuit probably devalues Dwoola already.

Here is an idea for TH: sue Dwoola and take 70% of their equity as settlement.



That brings up an interesting idea.  If the bitcoin volume is really as significant a percentage of Dwolla's revenue as some suggest, why couldn't a bitcoin business buy Dwolla?  If bitcoins are a large part of their revenue, it could be a profitable investment even with a significant loan.

A USD exchange needs something like Dwolla's existing infrastructure to take in cash efficiently for the mass market, and they probably make a larger profit per dollar moved than Dwolla does.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: enmaku on July 28, 2011, 05:01:01 PM
That brings up an interesting idea.  If the bitcoin volume is really as significant a percentage of Dwolla's revenue as some suggest, why couldn't a bitcoin business buy Dwolla?  If bitcoins are a large part of their revenue, it could be a profitable investment even with a significant loan.

A USD exchange needs something like Dwolla's existing infrastructure to take in cash efficiently for the mass market, and they probably make a larger profit per dollar moved than Dwolla does.

Mt Gox buying Dwolla = instant monopoly...


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: the founder on July 28, 2011, 05:06:24 PM
That brings up an interesting idea.  If the bitcoin volume is really as significant a percentage of Dwolla's revenue as some suggest, why couldn't a bitcoin business buy Dwolla?  If bitcoins are a large part of their revenue, it could be a profitable investment even with a significant loan.

A USD exchange needs something like Dwolla's existing infrastructure to take in cash efficiently for the mass market, and they probably make a larger profit per dollar moved than Dwolla does.

Mt Gox buying Dwolla = instant monopoly...

Not even close.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: enmaku on July 28, 2011, 05:09:06 PM
That brings up an interesting idea.  If the bitcoin volume is really as significant a percentage of Dwolla's revenue as some suggest, why couldn't a bitcoin business buy Dwolla?  If bitcoins are a large part of their revenue, it could be a profitable investment even with a significant loan.

A USD exchange needs something like Dwolla's existing infrastructure to take in cash efficiently for the mass market, and they probably make a larger profit per dollar moved than Dwolla does.

Mt Gox buying Dwolla = instant monopoly...

Not even close.


Tradehill is the biggest MtGox competitor for USD trades and it has 7.8% of Mt Gox's volume. Also, for moving USD into and out of exchanges, Dwolla is the standard right now. Perhaps the EUR or PLN markets would still thrive elsewhere but for USD trades, MtGox + Dwolla accounts for the vast majority of the market. How exactly would such a merger be "Not even close"?


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Viceroy on July 28, 2011, 05:11:00 PM
That brings up an interesting idea.  If the bitcoin volume is really as significant a percentage of Dwolla's revenue as some suggest, why couldn't a bitcoin business buy Dwolla?  If bitcoins are a large part of their revenue, it could be a profitable investment even with a significant loan.

A USD exchange needs something like Dwolla's existing infrastructure to take in cash efficiently for the mass market, and they probably make a larger profit per dollar moved than Dwolla does.

Mt Gox buying Dwolla = instant monopoly...

Not even close.


/me looks at the self promoting thread hijacker


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: indio007 on July 28, 2011, 05:12:17 PM
I think insurance is the missing ingredient here. It could be limited to large transactions. you could even make it optional. If you don't get the insurance you waive the exchange from liability.

There are plenty of ways to manage the risk.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: becoin on July 28, 2011, 05:29:44 PM
why couldn't a bitcoin business buy Dwolla?
What for? Bitcoin businesses were interested in Dwolla only because of their "no chargeback" policy! Now it is quite clear they do not have such a technology or know-how in place. So, they are not attractive anymore.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Smalleyster on July 28, 2011, 05:38:03 PM
The opportunity is to *replace* dwolla with a service that keeps its word. All they are is a webite using the ACH system. Pretty simple stuff really.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Jered Kenna (TradeHill) on July 28, 2011, 05:42:45 PM
why couldn't a bitcoin business buy Dwolla?
What for? Bitcoin businesses were interested in Dwolla only because of their "no chargeback" policy! Now it is quite clear they do not have such a technology or know-how in place. So, they are not attractive anymore.

We're now using Paxum at TradeHill which has more fraud protection in place. It doesn't have all the same peer to peer features that Dwolla does but allows payments similar to Paypal. It can be funded in a similar way with a few additional options like checks and wires.   It will also allow you to withdraw funds from an ATM or with a debit card.

For more information go to www.tradehillblog.com or www.paxum.com

The opportunity is to *replace* dwolla with a service that keeps its word. All they are is a webite using the ACH system. Pretty simple stuff really.

We feel confident that Paxum will. They've been in business a lot longer.

Jered


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Newton on July 28, 2011, 05:44:49 PM
why couldn't a bitcoin business buy Dwolla?
What for? Bitcoin businesses were interested in Dwolla only because of their "no chargeback" policy! Now it is quite clear they do not have such a technology or know-how in place. So, they are not attractive anymore.

How do you make USD cash payments to purchase bitcoins?  I don't think a bank wire is very appealing to the mass market (which is precisely why bitcoins have a future).

I have a paypal account directly linked to debit my bank account.  When I buy from Newegg, I can pay instantly with just a username and password, without having to put a credit card number online.  You have to admit this is very convenient for the mass market.

Dwolla certainly does have many advantages beyond the no chargeback policy.

- $0.25 per transaction
- Infrastructure and relation already built with banks
- Convenient and easy USD deposit method for mass market

In Canada, Cavirtex allows online bill payment or email money transfer, so the problem is pretty much solved (although still much slower and less convenient than paypal, for many users).


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: enmaku on July 28, 2011, 06:15:24 PM
why couldn't a bitcoin business buy Dwolla?
What for? Bitcoin businesses were interested in Dwolla only because of their "no chargeback" policy! Now it is quite clear they do not have such a technology or know-how in place. So, they are not attractive anymore.

We're now using Paxum at TradeHill which has more fraud protection in place. It doesn't have all the same peer to peer features that Dwolla does but allows payments similar to Paypal. It can be funded in a similar way with a few additional options like checks and wires.   It will also allow you to withdraw funds from an ATM or with a debit card.

For more information go to www.tradehillblog.com or www.paxum.com

The opportunity is to *replace* dwolla with a service that keeps its word. All they are is a webite using the ACH system. Pretty simple stuff really.

We feel confident that Paxum will. They've been in business a lot longer.

Jered

From Paxum's web site, main page:
Quote
Transaction   Personal Account   Business Account
ATM Withdrawal   $2.00   $2.00
Peer to Peer   $0.25   $1.00
Wire Transfer   $50   $50

Granted you'd have a visa/mastercard that you can use to spend money from your Paxum account, but $50 is a bit much to move cash from one place to another.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Jered Kenna (TradeHill) on July 28, 2011, 06:24:24 PM
[

From Paxum's web site, main page:
Quote
Transaction   Personal Account   Business Account
ATM Withdrawal   $2.00   $2.00
Peer to Peer   $0.25   $1.00
Wire Transfer   $50   $50

Granted you'd have a visa/mastercard that you can use to spend money from your Paxum account, but $50 is a bit much to move cash from one place to another.


From their fee page https://www.paxum.com/payment/fees.php?view=views/fees.xsl (https://www.paxum.com/payment/fees.php?view=views/fees.xsl)

Loading Funds By ACH $5.00


Jered


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Enochian on July 28, 2011, 06:24:31 PM
The opportunity is to *replace* dwolla with a service that keeps its word. All they are is a webite using the ACH system. Pretty simple stuff really.

Dwolla is kind of misrepresenting what they can do if they advertise non-reversible transactions and use ACH.

Federal law requires banks to make funds available from reasonably sized deposits within three days, but the interbank clearing period is 14 days, after which, absent extreme circumstances, the transaction can no longer be reversed.

We're all familiar with the scam where a Nigerian sends someone a "Cashier's Check" and tells them to deposit it and wait for it to "clear", and then wire them a percentage of the money.  They wire funds from their account, only to find a large negative balance a week later .

It's not unreasonable for Dwolla to uncredit funds where a bank transfer to them is later reversed.  It is unreasonable for them to advertise the transaction as "final" before they have "good funds" from the person sending the money.

This is a case, as the old saying goes, of "the mouth writing a check the ass can't cash."



Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: enmaku on July 28, 2011, 06:27:04 PM
[

From Paxum's web site, main page:
Quote
Transaction   Personal Account   Business Account
ATM Withdrawal   $2.00   $2.00
Peer to Peer   $0.25   $1.00
Wire Transfer   $50   $50

Granted you'd have a visa/mastercard that you can use to spend money from your Paxum account, but $50 is a bit much to move cash from one place to another.


From their fee page https://www.paxum.com/payment/fees.php?view=views/fees.xsl (https://www.paxum.com/payment/fees.php?view=views/fees.xsl)

Loading Funds By ACH $5.00


Jered

Hadn't noticed that, I stand corrected. It's still a pretty big fee increase from Dwolla but if they can't get their act together and fix this nonsense I'll take it.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Smalleyster on July 28, 2011, 06:30:12 PM
New non-reply email just hit the box:

Dwolla Support
JUL 28, 2011  |  01:25PM CDT
David,

Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any questions about Dwolla or about any of our processes please do not hesitate to ask. We would be happy to explain the system. Due to privacy standards we can not provide information about other users or merchants but would be happy to answer any question you have about Dwolla or your account.

David
JUL 27, 2011  |  06:19PM CDT
When will you refund TradeHill's money?

When will you announce in public what you have done and why?

Thank you
********** note; there are other non-replys that I trimmed bc already posted


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Vladimir on July 28, 2011, 06:33:38 PM
Just strike a deal with one/many of many low cost wire transfer/exchange players like xe.com. Pass the discount to customers. Here you go, problem solved. There still will be some fees but much more reasonable than what banks charge. Probably not suitable for sending 20$ but for 500$+ it would do.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: enmaku on July 28, 2011, 06:39:59 PM
Just strike a deal with one/many of many low cost wire transfer/exchange players like xe.com. Pass the discount to customers. Here you go, problem solved. There still will be some fees but much more reasonable than what banks charge. Probably not suitable for sending 20$ but for 500$+ it would do.


Leave it to vlad to pose a solution that doesn't work for the little guy  ;)

In all seriousness it's a good idea and I'd take it and run with it but we do still need a Dwolla-esque solution for the $20 spenders or we're about to see some serious liquidity problems.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: SteveFL on July 28, 2011, 06:40:02 PM
Someone claiming to be from Dwolla just called me to "verify details of my account" from a 515-422-xxxx number.  They wanted me to give my name and address.  I declined and said I don't know who you really are.  I've never done a single deposit to them, only withdrawls from Mt Gox and TradeHill.  

They may be quiet on this issue, but they're doing something to cover their ass now.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Smalleyster on July 28, 2011, 06:41:20 PM
[

From Paxum's web site, main page:
Quote
Transaction   Personal Account   Business Account
ATM Withdrawal   $2.00   $2.00
Peer to Peer   $0.25   $1.00
Wire Transfer   $50   $50

Granted you'd have a visa/mastercard that you can use to spend money from your Paxum account, but $50 is a bit much to move cash from one place to another.


From their fee page https://www.paxum.com/payment/fees.php?view=views/fees.xsl (https://www.paxum.com/payment/fees.php?view=views/fees.xsl)

Loading Funds By ACH $5.00

Jered

Does that then translate to:

I load funds into my paxum account by ACH; costs me $5.00

I then send to my peer (Tradehill, business account); costs me $1.00

Total cost to send money from bank to TH is then $6.00?


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Smalleyster on July 28, 2011, 06:46:57 PM
Where is my head? This is all a bunch of childish stupidity!

TradeHill, or any other business in the USA can sign up for a service that allows them to accept checks by fax/email/phone by using the ACH themselves! I was doing it 20 years ago in my little AutoCAD consulting business.

I pay my cable bill, cell phone bill and three different credit card accounts by paying check by phone *every* month at *no* cost to me and they all credit my account within 2-3 days.

Problem solved.

Jered, get to work! 8^)


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Jered Kenna (TradeHill) on July 28, 2011, 07:06:12 PM
Where is my head? This is all a bunch of childish stupidity!

TradeHill, or any other business in the USA can sign up for a service that allows them to accept checks by fax/email/phone by using the ACH themselves! I was doing it 20 years ago in my little AutoCAD consulting business.

I pay my cable bill, cell phone bill and three different credit card accounts by paying check by phone *every* month at *no* cost to me and they all credit my account within 2-3 days.

Problem solved.

Jered, get to work! 8^)

Smalleyster, I always appreciate your responses =)

I think this would make us vulnerable to the same problems Dwolla is facing. Worth looking in to for sure though.

In regards to Paxum it's $5 to load your Paxum account. Then to send that to TradeHill is 25 cents.
If you want to load $10 in Paxum it's going to cost $15, if you want to load $5000 it's going to be $5005.
You can also receive transfers from other Paxum users (like Paypal allows user to user) with out most of the downsides we complain about.

If you have say $1000 in your Paxum balance and want to move $20 or the whole $1000 balance to TradeHill that costs 25cents. For us to send funds to your Paxum account there is a $1 fee but we are waiving that the first month and may reduce it in the future.

Jered


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Serge on July 28, 2011, 07:13:37 PM
Please whitelist Paxum rep to allow to answer some of the questions. He can easily be verified through company email.
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=32604.msg407102#msg407102



Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Jered Kenna (TradeHill) on July 28, 2011, 07:18:46 PM
Please whitelist Paxum rep to allow to answer some of the questions. He can easily be verified through company email.
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=32604.msg407102#msg407102



I'll vouch for him as well. "paxumchris" correct?


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Serge on July 28, 2011, 07:19:51 PM
Please whitelist Paxum rep to allow to answer some of the questions. He can easily be verified through company email.
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=32604.msg407102#msg407102



I'll vouch for him as well. "paxumchris" correct?

indeed,  PaxumChris


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: BitcoinRigs.com on July 28, 2011, 07:20:50 PM
I really, really hate CC companies, they are allowed to operate a ZERO risk business (and charge a % for it) while always pushing the liability on the merchant/payment-processor.
Not only do they push the liability onto the merchant, but they offer essentially ZERO security to help the merchant protect against fraud.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Mistafreeze on July 28, 2011, 07:22:15 PM
Someone claiming to be from Dwolla just called me to "verify details of my account" from a 515-422-xxxx number.  They wanted me to give my name and address.  I declined and said I don't know who you really are.  I've never done a single deposit to them, only withdrawls from Mt Gox and TradeHill.  

They may be quiet on this issue, but they're doing something to cover their ass now.

515 is a Des Moines, Iowa area code. Thats where they are located. They called me yesterday as well to ask if i was happy with the service and if I had any questions. I had to cut him short because I was at work and couldn't talk, asked if he could call back in an hour. He never did.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: tvbcof on July 28, 2011, 07:26:22 PM
I thought that it was interesting that a blogger was, apparently, able to get right through to Dwolla and obtain fairly detailed information about what the problem is:

  "I contacted Dwolla Customer Service who explained to me it was TradeHill improperly crediting the accounts of users prior to confirmation that the transactions had cleared. "

  From: http://fmqinc.com/tradehill-bitcoin-exchange-fraudulent-scandal/

Hopefully if/when Milne responds, he'll be able to explain the apparent discrepancies between the above statement and the CSVs and/or a little bit more on how the CSVs, balances, etc were supposed to have been interpreted and why.

Failing that, I would add to the list of complaints against Dwolla, defamation and libel.

I heard mention on Bruce's show about this comment and it stirred my interest.  Looking back at 'Lanie Grace's blog, I see that he has not yet lived up to his promise to provide updates or defend his plainly wrong assertion that Tradehill was not responsive.  It's right there in the comments for God's sake!

If I had to guess, I would suppose that after facilitating apparent libel on the part of Dwolla, he must have decided to shut up...or been told to do so.  Probably a wise move.



Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: nealmcb on July 28, 2011, 08:40:30 PM
I figured it would make sense to update the bitcoin wiki with the news that chargebacks could happen.  So I went to

 Dwolla - Bitcoin (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Dwolla)

and was surprised to see this text.  It was added back on 2011-01-08 in this edit (https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Dwolla&diff=1383&oldid=1381):

 
Quote
Risks

ACH fraud can occur (e.g., stolen account used to make payments, account holder falsely disputes a transaction they had authorized, etc.) so there is the risk of ACH chargebacks. In some circumstances, an ACH chargeback can occur within 180 days of the transaction. Payment cards (neither credit card nor debit card) are not used to fund Dwolla accounts thus the relatively common payment card chargeback is not a factor for Dwolla transactions.

I wonder what the source for this claim was.

Here is a link about ACH chargebacks (http://ach-processing.typepad.com/ach_processing/2009/12/ach-processing-chargeback-protection.html)


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Yeti on July 28, 2011, 08:52:51 PM
Here's a crazy "future" scenario:

Say Alice wants to send money to Bob. She types his bank account number and bank code into her bank's online banking website, sends the funds. It's free. She has a regular account, so she pays somewhere around $5 per month for that and nothing per transaction. She could also opt for no monthly fee and $.25 per transaction, but since rent, utilities, insurance, groceries, etc. all goes through that account, she's better off with the former. So the transaction is free and it is non-reversible, once sent it can only be refunded by the payee. Sufficient funds are checked before the transfer is initiated by the bank.

Now when is this going to be a reality? Wow, this has been actually possible for the last 28 years! In a far away country called Germany. And even if you didn't own one of those fancy BTX terminals back in 1983, you could send money on a slip of paper, also free of charge or with a small fee. And what's a check (or cheque)? I've only once got one, in the late 1990s. It felt ancient.

Since 2008 Alice can also live in Finland while Bob lives in Portugal and it's still free.

No need for any of those services (Dwolla, Paxum) here. Why is the US banking system still stuck in de Medici times? You don't need VC money, you need a 21st century banking system. Why would anybody still need to physically bring their paycheck to the bank?


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: coblee on July 28, 2011, 08:57:35 PM
Jared, does Paxum shield you guys from fraud? In other words, will they uncredit a user to user transfer if the ACH transfer was reverted? (like what Dwolla did)


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: JoelKatz on July 28, 2011, 08:58:05 PM
Say Alice wants to send money to Bob. She types his bank account number and bank code into her bank's online banking website. And it's free. She has a regular account, so she pays somewhere around $5 per month for that and nothing per transaction. She could also opt for no monthly fee and $.25 per transaction, but since rent, utilities, insurance, groceries, etc. all goes through that account, she's better off with the former. So the transaction is free and it is non-reversible, once sent it can only be refunded by the payee. Sufficient funds are checked before the transfer is initiated by the bank.

Now when is this going to be a reality? Wow, this has been actually possible for the last 28 years! In a far away country called Germany. And even if you didn't own one of those fancy BTX terminals back in 1983, you could send money on a slip of paper, also free of charge or with a small fee. And what's a check (or cheque)? I've only once got one, in the late 1990s. It felt ancient.
So, to be 100% clear, you are saying that if the system tells me that I received some money from Alice, there is no way for Alice to get that money back from me other than to sue me? It doesn't matter if she claims someone hacked into her account? It doesn't matter if she says I promised to ship her a product and never did? The transction is irreversible within the system even if she alleges fraud?

If that's true, that's amazing. But I find that very hard to believe.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Serge on July 28, 2011, 09:00:56 PM
Jared, does Paxum shield you guys from fraud? In other words, will they uncredit a user to user transfer if the ACH transfer was reverted? (like what Dwolla did)

This is what they said in another thread:

Quote from: PaxumChris
Regarding reversals - here is the exert from our terms of service regarding this.

(e) User acknowledges and accepts that in case of any Transaction disputes, Paxum presumes that all Transactions by User are authorized by and are the liability of the User;
(g) User agrees that all Transactions initiated are final and not reversible;
(i) User agrees that any disputes that arise between Users are not the responsibility of Paxum;

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=32604.msg407528#msg407528


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Smalleyster on July 28, 2011, 09:03:13 PM
Say Alice wants to send money to Bob. She types his bank account number and bank code into her bank's online banking website. And it's free. She has a regular account, so she pays somewhere around $5 per month for that and nothing per transaction. She could also opt for no monthly fee and $.25 per transaction, but since rent, utilities, insurance, groceries, etc. all goes through that account, she's better off with the former. So the transaction is free and it is non-reversible, once sent it can only be refunded by the payee. Sufficient funds are checked before the transfer is initiated by the bank.

Now when is this going to be a reality? Wow, this has been actually possible for the last 28 years! In a far away country called Germany. And even if you didn't own one of those fancy BTX terminals back in 1983, you could send money on a slip of paper, also free of charge or with a small fee. And what's a check (or cheque)? I've only once got one, in the late 1990s. It felt ancient.
So, to be 100% clear, you are saying that if the system tells me that I received some money from Alice, there is no way for Alice to get that money back from me other than to sue me? It doesn't matter if she claims someone hacked into her account? It doesn't matter if she says I promised to ship her a product and never did? The transction is irreversible within the system even if she alleges fraud?

If that's true, that's amazing. But I find that very hard to believe.


That's the way it works in Costa Rica too. As soon as I hit <Enter> the money is in your account. They all brag that it is a Microsoft Banking program. No way to get it back without going to court. And you will not get it back even then unless it is really big and the newspapers are behind you.

The US system is a scam designed to allow the bankers to fool around with your money while it is in "limbo".


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Yeti on July 28, 2011, 09:09:02 PM
So, to be 100% clear, you are saying that if the system tells me that I received some money from Alice, there is no way for Alice to get that money back from me other than to sue me? It doesn't matter if she claims someone hacked into her account? It doesn't matter if she says I promised to ship her a product and never did? The transction is irreversible within the system even if she alleges fraud?

If that's true, that's amazing. But I find that very hard to believe.

Yup, wire transfers are irreversible since November 2009. As they say, "it's the law". BGB §675p (http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/englisch_bgb.html#BGBengl_000P675p) says that transactions are irreversible if issued by the payer (regular wire transfer). BGB §675u (http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/englisch_bgb.html#BGBengl_000P675u) states that if fraud occurs, it's the bank that eats the loss. So they are very eager to protect against fraudulent transactions. BGB is the German Civil Code, it is the book of law.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: borgfish on July 28, 2011, 09:22:12 PM
Hey Yeti,

i am not into lawbooks or changes from 2009 there, but i am german and i remember some woman laundering phishing money to westernunion who ended up with -32k eur when the phishing victim banks charged back. it was before 2009 but she sued her bank and still has -32k there...

http://www.computerbetrug.de/sicherheit-im-internet/phishing-betrug-mit-daten/phishing-urteile-zu-haftung-und-finanzagenten/


"Die hier streitgegenständlichen Gutschriften waren fehlerhaft, weil eine wirksame Überweisung nicht vorlag, denn die berechtigten Kontoinhaber hatten einen Überweisungsauftrag nicht erteilt."

why shouldnt this ruling apply if the scammer used another ones account or claimed phishing since 2009 ?!


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Yeti on July 28, 2011, 09:26:06 PM
Western Union is as far and if I remember correctly, a service to send cash to other countries. It is not in any sense a bank with "Girokonto" and wire transfers. It's much like Dwolla, but with offices all around the globe. Basically you give the WU guy in Germany 100 € and another WU guy in Uganda or whereever gives $100 in local currency to your folks there. So, yeah, they are probably easy to scam. Now, there is a Western Union International Bank, but until you say otherwise, I am going to assume that it's their prominent cash transfer service that was employed in this scam.

Edit: Oh, now I know what you're talking about. Yeah, that's a very common scam. Evildoers look for gullible people that want to "work from home". They send the money in a bank transfer that was phished and they are supposed to send it on. If those launderers are caught, they of course are liable for any losses, even though they might not be aware of any laundring or that it it's not a legal "job" they're doing. This forced some poor people into bankruptcy, when the phishing and laundering was uncovered and fell back on them. The people behind all this make the real profit but they stay unharmed of course. Small guys that were hoping for a new chance in life are a Bauernopfer for them.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: borgfish on July 28, 2011, 09:31:37 PM
@ yeti sorry for my edits. westernunion is only mentioned, she could have also just withdrawn the money from her giro..

just read my last 3 lines of the prior post. i believe nothing has changed there (since 2009).....


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Yeti on July 28, 2011, 09:37:14 PM
@ yeti sorry for my edits. westernunion is only mentioned, she could have also just withdrawn the money from her giro..

just read my last 3 lines of the prior post. i believe nothing has changed there (since 2009).....
Yeah, sorry, I just speed-read... The case is from 2006, so yes, that was before the change. http://www.zahlungsverkehrsfragen.de/ueberweisung.html
These days if there is a fraud, the bank is not allowed to charge back, but they could successfully sue the launderer (although they may not be able to ever repay their debt). I have no actual recent case to support this, but it's in the BGB. So... yeah... it's pretty irreversible right now.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: kloinko1n on July 29, 2011, 08:33:38 AM
[snip>
Quote
Quite playing word games.
Again, the Dwolla business model. "Our transactions are not reversible, except when they are."

I just love JoelKatz' short and to-the-point remarks. :D


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: makomk on July 29, 2011, 09:15:51 AM
Say Alice wants to send money to Bob. She types his bank account number and bank code into her bank's online banking website, sends the funds. It's free. She has a regular account, so she pays somewhere around $5 per month for that and nothing per transaction. She could also opt for no monthly fee and $.25 per transaction, but since rent, utilities, insurance, groceries, etc. all goes through that account, she's better off with the former. So the transaction is free and it is non-reversible, once sent it can only be refunded by the payee. Sufficient funds are checked before the transfer is initiated by the bank.

Now when is this going to be a reality? Wow, this has been actually possible for the last 28 years! In a far away country called Germany. And even if you didn't own one of those fancy BTX terminals back in 1983, you could send money on a slip of paper, also free of charge or with a small fee. And what's a check (or cheque)? I've only once got one, in the late 1990s. It felt ancient.
Now suppose Mallory manages to get her hands on Alice's online banking credentials (either by phishing or by actively installing malicious software on Alice's computer) and sends Alice's money to a little company called Mt Gox without authorisation, then exchanges it for easily-laundered Bitcoins. This isn't an entirely hypothetical scenario; it's one of the reasons that Mt Gox's EU bank account was cancelled and they've been having problems accepting SEPA transfers.

Edit: If German bank transactions really are non-reversible that partly explains why there was such pressure to kick Mt Gox out, though their bank was in France and there are some interesting interactions with SEPA rules in that case. I suspect there's something important we're missing though.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: payb.tc on July 29, 2011, 09:22:25 AM
[snip>
Quote
Quite playing word games.
Again, the Dwolla business model. "Our transactions are not reversible, except when they are."

I just love JoelKatz' short and to-the-point remarks. :D

"At Dwolla, we promise to never reverse transactions.




We just delete them instead."


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: becoin on July 29, 2011, 09:50:11 AM
Now suppose Mallory manages to get her hands on Alice's online banking credentials (either by phishing or by actively installing malicious software on Alice's computer) and sends Alice's money to a little company called Mt Gox without authorisation, then exchanges it for easily-laundered Bitcoins.
Now suppose Mallory manages to get her hand on Alice's cash (either by stealing her purse or breaking into her house by installing malicious software on Alice's house alarm system) and sends Alice's cash to a big company called ABCDEFG, then exchanges it for illegal currency (for it's easily-laundered) called bitcoins. What a tragedy... This is why the next phase of fiat money fiasco will be a transformation to coupons with owner's birth certificate serial numbers engraved. This will (eventually) solve the money laundering problem.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Yeti on July 29, 2011, 10:30:09 AM
Now suppose Mallory manages to get her hands on Alice's online banking credentials (either by phishing or by actively installing malicious software on Alice's computer) and sends Alice's money to a little company called Mt Gox without authorisation, then exchanges it for easily-laundered Bitcoins. This isn't an entirely hypothetical scenario; it's one of the reasons that Mt Gox's EU bank account was cancelled and they've been having problems accepting SEPA transfers.

Edit: If German bank transactions really are non-reversible that partly explains why there was such pressure to kick Mt Gox out, though their bank was in France and there are some interesting interactions with SEPA rules in that case. I suspect there's something important we're missing though.
It actually is a European regulation, so I suppose all SEPA-participating countries have these rules now. You are now responsible for making sure the transfer is OK, they won't compare recipient's names as they did before and they won't .
However, in case of phishing, banks are to reimburse their customers. I don't know how far this goes, but banks here will usually happily do that, because it's worse that their customers would lose trust in online banking.

I think the high percentage of fraud could have been the reason for CIC to kick Mt. Gox out, they just didn't want to cover anymore for these huge amounts of fraudulent transactions. However, as has been said before, the Mount should have had multiple accounts in Europe in the first place. It could also be that they just suspected a huge money laundering operation with all the cash coming in and going out to different people and a lack of understanding about Bitcoins and Bitcoin exchanges on the bank's part.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Raoul Duke on July 29, 2011, 10:49:20 AM

<snip>
However, in case of phishing, banks are to reimburse their customers. I don't know how far this goes, but banks here will usually happily do that, because it's worse that their customers would lose trust in online banking.
<snip>

I know a lot of recent cases in Portugal where owners of phished accounts get the hit because the banks say that if they don't protect themselves from banking trojans and such, it's the clients responsability and not the bank... So, even if it's a EU directive it doesn't work like that in Portugal.

But yeah, Portugal is the kind of country where you should pay money transfers between euro accounts if you choose to go to the bank, being the transfers only free if the customers use their homebanking services.  ::) I guess the bankers here are the worst kind.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Aggro on July 29, 2011, 09:43:13 PM
Dwolla will survive without Bitcoin, they'll just grow more slowly.
Sure they can survive without bitcoin, but they can't survive without their "no chargeback" policy because this is the core of their business model.

I think they can still survive because they are a very viable competition to PayPal, who charges back as well, but on top charges very high fees. I don't think they are going to be viable for bitcoin use though. Anything with a chargeback possibility such ACH, CC, etc. are extremely risky when you exchange e-currencies in real time.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Aggro on July 29, 2011, 09:45:02 PM

I know a lot of recent cases in Portugal where owners of phished accounts get the hit because the banks say that if they don't protect themselves from banking trojans and such, it's the clients responsability and not the bank... So, even if it's a EU directive it doesn't work like that in Portugal.

But yeah, Portugal is the kind of country where you should pay money transfers between euro accounts if you choose to go to the bank, being the transfers only free if the customers use their homebanking services.  ::) I guess the bankers here are the worst kind.

I am glad they do that in Portugal. This should, in my opinion be the norm everywhere. It is your account, your money, and your responsibility to keep it safe. Often, the merchants and other business end up paying for the broken dishes when somebody is careless with their financial accounts.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: becoin on July 30, 2011, 06:24:07 AM
I think they can still survive because they are a very viable competition to PayPal
It is not difficult to be viable competition to paypal. I haven't used them for years and won't touch them anymore.

As far as your standing on Paxum I also believe there is some solid ground to be suspicious but lets give them a chance. You know, sometimes people change and it might be for good.

I'm also concerned about this forum. There are very high standing individuals in the forum hierarchy that act as children or are too biased in case of certain discussions. This doesn't serve well to the bitcoin community.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: CubedRoot on July 30, 2011, 06:13:31 PM
why couldn't a bitcoin business buy Dwolla?
What for? Bitcoin businesses were interested in Dwolla only because of their "no chargeback" policy! Now it is quite clear they do not have such a technology or know-how in place. So, they are not attractive anymore.

We're now using Paxum at TradeHill which has more fraud protection in place. It doesn't have all the same peer to peer features that Dwolla does but allows payments similar to Paypal. It can be funded in a similar way with a few additional options like checks and wires.   It will also allow you to withdraw funds from an ATM or with a debit card.

For more information go to www.tradehillblog.com or www.paxum.com

The opportunity is to *replace* dwolla with a service that keeps its word. All they are is a webite using the ACH system. Pretty simple stuff really.

We feel confident that Paxum will. They've been in business a lot longer.

Jered

Jered,
I was a big Tradehill fan. With your current switch to Paxum I figured I would sign up and give Paxum a shot.  Well, i was very surprised to see that Paxum REQUIRES its customers to send a photocopy of their identification (such as your passport, or drivers license) to them as proof of your ID.  They also require you to send in a photocopy of a utility bill to prove your address.
I find this a little intrusive.
At first, since I am miner, I rarely had to fund my exchange account with USD, since I mostly sold all the BTC I mined. So, I still relied on Dwolla to receive my funds from Tradehill.
Now, after your announcement that you will no longer use Dwolla for withdrawals, I am forced to stop using Tradehill as my exchange.  I will have to move back to Mt. Gox. I absolutely refuse to use Paxum as a service due to their intrusive background information requirements.
Is there a reason why you chose to stop using Dwolla for account withdrawals?  Its impossible for the end user (like me) to fraud Tradehill out of money when I am simply making a withdrawal. Plus, Dwolla is still ALOT cheaper to withdraw funds, its $.25 compared to Paxums $1.00.

Plus there is the HUGE difference in fees!!!! It costs me $5 to withdraw money from my paxum account to my bank account!! Holy crap! It also costs $5 to send funds to my Paxum account from my bank.  These fees are just ridiculous.  Dwolla, was just .25 to withdraw. So, for me as a miner, when I sold my BTC on Tradehill, it only costs me $.50 TOTAL to send the USD to my Dwolla account from Tradehill, then from Dwolla to my bank. This same transaction will costs me freaking $10!!!!!! Thats a huge increase!

Also, I posted several comments on your Blog, tradehillblog.com stating how Paxum requires such intrusive background information, and it never got "approved" by the moderators. I had thought Tradehill was a respectable company, and was open with its end users, but when you do sneaky things like not approving comments that expose Paxum's invasive TOS, it makes we question your Tradehill's openness.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Bitcoin Swami on July 30, 2011, 06:36:34 PM
why couldn't a bitcoin business buy Dwolla?
What for? Bitcoin businesses were interested in Dwolla only because of their "no chargeback" policy! Now it is quite clear they do not have such a technology or know-how in place. So, they are not attractive anymore.

We're now using Paxum at TradeHill which has more fraud protection in place. It doesn't have all the same peer to peer features that Dwolla does but allows payments similar to Paypal. It can be funded in a similar way with a few additional options like checks and wires.   It will also allow you to withdraw funds from an ATM or with a debit card.

For more information go to www.tradehillblog.com or www.paxum.com

The opportunity is to *replace* dwolla with a service that keeps its word. All they are is a webite using the ACH system. Pretty simple stuff really.

We feel confident that Paxum will. They've been in business a lot longer.

Jered

Jered,
I was a big Tradehill fan. With your current switch to Paxum I figured I would sign up and give Paxum a shot.  Well, i was very surprised to see that Paxum REQUIRES its customers to send a photocopy of their identification (such as your passport, or drivers license) to them as proof of your ID.  They also require you to send in a photocopy of a utility bill to prove your address.
I find this a little intrusive.
At first, since I am miner, I rarely had to fund my exchange account with USD, since I mostly sold all the BTC I mined. So, I still relied on Dwolla to receive my funds from Tradehill.
Now, after your announcement that you will no longer use Dwolla for withdrawals, I am forced to stop using Tradehill as my exchange.  I will have to move back to Mt. Gox. I absolutely refuse to use Paxum as a service due to their intrusive background information requirements.
Is there a reason why you chose to stop using Dwolla for account withdrawals?  Its impossible for the end user (like me) to fraud Tradehill out of money when I am simply making a withdrawal. Plus, Dwolla is still ALOT cheaper to withdraw funds, its $.25 compared to Paxums $1.00.

Plus there is the HUGE difference in fees!!!! It costs me $5 to withdraw money from my paxum account to my bank account!! Holy crap! It also costs $5 to send funds to my Paxum account from my bank.  These fees are just ridiculous.  Dwolla, was just .25 to withdraw. So, for me as a miner, when I sold my BTC on Tradehill, it only costs me $.50 TOTAL to send the USD to my Dwolla account from Tradehill, then from Dwolla to my bank. This same transaction will costs me freaking $10!!!!!! Thats a huge increase!

Also, I posted several comments on your Blog, tradehillblog.com stating how Paxum requires such intrusive background information, and it never got "approved" by the moderators. I had thought Tradehill was a respectable company, and was open with its end users, but when you do sneaky things like not approving comments that expose Paxum's invasive TOS, it makes we question your Tradehill's openness.

This just in, Dwolla was a scam.   This also just in, tradehill is probably very busy and moderating their blog entries is probably the last thing on their mind.  Jeez people are such winey babies.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: BitcoinPorn on July 30, 2011, 06:44:43 PM
I am glad Tradehill is using Paxum.  I have used them for a while (less than a year, but steady) for other sites and work, I am glad to have them on board with Tradehill.    I worry about the fees more than trust ;)


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Bitcoin Swami on July 30, 2011, 06:50:18 PM
I am glad Tradehill is using Paxum.  I have used them for a while (less than a year, but steady) for other sites and work, I am glad to have them on board with Tradehill.    I worry about the trust more than fees ;)

Fixed


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: CubedRoot on July 30, 2011, 06:51:00 PM
I am glad Tradehill is using Paxum.  I have used them for a while (less than a year, but steady) for other sites and work, I am glad to have them on board with Tradehill.    I worry about the fees more than trust ;)

The fees are just to high for me. With difficulty increasing, and edging profits down, an increase in the fees I pay lowers my return. Most of my transaction were withdrawals, which is impossible for the end-user to fraud, so Paxum is just to expensive for me.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: BitcoinPorn on July 30, 2011, 06:53:42 PM
The info they have required from people has been how they have operated with trust, Tradehill is dealing with a ton of real cash that they need to be 100% sure is protected.

I am sure as time goes deals can be worked without with Tradehill and Paxum in ways that Dwolla seems to be working out with Gox, and that can make fees go down and possibly ID requirements for whiners, to go down.

I think people need to let that 'this is all anonymous' shit go once they want to bring 'real world' money into the picture.   At least for now.  In the name of security :/



Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Bitcoin Swami on July 30, 2011, 06:54:28 PM
I am glad Tradehill is using Paxum.  I have used them for a while (less than a year, but steady) for other sites and work, I am glad to have them on board with Tradehill.    I worry about the fees more than trust ;)

The fees are just to high for me. With difficulty increasing, and edging profits down, an increase in the fees I pay lowers my return. Most of my transaction were withdrawals, which is impossible for the end-user to fraud, so Paxum is just to expensive for me.

Promote locally, sell locally.  What do you suggest tradehill do? They are trying their best.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: CubedRoot on July 30, 2011, 06:57:24 PM
I am glad Tradehill is using Paxum.  I have used them for a while (less than a year, but steady) for other sites and work, I am glad to have them on board with Tradehill.    I worry about the fees more than trust ;)

The fees are just to high for me. With difficulty increasing, and edging profits down, an increase in the fees I pay lowers my return. Most of my transaction were withdrawals, which is impossible for the end-user to fraud, so Paxum is just to expensive for me.

Promote locally, sell locally.  What do you suggest tradehill do? They are trying their best.
Heres a good medium:
Tradehill could only allow Paxum as a funding source to send money to the exchange.  This eliminates end user fraud. Sure the fees would be a little higher, but for me thats acceptable for the security in SENDING money to the exchange.
Tradehill should still allow Dwolla for withdrawals to the end user.  Since there is no way the end user can fraud the exchange out of money by doing a withdrawal, theres no risk in keeping this as an option.  This way, miners like me (that mostly sell BTC) can still enjoy the cheap fees Dwolla offers, and Tradehill is not at any risk of being frauded.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: SteveFL on July 30, 2011, 06:59:47 PM
Now, after your announcement that you will no longer use Dwolla for withdrawals, I am forced to stop using Tradehill as my exchange.  I will have to move back to Mt. Gox. I absolutely refuse to use Paxum as a service due to their intrusive background information requirements.
Is there a reason why you chose to stop using Dwolla for account withdrawals?  Its impossible for the end user (like me) to fraud Tradehill out of money when I am simply making a withdrawal. Plus, Dwolla is still ALOT cheaper to withdraw funds, its $.25 compared to Paxums $1.00.

I'm with CubedRoot on this one.  I have USD stuck on TradeHill that I'll have to to trade back to BTC just to get it out and resell on MtGox, paying commissions again to both.  I understand preventing inbound transfers, but by getting rid of outbound you screwed quite a few of us.

Edit:  My role in this is just a miner with a measly 1.3GH.  If I can't get funds out on a regular basis without paying a fee equal to day's worth of mining this isn't going to work.  I feel for you folks mining off a single card.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: CubedRoot on July 30, 2011, 07:02:54 PM
Now, after your announcement that you will no longer use Dwolla for withdrawals, I am forced to stop using Tradehill as my exchange.  I will have to move back to Mt. Gox. I absolutely refuse to use Paxum as a service due to their intrusive background information requirements.
Is there a reason why you chose to stop using Dwolla for account withdrawals?  Its impossible for the end user (like me) to fraud Tradehill out of money when I am simply making a withdrawal. Plus, Dwolla is still ALOT cheaper to withdraw funds, its $.25 compared to Paxums $1.00.

I'm with CubedRoot on this one.  I have USD stuck on TradeHill that I'll have to to trade back to BTC just to get it out and resell on MtGox, paying commissions again to both.  I understand preventing inbound transfers, but by getting rid of outbound you screwed quite a few of us.
SteveFL,
Keep in mind also, that now, to get your USD from Tradehill all the way back to your bank it will now cost you $6.00!!!!!  Using Dwolla this same set of transfers would have only cost you $.50. 
I think its rather frustrating that Tradehill wont simply keep using Dwolla for Withdrawals since there is absolutley 0 risk in them getting frauded on withdrawals.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Bitcoin Swami on July 30, 2011, 07:13:25 PM
Now, after your announcement that you will no longer use Dwolla for withdrawals, I am forced to stop using Tradehill as my exchange.  I will have to move back to Mt. Gox. I absolutely refuse to use Paxum as a service due to their intrusive background information requirements.
Is there a reason why you chose to stop using Dwolla for account withdrawals?  Its impossible for the end user (like me) to fraud Tradehill out of money when I am simply making a withdrawal. Plus, Dwolla is still ALOT cheaper to withdraw funds, its $.25 compared to Paxums $1.00.

I'm with CubedRoot on this one.  I have USD stuck on TradeHill that I'll have to to trade back to BTC just to get it out and resell on MtGox, paying commissions again to both.  I understand preventing inbound transfers, but by getting rid of outbound you screwed quite a few of us.
SteveFL,
Keep in mind also, that now, to get your USD from Tradehill all the way back to your bank it will now cost you $6.00!!!!!  Using Dwolla this same set of transfers would have only cost you $.50. 
I think its rather frustrating that Tradehill wont simply keep using Dwolla for Withdrawals since there is absolutley 0 risk in them getting frauded on withdrawals.

Wouldn't that mean tradehill would still need to keep an account with them with money in it?  What if Dwolla would decide to reverse more transactions and take more money from tradehill? I'm not sure how it works just asking a question.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: CubedRoot on July 30, 2011, 07:30:19 PM
Now, after your announcement that you will no longer use Dwolla for withdrawals, I am forced to stop using Tradehill as my exchange.  I will have to move back to Mt. Gox. I absolutely refuse to use Paxum as a service due to their intrusive background information requirements.
Is there a reason why you chose to stop using Dwolla for account withdrawals?  Its impossible for the end user (like me) to fraud Tradehill out of money when I am simply making a withdrawal. Plus, Dwolla is still ALOT cheaper to withdraw funds, its $.25 compared to Paxums $1.00.

I'm with CubedRoot on this one.  I have USD stuck on TradeHill that I'll have to to trade back to BTC just to get it out and resell on MtGox, paying commissions again to both.  I understand preventing inbound transfers, but by getting rid of outbound you screwed quite a few of us.
SteveFL,
Keep in mind also, that now, to get your USD from Tradehill all the way back to your bank it will now cost you $6.00!!!!!  Using Dwolla this same set of transfers would have only cost you $.50. 
I think its rather frustrating that Tradehill wont simply keep using Dwolla for Withdrawals since there is absolutley 0 risk in them getting frauded on withdrawals.

Wouldn't that mean tradehill would still need to keep an account with them with money in it?  What if Dwolla would decide to reverse more transactions and take more money from tradehill? I'm not sure how it works just asking a question.
Sure they would need to keep an account open, but if that account is only used to send money to end users there is no chance of fraud. The fraud they faced was were an end user would send money from Dwolla to Tradehill, buy BTC, then file a dispute with Dwolla.  Dwolla wouldn then refund the money to the end user, and debit it from Tradehill.
With the way I suggested, Tradehill would only use Dwolla to send money to its end users. This eliminates the risk of an end user doing what I described above since its not an option for funding your Tradehill account via Dwolla. It is impossible for an end user to fraud tradehill by getting money sent to them by Tradehill. 


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: makomk on July 30, 2011, 07:32:05 PM
Now suppose Mallory manages to get her hand on Alice's cash (either by stealing her purse or breaking into her house by installing malicious software on Alice's house alarm system) and sends Alice's cash to a big company called ABCDEFG, then exchanges it for illegal currency (for it's easily-laundered) called bitcoins. What a tragedy... This is why the next phase of fiat money fiasco will be a transformation to coupons with owner's birth certificate serial numbers engraved. This will (eventually) solve the money laundering problem.
Alternatively, Alice could only keep a small, safe amount of money in cash at once and store the rest of her money in an organisation that's capable of securing it more effectively and lets her withdraw it as she needs it. We might call this hypothetical organisation a "bank".


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Bitcoin Swami on July 30, 2011, 07:34:47 PM
Now, after your announcement that you will no longer use Dwolla for withdrawals, I am forced to stop using Tradehill as my exchange.  I will have to move back to Mt. Gox. I absolutely refuse to use Paxum as a service due to their intrusive background information requirements.
Is there a reason why you chose to stop using Dwolla for account withdrawals?  Its impossible for the end user (like me) to fraud Tradehill out of money when I am simply making a withdrawal. Plus, Dwolla is still ALOT cheaper to withdraw funds, its $.25 compared to Paxums $1.00.

I'm with CubedRoot on this one.  I have USD stuck on TradeHill that I'll have to to trade back to BTC just to get it out and resell on MtGox, paying commissions again to both.  I understand preventing inbound transfers, but by getting rid of outbound you screwed quite a few of us.
SteveFL,
Keep in mind also, that now, to get your USD from Tradehill all the way back to your bank it will now cost you $6.00!!!!!  Using Dwolla this same set of transfers would have only cost you $.50. 
I think its rather frustrating that Tradehill wont simply keep using Dwolla for Withdrawals since there is absolutley 0 risk in them getting frauded on withdrawals.

Wouldn't that mean tradehill would still need to keep an account with them with money in it?  What if Dwolla would decide to reverse more transactions and take more money from tradehill? I'm not sure how it works just asking a question.
Sure they would need to keep an account open, but if that account is only used to send money to end users there is no chance of fraud. The fraud they faced was were an end user would send money from Dwolla to Tradehill, buy BTC, then file a dispute with Dwolla.  Dwolla wouldn then refund the money to the end user, and debit it from Tradehill.
With the way I suggested, Tradehill would only use Dwolla to send money to its end users. This eliminates the risk of an end user doing what I described above since its not an option for funding your Tradehill account via Dwolla. It is impossible for an end user to fraud tradehill by getting money sent to them by Tradehill. 

Well if I was tradehill I wouldn't keep one cent in Dwolla. 


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: SteveFL on July 30, 2011, 07:46:49 PM
Well if I was tradehill I wouldn't keep one cent in Dwolla. 

Honestly, I don't blame them.  But without Dwolla or a change in their ACH Fees, I won't keep one cent or one BTC on TradeHill.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: tvbcof on July 30, 2011, 07:48:23 PM
Wouldn't that mean tradehill would still need to keep an account with them with money in it?  What if Dwolla would decide to reverse more transactions and take more money from tradehill? I'm not sure how it works just asking a question.

It does sound like Dwolla can suck whatever money out of Tradehills account they like and use it in any way they see fit, so it is hard to fault Tradehill for having trouble transferring funds through Dwolla.  One suspects that Dwolla has edited their books enough by now that Tradehill has a negative balance and if they tried to put money in to cash someone out, it would not work anyway.

Tradehill seems to have clammed up so I suppose they are finally in talks and we'll all have to just throw conjectures around for the fun of it.

For my part I have drawn my Tradehill account down just in case they 'see the light' vis-a-vis the 'proper' way to do business these days.  Namely, that the business partners remain solvent, the investors stay whole, and the end users take it in the hind end.  But I do retain some exposure on the strength of my success with Tradehill so far and Jered's communications on this forum.  As alway, no more than I can afford to lose and chuckle in the process of doing so.  Mostly it's way low bets in the case of a liquidity event which seems possible to me in this stage of Bitcoin's evolution.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: fcmatt on July 30, 2011, 08:56:33 PM
Well i had some time to look over paxum and the verdict is not good.

It increases the costs dramatically compared to dwolla. I am also a miner. If i want BTC.. i mine them.
I do not load funds to an exchange. It is USD I want right now and the goal is to keep costs down.

Time to create a mtgox account. Thankfully BTC dropped in price due to what I think is the dwolla incident
so therefore getting my money out of TH will result in a small profit most likely.

Plus.. paxum's website gives me the willies. It just does not feel right to me. Reminds me of spam email links
to websites selling viagra.

c'est la vie


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: JoelKatz on July 30, 2011, 09:40:22 PM
With the way I suggested, Tradehill would only use Dwolla to send money to its end users. This eliminates the risk of an end user doing what I described above since its not an option for funding your Tradehill account via Dwolla. It is impossible for an end user to fraud tradehill by getting money sent to them by Tradehill.
That can't happen until all the issues between TradeHill and Dwolla are resolved and Dwolla agrees to cover all losses from transactions before now.

Otherwise, TradeHill could send your $1,000 to Dwolla, go to send that money to you only to have Dwolla say, "Sorry, TradeHill, you can't send money to CubedRoot because you have a negative balance." Tradehill responses, "What? We had a zero balance and then sent in $1,000." Dwolla replies, "Yeah, you had a zero balance, but then two transactions from two months ago were reversed. You now have a negative $1,500 balance.".


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Bitcoin Swami on July 30, 2011, 09:58:30 PM
With the way I suggested, Tradehill would only use Dwolla to send money to its end users. This eliminates the risk of an end user doing what I described above since its not an option for funding your Tradehill account via Dwolla. It is impossible for an end user to fraud tradehill by getting money sent to them by Tradehill.
That can't happen until all the issues between TradeHill and Dwolla are resolved and Dwolla agrees to cover all losses from transactions before now.

Otherwise, TradeHill could send your $1,000 to Dwolla, go to send that money to you only to have Dwolla say, "Sorry, TradeHill, you can't send money to CubedRoot because you have a negative balance." Tradehill responses, "What? We had a zero balance and then sent in $1,000." Dwolla replies, "Yeah, you had a zero balance, but then two transactions from two months ago were reversed. You now have a negative $1,500 balance.".

Exactly my thoughts.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: DrKennethNoisewater on July 30, 2011, 10:36:33 PM
Well i had some time to look over paxum and the verdict is not good.

It increases the costs dramatically compared to dwolla. I am also a miner. If i want BTC.. i mine them.
I do not load funds to an exchange. It is USD I want right now and the goal is to keep costs down.

Time to create a mtgox account. Thankfully BTC dropped in price due to what I think is the dwolla incident
so therefore getting my money out of TH will result in a small profit most likely.

Plus.. paxum's website gives me the willies. It just does not feel right to me. Reminds me of spam email links
to websites selling viagra.

c'est la vie

Yup, looks like I'll be transferring my coin from TradeHill to Gox as well.



Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Trader Steve on July 30, 2011, 10:44:47 PM
Quote

Promote locally, sell locally.  What do you suggest tradehill do? They are trying their best.

Yes, develop your local network of trading partners so you can lessen your reliance on the exchanges which will likely be brought under "know your customer" regulations sooner rather than later.



Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: DrKennethNoisewater on July 30, 2011, 10:48:03 PM
All of this is completely avoidable.

Chalk it up to inexperience and poor management.



Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: JoelKatz on July 30, 2011, 11:52:08 PM
Exactly my thoughts.
Yeah. If I had noticed that you had already said exactly the same thing, I wouldn't have posted it.

As soon as the current issues between TradeHill and Dwolla are resolved, assuming Dwolla is willing to resolve them, TradeHill could resume using Dwolla for outbound transfers. But that would require Dwolla to reimburse TradeHill for all prior reversed transactions.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: DrKennethNoisewater on July 31, 2011, 12:33:02 AM
Exactly my thoughts.
Yeah. If I had noticed that you had already said exactly the same thing, I wouldn't have posted it.

As soon as the current issues between TradeHill and Dwolla are resolved, assuming Dwolla is willing to resolve them, TradeHill could resume using Dwolla for outbound transfers. But that would require Dwolla to reimburse TradeHill for all prior reversed transactions.

Yeah, what he said ;>


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: becoin on July 31, 2011, 06:59:40 AM
Now suppose Mallory manages to get her hand on Alice's cash (either by stealing her purse or breaking into her house by installing malicious software on Alice's house alarm system) and sends Alice's cash to a big company called ABCDEFG, then exchanges it for illegal currency (for it's easily-laundered) called bitcoins. What a tragedy... This is why the next phase of fiat money fiasco will be a transformation to coupons with owner's birth certificate serial numbers engraved. This will (eventually) solve the money laundering problem.
Alternatively, Alice could only keep a small, safe amount of money in cash at once and store the rest of her money in an organisation that's capable of securing it more effectively and lets her withdraw it as she needs it. We might call this hypothetical organisation a "bank".
Alice is not storing her cash in this organization called 'bank'. She is giving her cash in exchange of bank's promise to give her same amount of cash if she needs it! As history shows during last 40 years, the organization called 'bank' will spend Alice's cash speculating on different markets. For this is the only way such organization can pay their way. When time comes to keep the promise they gave to Alice, this organization would simply bribe the government to print some more promises called 'banknotes'. This is the only way this hypothetical organization can keep their promises!

Fortunately, time is coming when only low life illiterates will use banks. The rest of people will learn to do banking without banks from their home computers or mobiles. They will only keep small, safe amount of cash at once (called wallet. dat) and the rest of their money in a separate wallet.dat file copies that is more effectively secured than any bank can do. We might call this hypothetical personal "bank" without paying any banking fees or taxes.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: nefanon on August 23, 2011, 03:25:04 PM
Any updates on the Tradehill/Dwolla situation? I'd like to try TradeHill but I have no interest in using Paxum.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Jered Kenna (TradeHill) on August 23, 2011, 03:56:45 PM
Any updates on the Tradehill/Dwolla situation? I'd like to try TradeHill but I have no interest in using Paxum.

We will be making  a few  announcements about funding methods in a few hours that will allow you to easily deposit funds.
Stay tuned.

Jered


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: nefanon on August 23, 2011, 07:30:12 PM
Any updates on the Tradehill/Dwolla situation? I'd like to try TradeHill but I have no interest in using Paxum.

We will be making  a few  announcements about funding methods in a few hours that will allow you to easily deposit funds.
Stay tuned.

Jered

!!! Awesome =D


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Yankee (BitInstant) on August 23, 2011, 07:36:47 PM
Any updates on the Tradehill/Dwolla situation? I'd like to try TradeHill but I have no interest in using Paxum.

We will be making  a few  announcements about funding methods in a few hours that will allow you to easily deposit funds.
Stay tuned.

Jered

!!! Awesome =D

You can now fund your TradeHill accounts using Dwolla, LR and MtGox codes https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38914.0


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: CubedRoot on August 23, 2011, 07:41:56 PM
Its honestly a round-about way to use dwolla to fund the account. You end up paying alot more in fees.  MT. Gox still accepts Dwolla directly, and it still only costs a flat rate of $.25 to fund my Mt. Gox account. 
Sorry guys, but I dont think I will be using Bitinstant as a third party.  It just adds to many hands into the mix of trying to get money into my exchange. IF theres anything we have learned from bitcoin, is that you should take all start-ups with a grain of salt, especially when it comes to ACH.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: LightRider on August 13, 2012, 09:44:39 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnHkHL9ICSo

Milne talks about everything but bitcoin, the technology rendering his criminal startup obsolete.


Title: Re: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne
Post by: Meatpile on August 14, 2012, 05:51:05 PM
This guy really bugs me.

Everything he is saying about transaction fees is kind of true, but his solution is for his company to become the middleman instead of traditional banking system?

And the idea that his company grew by major bitcion business and then not acknowledging it, and then trying to shove all that shit under the rug and never talk about it is super greasy evil business at its disturbingest.