Yes, guys, he asks that you please don't waste his time. He won't send first, being the trusted and illustrious member he is, and anything less than $50 is a waste of his time. He needs big bucks and to top it all it must be 1:1.

Let's all not forget that he wants to pay with PayPal. Of course, this trusted newbie won't reverse the payment. How dare we suspect him of being dishonest! Let's all sign up on Skype and send him bitcoins upfront. We were all born yesterday, weren't we?

Seems like they have done the right thing. Regardless of the positive outcome I still stand by my opinion that "The deposit amount must be turned over 5 times before your withdrawal request will be approved" is a highly suspect clause and requirement. It's obviously designed to inconvenience users who are not terms-and-conditions savvy and probably banks or gambles on the probability that 1 out 10 gamblers might eventually give up if they are made to naively believe that it's a legitimate requirement.

Posting here makes their operation susceptible to greater scrutiny and exposes a can of worms to potential future gamblers, thus the good gesture.

Good to see you recover your coins.

I doubt he didn't know. Granted he really didn't, ignorance is rarely an excuse when certain things don't add up. Like, yes, the timing of posts correlating highly with the creation of the fake link. That alone is a very damning factor. Am I (and others) to be led to believe that he, by pure chance and a stroke of luck, stumbled upon the fake link on the day it was published, then immediately and conveniently launched a coordinated campaign here in defense of that fake link?

User was tagged and now he claims he "didn't know". How convenient for him to negate all knowledge of and association with those links after realizing his aggressive attempts to denounce the real github link wasn't winning him any support.

Eine riskante Strategie.

"Stellen Sie sich am besten persoenlich vor und wir besprechen die Angelegenheit unter Vorlage Ihres Personalausweises."

I can only suspect it's because if a verified account has been active for so many years with zero history of fraudulent transactions or irregularities, then it's probably seen as a legitimate account. New accounts might be treated as risky and unpredictable.

On the other hand, another reason might be evolving KYC/AML procedures. Those procedures were probably not introduced and implemented a few years ago. Today exchanges are feeling the pressures of government intervention in their operations and this might be a motivating factor in being compliant.

There should be a Hall of Fame Shame for errant casinos.

That's an enormous amount of money. I can't picture myself ever storing in a casino account, let alone risking, even a tenth of those Litecoins you just attempted to withdraw.

Let's see if they will act in your favour.

These miners are expensive hardware. I recommend taking all possible precautionary measures when paying for orders. Always communicate via the company's official channels. Contacting them directly on their website ensures you are dealing with them directly.

If you are contacted out of the blue by someone with a non-bitmain email address, then verify first with the company if that person is genuinely affiliated with them. These miners are extremely costly so one fatal mistake means you lose thousands of dollars and the scammer effortlessly gains a cash windfall.

I still have faith in Bitstamp. Despite the damage they caused you, I believe their being licensed and regulated makes them one of the few exchanges one can trade on with peace of mind. The apology from the HEAD of compliance was the right thing to do. That certainly is a positive (even if not remedial, given the damage and losses caused) step in re-establishing confidence.

The investigation shows they are quite proactive and vigilant in their efforts to protect and preserve their license.

There are risks associated with taking legal action and I think a prime example of that would be Bitstamp defending their position as appropriate action in line with a legitimate investigation. Winning the case would help you recover losses, if any, but given the uncertainty of the outcome and the costs of engaging a lawyer qualified to litigate this type of case, you should probably carefully consider the task and challenges ahead.

If you might not have noticed, lenders here only lend against collateral. They don't give loans based on trust or account age alone. You will hear from them soon.

0.5 btc is slightly more than $2k. A lot of money. I really doubt anyone here will give you a loan on the strength of track record or domain ownership alone.

You should compile adequate and appropriate collateral equivalent to 120% (or more) of 0.5 btc. The sticky above this lending section is the definitive guide to that.

Congratulations and thanks for the update. Looks like someone read your threats of legal action or someone at Pantera Capital must have given them an earful.

I still have a fully verified Bitstamp account from way back in 2013. Wondering if it's safe to use it or will I be asked to re-verify the account with my most current passport (the one I used in 2013 is now expired) and other documents.

I will probably try with small amounts, perhaps 500 euros worth of btc and test first if I can withdraw it to my bank account in Germany.

Can anyone explain how AWS works? I did use my friend google but was overwhelmed with a flood of information about it. If I understand correctly, these codes give one access to a virtual computer (or cloud computing resources) but why are they so much in demand on this forum? And what is bitcoin's relationship to AWS?

Wikipedia says "subscribers have at their disposal a full-fledged virtual cluster of computers". So I'm just trying to understand how using them works. To access those virtual computers, one needs an own computer first. Why would one use a computer within a computer?

Sorry for all the questions guys, just hoping to understand what these AWS credit codes are meant for.

These ATMs are amazing. Money and science merged in one.

Is this a sustainable business? I'm curious about how an operator cost-effectively maintains all these ATMs across several states. Retrieving and refilling them with cash alone must be an expensive affair. I can't see a margin of 10-20% justifying the cost of travelling to all these ATMs every week. If one breaks down, travelling to fix that ATM would eat up an entire month's gain.

The bitcoin part.. that I understand. It's all done online. But transporting all that fiat across state lines must be a logistical challenge.

I suspect they have a team of AML staff going through withdrawal requests. And if that's a small team, then that might explain these delays (and silent treatments).

Re-enabling of withdrawals is a positive step forward. Always good to see a light at the end of a (very long and dark) tunnel. Don't store too much fiat and bitcoins in an exchange account. You might wake up one morning to find them blocked and frozen.

Sounds like a purebred scammer. Don't trade with this guy without escrow. And don't fall for this send-in-small-amounts-first nonsense.

Were you all born yesterday? Can't you see him scamming through his teeth? Guys, wake up, he wants all of you to send FIRST. He wants reputable people to send him money FIRST. He has no time (see his own words above). He wants YOUR bitcoins now.

Did you all miss this part:

"send me PM + you skrill e-mail after if you have send the Bitcoin."

Trading with reputable members is the safest option.

And because you are offering/selling a fiercely sought after coin, expect to receive a flood of private messages from newbies inviting you to Skype with them. Whatever happens, whatever they tell you, always transact with escrow. Don't accept demands to send bitcoins upfront in small amounts, no matter how tempting the exchange rate offered. Never send first without escrow.

If someone brags about how reputable they are in some hacker or steam forum, don't let that lure you to send first.

If someone agrees to buy under escrow, be sure to communicate with the escrowing member directly. Screen shots or copy/paste of conversations the buyer claims to have had with the escrow member should not be relied upon. They might have doctored those "conversations". Deception knows no bounds and scammers will say and do everything for money.

Yes, valid questions. You have to be extremely careful if the virtual numbers are co-allocated or co-assigned to other people. It's like sharing your house with strangers.

You also have to carefully consider how you use the number as there is obviously a chance that the number might be allocated to another person at some point in time in the future if, for example, you no longer subscribe to this service. Conversely, the number might have been assigned to another person in the past. As I mentioned earlier, I wouldn't use this number as a 2FA credential for sensitive accounts such as email and wallets.

Let's wait for their response to your questions.

I'm curious about the microscopic line on your first post above about the self moderation notice. Why is it so small?

For reversible payment methods, deal with caution and if verification is refused, deal with even more caution. One bad transaction can ruin a well-aged flawless PayPal account. Opening a scam accusation after the damage is done will not correct a ruined account. There are scammers here who open account after account to steal enough satoshis for a Big Mac meal. Hopeless creatures.

Looks and sounds like an attractive product. A portable online number for everything from calling to messaging, one of the advantages being no more roaming fees. Payment by bitcoin makes it even more attractive and truly anonymous.

I wouldn't use this number however for 2FA of emails and wallets. 

I'm curious how you would approach the post-resolution phase of this case. If they do resolve this and give you access to your funds again, would you continue using your Bitstamp account? Or would that be the end of your relationship with them?

It's always a tricky thing when a business (or even personal) relationship is scarred by even one traumatic event. Issues solved and peace ensues but how about the aftermath of that event? Continuing to trade on their platform might seem palatable but won't you feel being watched or checked?

This is a dangerous game to play for your customers (or potential customers). A new exchange with no aged presence in the cryptocurrency market, a new account here promoting this exchange.

This is an ongoing cycle. Reputable established exchangers are implementing complicated withdrawal procedures, complaints and news of which are littering this forum, often locking accounts or freezing funds indefinitely.

How do you intend to address the trust issue? Anonymous trading seems to be tempting for most of those who do not want to divulge their identities but how can you strike a balance between sustaining a safe and liquid operation while also inviting people to inject bitcoins into your exchange without compromising the safety of their coins. I'm not accusing you of operating a fraudulent exchange. I'm just trying to figure out how to overcome the enormous trust barrier here. A new exchange is a risky place to trade in, let alone store coins on.