Sorry but most in here are not saying that they are insolvent. What they are saying is that the intrusiveness goes above and beyond reason and is sprung on you with out any guidelines or clarification, thats not impotent rage. People are allowed to feel how they like about that, both in terms of the requirements themselves and what happens to the data, and discuss it too.
And that quote is out of context of the conversation which was about being asked for proof. He was saying that they don't ask for proof despite evidence to the contrary including a user who posted after that.
I'm aware of the context. And as I said before: I (and all the other cases I've heard of, except for one now I guess) appeared to get out of those questions just fine without providing ridiculously complicated proofs. |
|
|
|
This has nothing to do with insolvency oda, take your strawmans elsewhere. Telling people they're verified and letting them trade/deposit just fine, not mentioning any sort of anal probes about source of Bitcoins in TOS, and then having it come as a surprise when withdrawing is inacceptable. No real broker will do this.
Go through the last 3 or 4 pages of this thread. Count how often someone asks "does this mean I should be worried about my deposits"? (by my count, around 4 or 5 times). I will stop building strawmen when you guys stop using the rhetoric reserved for a "danger! get your money out!" situation, where in reality you should be using your "that's against my principles, and all that btc stands for" rhetoric. |
|
|
|
A magic monkey told me the uptrend will dominate at least through Monday, probably Tuesday. The monkey also thinks this is the first week of a multi-month uptrend, although he is not as certain.
This particular monkey does quite well at darts in FX and US Equity, FI and Comdty markets. Not enough data to say how he does in BTC really, although he did call the major tops and bottoms on daily charts on bitstamp data since inception, albiet with a couple of false positives here and there.
Dratted monkey is also telling me that my positions in non-crypto are broken now. *Sigh*
Magic monkey doesn't know about multi month uptrends, but he tells me I at least can go to sleep without being too worried  |
|
|
|
Oh gosh how hard is it :p. Mining, donations, sold stuff online, investments, payment for freelance work. Yes, a few sentences covers it.
They don't even ask for proof of where the funds come from, they just ask where they origin from. Big difference.
Agree with that part til 100%. Bitstamp should give more information on what happens with the passport scans, replies to questionaires etc.
Haha, sorry dude, just forget it. We won't be able to convince them... guess there are quite a few people in here that got burned badly on gox and are now a bit paranoid. The difference is, the gox problems were completely obvious a long time before it all came crashing down, just look at the huge thread of delayed withdrawals MONTHS before they actually shut down. That is what an exchange in trouble looks like, not this wet fart of impotent rage about Bitstamp's somewhat anal KYC procedures... |
|
|
|
Well Veronica obviously isn't that poor, considering: This was my sure thing so I could stay at home with my daughter
If anyone's going to go around donating bitcoin, or anything for that matter, I'm sure there are a lot of other people who need it more. I'm sure there are. I humbly suggest you start looking into what you can do for them. |
|
|
|
Granted, looks like the "origin of your funds" question is absent, but other than that: get used to the fact that /all/ major exchanges, whether they are that mythical "legitimate" exchange you keep wishing for, or just our regular old existing exchanges, are covering their asses as hard as possible.
We knew that would happen at the fiat gates. Let's not act all surprised about it now.
The whole questionnaire I am talking about is absent, this is no different from passport + utility bill which Bitstamp already demands and has you believe you are verified (hell, it says so on your profile), until you withdraw. There's no way around KYC rules, but Bitstamp has taken it further than anywhere I have ever seen. Read again. Unfortunately I can't find the complete list for "tier 4" (to get their highest withdrawal limits applied) but it asks for all the regular ID and living address documents *plus* additional verification some of it notarized if I understand correctly. There's one obvious difference I see: they're more upfront about it, which is good. |
|
|
|
No, see, you're lawyering now. Not even that, you're twisting words.
We all know what "withdrawal problems" mean in the context of Bitcoin exchanges: the inability to serve withdrawal requests of customers.
And that's exactly what is not going on over at Bitstamp. What is going on is that, at some point during the past year, (a) they decided they want to establish a more intrusive KYC procedure for large withdrawals, and (b) that they don't want to make a big public announcement about it.
I support their right to do (a), but would have preferred if they would have avoided doing it rather backhandedly, i.e. I don't support (b). But by now everyone who follows the Bitstamp thread knows about it, so it's, if you want to call it, an open secret: if you want to deal in large(ish) sums on Bitstamp, prepare for the additional KYC questionnaire.
Sorry but I'm not twisting words, you can't change the definition of a problem. We obviously disagree so its pointless debating semantics. I think its clear that a withdrawal problem is anything that makes withdrawing either currency problematic, which this does. I too, support their right to do (a) but think that when you do (a) without (b) be prepared for a backlash from customers who either; 1) Are just generally pretty pissed of with (b) 2) Physically cannot sign their most used address. 3) Wouldn't be prepared to offer that information (which is a personal choice) but didn't have the chance to not use the exchange due to (b) and now their fiat is effectively hostage. 4) Think that a lot of the questions in (a) are far too intrusive. Which I think they are no other financial institution in the same category asks those sorts of questions. Even my bank doesn't know some of the information they are asking for. If its the law to be this intrusive (which its not) then cite it in the request and I will follow it. Until then they are just another exchange that is all too happy to hold your assets hostage. Agreed to some of your points. 1) Yes. Absolutely. You have every right to be pissed off, to stop using them, and even publically say so. What I would prefer however you do is to not use ambiguous wording, that insinuate we have another gox situation at hand here. By all available evidence, that is /not/ the case. Agreed? 2) Complete agreement. But did you actually go through the procedure? I got the impression that, if in doubt, they let it slide (and accept the answer "I have provided all that I reasonably can on this point, but cannot provide any further proof".) That was my experience, but if someone actually has a withdrawal rejected because he couldn't sign from a Bitcoin source that doesn't allow signing -- well, I'd like to hear about that, I would also consider that extremely problematic. 3) see 2) above. My impression is they don't hold anything hostage. They probe quite a bit, but in the end, if you play along more or less, they accept your answers. 4) See my reply to Blitz: they are intrusive because they're scared senseless of having their little money printing machine they got going closed down one day to another because some overeager British or German or US court subpoenas them, and when they can't answer in style, the full wrath of AML procedures are invoked on them. |
|
|
|
When on earth will we have Bitcoin tradeable in volume on legitimate exchanges/brokers?
I've never seen a bank or broker 1) ask the kind of questions Bitstamp does AND 2) force you to actually prove it via bank statements, address signing, receipts. Who do they think they are, law enforcement themselves? I can't imagine that this is what the law demands, it goes far beyond it. And of course, not establishing this when already depositing or verifying, and nowhere mentioning this and the thresholds is scammy as hell.
Everybody loves Kraken these days, no? From their thread: Tier 2: Full name, Date of birth, Country of residence, Phone number + Address verification. Tier 3: All the above + Government issued ID, Verified proof of residence; Tier 4: Certificate of Incorporation, etc.
Somewhere else in the same thread: Processing – your verification information is being reviewed. Processing may be delayed for any of the following reasons: IP address and stated jurisdiction mismatch, user under minimum age requirement, unable to verify name, unable to verify address, unable to read document scans/photos, unable to verify notarization.
Granted, looks like the "origin of your funds" question is absent, but other than that: get used to the fact that /all/ major exchanges, whether they are that mythical "legitimate" exchange you keep wishing for, or just our regular old existing exchanges, are covering their asses as hard as possible. We knew that would happen at the fiat gates. Let's not act all surprised about it now. |
|
|
|
Someone care to explain why BTC-E is nearly $20 behind bitstamp?
What is the cause of this?
Withdrawal problems at Bitstamp. (i'm kidding, I'm kidding  ) |
|
|
|
There are no "withdrawal problems" on Bitstamp. Not fiat, not Bitcoin. Not a single documented case. Head over to the services subforum and find the relevant thread and check for yourself.
There are rather intrusive questions asked when you withdraw larger sums, either fiat or Bitcoin. After those questions are answered, the withdrawals go through immediately. Anyone disagreeing on this, please, by all means, report in.
So let's keep things separate: Withdrawal problems are one thing. At the first sign, I'd like to know about them. The other thing is an exchange that tries to cover its ass when the inevitable subpoenas come in related to money laundering, Silk Road, etc. Bitstamp is rather nosy in that respect, but I prefer that to be honest over them being closed down if they can't answer to those subpoenas properly.
That's the deal: you want anonymity? Mine, or buy on btc-e. You want liquidity, and low counterparty risk? Bitstamp.
I guess that falls under what you define a problem as. Can't withdraw fiat even though you're verified without asking intrusive questions above and beyond what a company could possibly need to know for KYC/AML, add on the fact that many people can't sign their most used deposit address then I'd call it a problem. Insolvency is a different question but when you want your money that they were happy for you to deposit in the first place without asking where it came from then, to me, thats a pretty big problem. No, see, you're lawyering now. Not even that, you're twisting words. We all know what "withdrawal problems" mean in the context of Bitcoin exchanges: the inability to serve withdrawal requests of customers. And that's exactly what is not going on over at Bitstamp. What is going on is that, at some point during the past year, (a) they decided they want to establish a more intrusive KYC procedure for large withdrawals, and (b) that they don't want to make a big public announcement about it. I support their right to do (a), but would have preferred if they would have avoided doing it rather backhandedly, i.e. I don't support (b). But by now everyone who follows the Bitstamp thread knows about it, so it's, if you want to call it, an open secret: if you want to deal in large(ish) sums on Bitstamp, prepare for the additional KYC questionnaire. |
|
|
|
Are stamp problems are related only to $ withdrawal requests?
It seems so. I haven't heard of anyone being asked ridiculous stuff like this withdrawing BTC but Stamp was my reliable exchange that even if I did some trades elsewhere Stamp was the fiat gateway. Can anyone confirm? And how much money must it be for these kind of problems to show up? Read around there has been a few stories of these new requirements going around. Thats the main issue, there is no advertised threshold that you bump up against these problems. The guy was trying to draw max $4000, thats pocket change! The other explanation is its worked out on trade volume but how fucking retarded. I could trade the same 10 coins 1000 times or do one 10k trade, which one should raise the most flags? But there's still no problems of bitcoin withdrawal right? There are no "withdrawal problems" on Bitstamp. Not fiat, not Bitcoin. Not a single documented case. Head over to the services subforum and find the relevant thread and check for yourself. There are rather intrusive questions asked when you withdraw larger sums, either fiat or Bitcoin. After those questions are answered, the withdrawals go through immediately. Anyone disagreeing on this, please, by all means, report in. So let's keep things separate: Withdrawal problems are one thing. At the first sign, I'd like to know about them. The other thing is an exchange that tries to cover its ass when the inevitable subpoenas come in related to money laundering, Silk Road, etc. Bitstamp is rather nosy in that respect, but I prefer that to be honest over them being closed down if they can't answer to those subpoenas properly. That's the deal: you want anonymity? Mine, or buy on btc-e. You want liquidity, and low counterparty risk? Bitstamp. |
|
|
|
|
Above 510-515: no worries at all.
Below that? First real set-back after the breakout, but still nothing to worry about until we go below 500. In that case, we might start retesting the entire gains made so far.
|
|
|
|
You'll get used to the feeling of confusion, I'm sure.
Hope you'll stick around when we're back to 1200 and beyond, will be interesting to see the rationalizations you'll come up with.
I find it amazing how people can put their money into something, without knowing where the profit will be coming from -- and without wanting to know. Welcome to capitalism. It's not perfect, but better than all the alternatives we tried. |
|
|
|
Still no ideas of where this rally is coming from (China, West, ...), nor why?
It seems that the price stops increasing for 2-3 hours around 19:00 UTC every day, which is 03:00 in China. So I would think that China STILL sets the price.
Perhaps some Chinese exchange already started operating offshore, and is in beta-test by selected clients?
You'll get used to the feeling of confusion, I'm sure. Hope you'll stick around when we're back to 1200 and beyond, will be interesting to see the rationalizations you'll come up with. ("back to 1200" eventually, dear bulls. not tomorrow, or even next month.) honestly, I think it is pretty much self fulfilling prophecy. Enough indicators pinged that a trend reversal may possibly be happening that people started buying and created a trend reversal. The more it reverses, the more indicators ping and the more fiat flows. Snowball effect. Maybe. Until enough indicators signal "overbought", at which some will sell, at which the signal will become "reversal", which means more people sell... You just summarized one possible interpretation of why TA does what TA does. Work. |
|
|
|
Still no ideas of where this rally is coming from (China, West, ...), nor why?
It seems that the price stops increasing for 2-3 hours around 19:00 UTC every day, which is 03:00 in China. So I would think that China STILL sets the price.
Perhaps some Chinese exchange already started operating offshore, and is in beta-test by selected clients?
You'll get used to the feeling of confusion, I'm sure. Hope you'll stick around when we're back to 1200 and beyond, will be interesting to see the rationalizations you'll come up with. ("back to 1200" eventually, dear bulls. not tomorrow, or even next month.) |
|
|
|
the community should support people that are doing the difficult move to get invested in bitcoin, and it should try especially help those who have suffered losses and not laugh at them. not that the community could not afford this. it is not lacking funds. it seems it lacks empathy.
i would also donate.
I very much do not agree. I don't think investing into bitcoin should be accessible by grandmas at this point in time. Somebody who has never invested before should probably consider huge mutual funds with 3% yearly guaranteed returns, not the super risky and volatile tech investment. Encouraging somebody who obviously is not a professional or risk-tolerant trader would just lead to other Veronicas losing money, you are not helping, quite the contrary. However, I very much do like the spirit of helping the good cause, as with supporting the wrong Satoshi; just don't encourage people to invest their money under a false premise that they will be helped if it all goes wrong - most of them won't. You are spawning actual losers and false beggars with acts like this. Sorry if that sounds harsh but that's how it is. Absolute agreement. That's why I'm preaching over and over again we shouldn't present Bitcoin as "the investment made in heaven" to newcomers, but instead say: Rule 1: Read the Satoshi white paper. (Answer A) Does it get you excited? Do you feel this is going to change the world? Good, consider investing (but see rule 2). (Answer B) You have no fucking clue what all the numbers and weird math symbols mean? Please abstain from investing, for your own good. Rule 2: Never invest more than you can afford to lose. Depending on what you earn, what your family status is, that could mean $100 or $1M. But be honest with yourself in appraising how much you really can afford to lose without going nuts (or broke). Rule 3: You're still here? Welcome on board! Be prepared for wild price swings. Historically, price has appreciated fantastically, but nobody knows how high exactly we will go in the long run, and how much time there will be between highs and lows. If the thought of sitting on a USD net loss for more than a year makes you squeamish, you probably should invest only a fraction of what you originally had planned to put in. |
|
|
|
the community should support people that are doing the difficult move to get invested in bitcoin, and it should try especially help those who have suffered losses and not laugh at them. not that the community could not afford this. it is not lacking funds. it seems it lacks empathy.
That's exactly my sentiment. I did well, she didn't (assuming all of this is real), why not help out a fellow human being. Really quite a simple notion.
A truly inspiring Feyman quote
Did Feynman really say that? Let it be true Or is Richard Feyman different from Feynman? I think we should be told  Totally true(ish) quote. Don't you know the Feynman flowchart  Don't know how you got the "Feyman" spelling error in there. My sig says "Feynman", no? |
|
|
|
|
Thanks.
Sent her a PM as well. If she has email notification on, maybe she'll reply. If not, was worth a try.
|
|
|
|
So. When we look at present price situation we can easily see that OP chart is looking more realistic than a week ago. Isn't? :-)
We haven't seen such rally from weeks ...
I am getting excited :-)
Rather late to the party aren't you? Bitcoin has stopped dead below the long term down trend from Dec 2013. Volume has been dying back all the time and the 1 day momentum indicators look to be maxed out. I am also heavily bearish. Nevermind the TA - most of the liquidity in the Bitcoin economy has been killed off by the mega and very serious miners. All they doing is turning electricity into heat right now and flipping bitcoins for more hardware to stay in the race to the bottom. Time/Block is still around 8 minutes which means we are still at 11-12 day retargets so ~20% diff increases. The curve is not flattening .. till it does I don't see any reason for the price to recover. (Yes I am linking Diff to Price - in my opinion they are linked - although not directly or very predictably ). mt.gox disaster is not finished and neither is the Shrem and SR horseshit either. PS: TA is like making toast and seeing Jesus .. all it takes is bread and a toaster and a propensity for seeing Jesus in everything because that all you are thinking about. Likewise with TA : just use the zoom button / or change time resolution and you will find a picture you like. And before someone jumps on me and says " Well mining isn't everything in the Bitcoin economy " - no it isn't. But it's what drove it in the past. EDIT: To be a bit melodramatic : I am actually rather depressed about it all - all the fun has been destroyed. Now it's just a super inconvenient way to pay for shit. There's a smart part in your post (mining and price are linked, though not in the obvious way that some seem to think it is), and a not so smart part. Sure, technical analysis tends to see patterns where there are none, but that's not the same as saying it is entirely incapable of picking up changes in supply and demand that can be profitably used in your trading decisions. Re: your mining argument. I agree, the "professional" miners are one of /the/ most defining elements of the Bitcoin price function right now, but I'm not sure if we see it as having the same effect. The concentration of mining means that there is substantially more OTC trading, and less on-exchange volume. While both miners and those who buy from miners could in principle try to manipulate the on-exchange price to get a deal off-exchange that is more to their liking, I will for simplicity assume that those attempts would largely even each other out (though in reality I think the buyers have the better chance at successful manipulation, because they are the "old" money, and presumably have both more experience and more funds in total). But like I said, I'll assume that both sides try, but fail, to move price on-exchange in the direction they'd prefer (miners: up, buyers: down). But one fact remains untouched by this: trading volume and price are heavily correlated, and almost certainly causally linked. And since the entire premise was that OTC volume rises while on-exchange volume is dropping (proportionally), the effect of big OTC deals depresses the /public/ price, while the actual price that would emerge if volume were on exchange again is in fact higher. tl;dr the tendency for miners to go professional means more off-exchange deals, which means that the actual demand for coins is higher than can be read off from the demand on the exchanges, which means: Bitcoin is (as a tendency) undervalued. |
|
|
|
I rarely get to the point of cursing someone out on this forum, but I'll make an exception here: You're a grade A cunt.
[...]
I'm not asking for your pity if/when a not exactly genius person makes a bad decision. I ask you to refrain from gloating.
Well, you're free to continue the crusade against all gloating on the internet. I think you might find it an uphill battle though Valid point. Maybe there's something more productive I can do though. Veronica26, if you're still reading this thread, can you get in contact with me via PM?If we can find a way to make sure your story checks out, I'd be willing to "reimburse" at least part of your loss by donating a coin or two to you. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
