It didn't work out that way, according to a lawsuit filed today by Coinlab's attorneys in Washington State. Coinlab alleges that Mt. Gox has breached a contract clause which was supposed to give Coinlab exclusive access to the North American market. "Defendants have breached the exclusivity provisions of the Agreement by directly servicing customers in the United States and Canada since the Agreement took effect," the lawsuit states.
Coinlab also says Mt. Gox hasn't allowed them to transition existing U.S. and Canadian customers from Mt. Gox to Coinlab, as agreed in the contract. "Despite repeated requests to do so, Mt. Gox has failed to deliver all passwords, Yubikeys, administrative logins and any other security information required so that CoinLab may assume operation of the Bitcoin exchange services for customers in the United States and Canada."
Coinlab is demanding $75 million in damages, and even that, it says, "likely underestimates the actual damages." http://gawker.com/massive-bitcoin-business-partnership-devolves-into-75-487857656?rev=1367540238This is gonna be interesting given that there are very high profile Bitcoin people on both sides of this lawsuit (Roger Ver is a CoinLab investor). |
|
|
|
Ok, but you won't get customer support from BFL on these forums, so... just sayin'.
Josh and JackRabbit. There are a couple of threads about this over on the BFL forums (I was going to link to them but the forums went down). Maybe Josh could give an indication of when he'll be able to get around to responding in those threads, which would address JackRabbit's concerns (and the concerns of others similarly affected) in a general way now while he waits for it to be sorted out at an individual level. My perception is that what people are after is a "here's what's going on and here's how we're going to handle it" statement on the issue. |
|
|
|
|
I honestly think people would care far less about this and the shipping price changes if BFL hadn't had so long to get all of the administrative stuff in order. There's been plenty of time for them to look into the exact requirements and to make sure they're in a position to meet them (just like there's been plenty of time for them to negotiate shipment rates). With "22 employees", there's little excuse for this shit not having been done.
|
|
|
|
I did not see any evidence at all that Roman's debt was insurmountable. In fact, I'd like to hear how you know that this was the case if you don't mind.
Seriously? There was considerable discussion when Bitcoin prices started rising about the impact the price rise would have on BitFloor debt. The original rescue plan was overly optimistic and ill-conceived precisely because a rise in Bitcoin prices would make an already unserviceable debt insurmountable. For the plan to actually be viable, Bitcoin prices needed to plummet. |
|
|
|
Please come by the BFL Forums JackRabbit and/or email office@butterfly.com or call to get it straightened out. You've jumped into this thread twice and still haven't answered anyone's questions Inaba. Why? It could stop the trolls and solve a problem for your infinitely patient customers. Josh has said multiple times that he comes here mostly for his own amusement and that BFL is not going to try to offer customer support here. Regardless of what you think of Josh or BFL, they're not the only Bitcoin service which has decided to stop using these forums for engaging their customers. They have a support forum and there's really no reason for their customers not to use it. Suggesting that JackRabbit email BFL probably wasn't the best idea, though, as people there seem to be very long delays in getting a response from them via that method at the moment. |
|
|
|
Okay, I watched that video, I didn't see a sticker, you know what? At this point I don't really care anymore. I get it you hate BFL, Josh is a liar. If you think a law has been broken report it, I'm sure the authorities have nothing better to do then chase down some random complaint about some random device that may or may not be certified by some other government authority. If you think there is provable fraud that will stand up to a jury and result in jail time, then take your evidence to the proper authorities for the full formal investigation and arrests.
That's not the issue. Euro customers have been saying for ages that the units won't get past customs without certification (Avalon has openly said in the past that they don't want to service the Euro market). BFL has been totally transparent about customers needing to find out about and deal with duty related issues themselves and I have no problem with that. We're probably still going to get some "zomg my ASIC is sitting in customs and I have to pay a gazillion dollars to take delivery, why wasn't I warned" posts, though. BFL has emphatically stated that they won't lie on customs declarations so people can reduce/avoid paying duty and I have no problem with that, either. Certification is an issue because the requirements aren't universally standard. Units which don't meet the standards for the country to which they're being shipped may never make it to the customers who ordered them. This isn't a "pay more to get them" situation. |
|
|
|
I checked my order email from last year:
"Shipping (International Priority ($38))"
Just checked my order on BFL's website (after confirming I still want it):
"Standard Shipping - Only"
Shipping and handling upgrade is quoted as $400 (wtf!), but then the extra amount I would actually have to pay is quoted as only $26.
It seems to me like BFL's system doesn't take into account the previous lower cost of Jalapeno (err), I mean, 5Gh products. Also does "international priority" mean "standard shipping" in BFL speak?
Their order system has been fucked for months, despite the fact that it was supposed to be fixed ages ago (another thing Jody seems unable to deal with competently). This is the same system people are supposed to trust when re-confirming their orders if they don't want a refund - there's no way it's not going to be yet another clusterfuck. |
|
|
|
Details....details....  It is not like anyone is actually going to report them to the FCC! Yeah, it must be sheer coincidence that PayPal has contacted customers asking whether they've received their BFL orders and that BFL is suddenly going to issue automatic refunds to customers who don't confirm their pre-orders...right? |
|
|
|
The mining hardware doesn't directly connect to the electrical supply, the power pack does, so it is the item that has to be certified, and you could simple go to the shop an buy one locally that is certified if necessary for insurance or whatever.
My laptop (Toshiba, made in China) doesn't connect directly to the power supply, either, but it still has the relevant Australian certification mark (the power supply - which obviously ships to more countries - has about 15 certification marks on it for various countries). Even my solar powered Christmas lights and my aquarium pump which draws a whole 7 watts have the power specifications stamped on them. My digital camera and it's charger and my mobile phone and its charger also have compliance marks on them. In fact, I can't find a single thing in my house which connects to the electrical supply even indirectly which doesn't have the power specifications stamped on it - which makes me very inclined to believe that it's a requirement of the Australian standard. |
|
|
|
Yes you can sell without CE/FCC for unintentional radiators, and even self certifiy if a complaint is filed, and an investigation is launched, and the product is found to not be compliant, they could be forced to halt production, then fall in line with part 15 requirements.
Source: I googled your question.
I just checked the compliance marks which are acceptable for electrical goods coming into my state (NSW, Australia). CE is not sufficient. Overseas Certificates of Approval and approval marks, such as the CE mark, are not acceptable in Australia. http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/Businesses/Product_safety/Electrical_articles/Safe_electrical_goods.html#Acceptable_approval_marks |
|
|
|
Exactly what new specifications are people being asked to agree to? The product page for the new 50 GH unit gives fuck all in the way of specs. Is it even legal to sell an electrical product in the US without specifying power consumption?
 So power draw is not actually specified beyond being "higher". Which brings me back to my original question of whether you can legally sell an electrical product in the US without giving power specs or other information about which national and international electrical and other safety standards it meets? This could actually present a problem for international customers. |
|
|
|
|
Exactly what new specifications are people being asked to agree to? The product page for the new 50 GH unit gives fuck all in the way of specs. Is it even legal to sell an electrical product in the US without specifying power consumption?
|
|
|
|
and, revenue canada will only be able to tax bitcoiners at the point of fiat-to-btc, or bitcoin-to-fiat exchange. Dont use the exchanges and you wont be visible to them.
gotta go change my avatar to the canadian tire money scottsman now ;-)
It's not quite that simple. If mainstream services start accepting Bitcoin, then those services can be required to disgorge information in the same way that PayPal and eBay already disgorge information about the transactions (both home and foreign currency) of their customers to taxation authorities in some jurisdictions. Spending BTC can be just as much a point of vulnerability as exchanging it, especially when it becomes possible to spend on it major purchases which involve record-keeping such as cars and property (taxation authorities already check these types of registers if they think people may be evading taxes). A lifestyle which is inconsistent with declared income is a good way to get the attention of a number of different authorities. |
|
|
|
|
It was a public holiday in Japan on Monday so it's unlikely anything which needed doing manually would have been touched over the long weekend.
Dwolla's an absolute pain in the ass for Bitcoin exchanges to deal with as they're subject to special rules imposed by Dwolla.
Since May last year, you've needed to be a verified customer in order to use Dwolla on MtGox, even for deposits. Have you even applied for verified status and submitted your ID to them yet?
|
|
|
|
Profits from his business shouldn't be in the same account as user funds, so it should be pretty easy for him to establish that the ATM withdrawals weren't touching user funds. Unless of course he didn't segregate user funds, in which case he deserves every bit of grief he's attracting.
well i don't know about that. btc is btc and fiat is fiat. if everyone gets what is owed who cares (other than the govt i guess) seems people got their btc back right? If everyone gets their funds back from pirate, will that make what he did OK? If everyone got their funds back from Bitcoinica, would that mean there should be no consequences for the "hacker"? |
|
|
|
|
Profits from his business shouldn't be in the same account as user funds, so it should be pretty easy for him to establish that the ATM withdrawals weren't touching user funds. Unless of course he didn't segregate user funds, in which case he deserves every bit of grief he's attracting.
|
|
|
|
Sadly - this beautiful ring is now hiding somewhere in the sands of a beach on the island of Rarotonga  I hope you told the local media about it and posted about it on the various Cook Islands media Facebook Pages. You've probably got a good chance of getting it back if a local finds it. |
|
|
|
It was disclosed at the time. There was a lot of discussion about the pros and cons of them doing so and whether it was preferable to set-up a non-profit for such purposes. At the time, people unassociated with Bitcoin were trying to register the trademark. Just because something isn't stickied in red at the top of every forum doesn't mean it hasn't been disclosed. https://mtgox.com/press_release_20111014.htmlWe would like to use this opportunity to formally announce that all trademarks related to the term “Bitcoin” filed for and obtained by Tibanne K.K will be made freely available to anyone to use for whatever purpose whatsoever, whether that be for non-profit or commercial endeavours. They told the community they were applying for European trademarks prior to acquiring them. It's also inaccurate to say that they own "the Bitcoin name". They own a defined Bitcoin trademark. For a whole heap of reasons - starting with prior use - the term "Bitcoin" can probably never be protected. The IP issues regarding the official client were addressed long ago. if they have a registered TM then it is protected. It's actually limited to the goods and services classes they have specified in their registration - 9, 35, 38 and 42. These are internationally recognised classifications. Run a check on how many different registrations the Coca-Cola Corporation has had to file to protect their use of the word "Coke". The original trademark applied only to carbonated soft drinks. Pretty much every new merchandising use of their trademark has been accompanied by more trademark registrations (they own over 30,000 patents and trademarks world-wide). That in no way stops the coal industry and companies associated with it being able to use the term "coke", though, even in their business names and advertising - and Coca-Cola would stop them if it was possible, it's one of the most aggressive trademark defenders around. |
|
|
|
It was disclosed at the time. There was a lot of discussion about the pros and cons of them doing so and whether it was preferable to set-up a non-profit for such purposes. At the time, people unassociated with Bitcoin were trying to register the trademark. Just because something isn't stickied in red at the top of every forum doesn't mean it hasn't been disclosed. https://mtgox.com/press_release_20111014.htmlWe would like to use this opportunity to formally announce that all trademarks related to the term “Bitcoin” filed for and obtained by Tibanne K.K will be made freely available to anyone to use for whatever purpose whatsoever, whether that be for non-profit or commercial endeavours. They told the community they were applying for European trademarks prior to acquiring them. It's also inaccurate to say that they own "the Bitcoin name". They own a defined Bitcoin trademark. For a whole heap of reasons - starting with prior use - the term "Bitcoin" can probably never be protected. The IP issues regarding the official client were addressed long ago. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
