user:rockxie
2013-11-04 09:37:02
BTC 250.00000000
Withdraw Processing
Really??  |
|
|
|
Anyone here know if Coinfloor will open up the London GBP exchange - was suppose to be 5th Nov, but I think software 'fireworks' screwed it up...
Currently re-evaluating software - but no news just now.
Be good to see a proper London Exchange, will help bring a lot of GBP into the market.
Anyone know any news?
Coinfloor's performance so far has been less than competent, from where im sitting. Shame.  |
|
|
|
So there's future plans for WeExexchange that involves obtaining, and KEEPING a license from a HK exchange authority is there? How is that at all possible, when the operator is willfully refusing to return peoples requested funds. What part of 'not fit to operate' is the proposed exchange license issuer going to turn a blind eye to? For clarity, Ive lifted the following from http://www.sfc.hk/web/EN/..... 3. Fitness and Properness 3.1 The SFC is obliged to refuse to grant a licence or registration if the applicant fails to satisfy the SFC that he is fit and proper. Similarly, the HKMA is obliged to refuse to grant consent to an individual to be an executive officer of a registered institution unless the individual satisfies the HKMA that he is fit and proper. Besides, it shall be a statutory condition of registration for every registered institution that its relevant individuals are fit and proper. Under section 129 of the SFO, the matters that shall be considered in assessing a person’s fitness and properness include his: (a) financial status or solvency; (b) educational or other qualifications or experience having regard to the nature of the functions to be performed; (c) ability to carry on the regulated activity competently, honestly and fairly; and (d) reputation, character, reliability and financial integrity. The accusation that is growing momentum here, is that Ukyo has been using peoples deposited funds for his own agenda. Considering that action moves into the realms of possible fraud and theft, is it not reasonable to think that its really now or never, that peoples funds are going to be returned? I would personally be very happy if Ukyo went from zero-to-hero, but honestly, its really poor odds, and this embarrassing farce really needs to be escalated very soon. |
|
|
|
Wow, that could be really big considering the number of places it brings a high street presence. What if for instance, Mc D's starting accepting btc? |
|
|
|
|
lophie
I propose we do not allow Ukyo to set any ETA. Enough time has passed, where his reputation becomes less and less valuable to him, where his mind-set is probably close to a 'fuck-you-all' point in time, i would have thought. I personally couldn't bare to read any more pathetic and insulting excuses.
Can we just say 3 days from now, if 25% of people on this list have not been re-paid, we escalate this?
|
|
|
|
|
2013-11-05 09:17:50 Withdraw 2.00000000 BTC Processing ZTyznvh2MuxILpWoI7ht8Bsujlnl0s4v
2013-11-16 12:23:21 Withdraw 2.00007727 BTC Processing QifY3b9YIJDZHiBl2YDIJLHOUQvcVWxq
|
|
|
|
Thanks. I knew i wasn't alone.  |
|
|
|
Its embarrassing, and hurts my eyes. |
|
|
|
Ok, I'm getting a bit concerned.
Was burned by Labcoin pretty bad, and now ACTM isn't paying out dividends, the volume of trade on cryptostocks is a joke, and no official word.
Am I mistaken in thinking we are past the deadline that accumulated divs should have been paid out?
Do you guys have an IRC channel somewhere?
Lorenzo is ready to council you @ #activemining |
|
|
|
I had TheSwede75 in my ignore list before he started the Labcoin thread, so I guess I beat you all in calling it.
No there was a moderator on btct first called it before everybody else. When the IPO was being voted, one moderator put "well known troll, I wouldn't trust them" as comment, with the only negative vote. Think that could be Anonymous. |
|
|
|
Did i read that right!?..... "Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, is also weighing in on the hearing, saying that it has no plans to regulate the currency. “Although the Federal Reserve generally monitors developments in virtual currencies and other payments system innovations, it does not necessarily have authority to directly supervise or regulate these innovations or the entities that provide them to the market,” Bernanke wrote in a letter to the committee." |
|
|
|
 are you still coming to the party? Speaking of which, is there anything planned for the 5 year milestone (January 3, 2009)? |
|
|
|
Ok, but aren't we right back in the same boat then, for US investors? The SEC says that US investors can't do business with unregistered securities. If you do business with US residents then the SEC will come-a-knockin'. Same scenario with Bitfunder, no? Correct me where I'm wrong. If thats what the US authorities have decided for their citizens, thats a matter for them (i guess this may be clarified over the coming week). If the question is, should a UK company consider the seemingly all-pervading importance of the SEC....maybe for a nano second, possibly. Surely what matters, is what working relationships the SEC has with our Treasury Dept. and what the SEC has to gain by interfering with other tax jurisdictions. Because its really just about tax, in UK/Europe (cant speak for ROW), and not this self defeating sledgehammer of legal/criminal fear, that seems to be consuming the US Bitcoin space recently. As Kate has eluded to, the crypto world is a relaxed affair here as far as regulatory control goes, and as and when conditions may change, we'll just have to keep-calm-and-carry-on.  Let me ask a different way, then. If Kate allows US traders is she prepared to deal with the ensuing inevitability of the SEC? Inviting US investors is inviting the SEC. The only way to avoid the, "self defeating sledgehammer" is to say "No" to US investors. If this exchange is saying "No." to US investors then a large (I think?) portion of ActM investors will not be interested. If they say, "We don't care about the SEC, come one, come all!" Then we'll have to be OK with a fate identical to Bitfunders, where US investors are barred from entry. My question is, "What is CipherTrading's stance on US investors?" Fair question. Lets ask her/Cipher to answer. |
|
|
|
Ok, but aren't we right back in the same boat then, for US investors? The SEC says that US investors can't do business with unregistered securities. If you do business with US residents then the SEC will come-a-knockin'. Same scenario with Bitfunder, no? Correct me where I'm wrong. If thats what the US authorities have decided for their citizens, thats a matter for them (i guess this may be clarified over the coming week). If the question is, should a UK company consider the seemingly all-pervading importance of the SEC....maybe for a nano second, possibly. Surely what matters, is what working relationships the SEC has with our Treasury Dept. and what the SEC has to gain by interfering with other tax jurisdictions. Because its really just about tax, in UK/Europe (cant speak for ROW), and not this self defeating sledgehammer of legal/criminal fear, that seems to be consuming the US Bitcoin space recently. As Kate has eluded to, the crypto world is a relaxed affair here as far as regulatory control goes, and as and when conditions may change, we'll just have to keep-calm-and-carry-on. |
|
|
|
After looking through the various exchanges, we currently have only two semi-legal options: https://796.com/And https://www.havelockinvestments.com/All the other exchanges currently available are for play money only and not legal at all. Remember there is no fully legal exchange for Bitcoin securities at the moment, but the two above have done more than anyone else. I understand the long term view is to be listed on a decentralized exchange however for the next 2-3 months this is not possible, and its within the next 2-3 months that a lot of trading will occur due to the eASIC chips coming online. I really do not want to be listed on another play money exchange. At least have some type of licence for money transmission etc... Does anyone disagree? How about this? You will see your 'play money' problem is addressed directly..... https://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,7176.msg54823.html#msg54823This is really good news. Have they addressed how they will handle US investors? No different from the Chinese investors they are considering (via translated site), i guess. You think there is/should be a distinction/consideration for the US? |
|
|
|
After looking through the various exchanges, we currently have only two semi-legal options: https://796.com/And https://www.havelockinvestments.com/All the other exchanges currently available are for play money only and not legal at all. Remember there is no fully legal exchange for Bitcoin securities at the moment, but the two above have done more than anyone else. I understand the long term view is to be listed on a decentralized exchange however for the next 2-3 months this is not possible, and its within the next 2-3 months that a lot of trading will occur due to the eASIC chips coming online. I really do not want to be listed on another play money exchange. At least have some type of licence for money transmission etc... Does anyone disagree? How about this? You will see your 'play money' problem is addressed directly..... https://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,7176.msg54823.html#msg54823 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
