|
I put in a request ticket to do an international wire transfer with the 5% fee on 2013-11-27, just received the wire this morning.
|
|
|
|
I recently requested a withdrawal with the 5% fee. I got a reply that I don't fully understand. Maybe someone can help translate? Thank you for your email.We will update our banking team to schedule manual processing for your withdrawals as requested and we will keep you informed once its processed.
Please be advised that we are in the process of finalizing partnership and you can expect a more assured announcement on this soon. Anyone know what 'partnership' they are referring to? Pffft. What's the date on that? IIRC, they said that back in June or maybe earlier. It's more or less the same bullshit line they apply to all the boilerplate I've seen come out of the place. November 27. If they are saying they are going to fix the problem of international wire transfer withdrawals soon, I don't believe them either. |
|
|
|
|
Any exchange operator that did trades on their own exchange would obviously be operating on extremely unethical grounds, if not illegal.
|
|
|
|
I recently requested a withdrawal with the 5% fee. I got a reply that I don't fully understand. Maybe someone can help translate? Thank you for your email.We will update our banking team to schedule manual processing for your withdrawals as requested and we will keep you informed once its processed.
Please be advised that we are in the process of finalizing partnership and you can expect a more assured announcement on this soon. Anyone know what 'partnership' they are referring to? |
|
|
|
I've seen it posted around here but I think this is more of an optimistic hint than anything genuine so I wouldn't pay it too much attention. It could be a good thing but considering that Western Union is an established and long lived bank I don't know if it would be because the paranoid anarchist in me tells me they'd almost certainly try and find a way to spy on your transactions, not that they could in Bitcoin but certainly if you were to transfer paper money to them, I expect if they did ever do it there would be all sorts of restrictions and verification processes they'd force you to go through before you could move any money.
Huh? Western Union complies with KYC and AML laws, so they are already spying on your transactions. Western Union is not going to be an anonymous Bitcoin exchange, but neither is MtGox or any of the other online Bitcoin exchanges (except for small sums of money). |
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that Western Union sees the writing on the wall. They are going to become obsolete but not because of Bitcoin but because of other technologies in the payment industry. Companies that are in dire straits will make bold moves to reinvigorate their brand and keep the company afloat. Therefore, I am not surprised at all that they are considering adding Bitcoin based services.
|
|
|
|
The rise of bitcoin, an electronic currency traded on an online exchange, has generated a media frenzy. Once scoffed at, its value has risen by 631% (denominated in dollars) since the start of 2013.
Lots of people think that means we’re in a bitcoin bubble and it will eventually pop. But if you’re one of these bitcoin bears, it’s not easy for you to “short” it—i.e., bet that its value will go down. http://qz.com/69630/how-to-short-bitcoins-if-you-really-must/ |
|
|
|
With over 700Billion in assets - this is a pretty big bank. I think this is just a polite tweet - nothing more... so yes, for now I'm pegging this as absurd!
It's not just a big bank. The Commonwealth Bank was actually Australia's central bank before the establishment of the Reserve Bank of Australia in 1960, and was not fully privatised until 1996. They've also been well aware of Bitcoin for quite some time now. This is big news. This is not big news. This is a company giving a standard line for a feature request that they probably didn't even fully understand. If they did understand it, they wouldn't say they were going to pass it off to their development team because adding Bitcoin would certainly not be just a technical decision. It would have to filter through all kinds of decision makers in the bank. Nothing to see here folks. |
|
|
|
Uhmm there is no pantalk software or at least according to google, what makes it better than skype or IRC?
Perhaps he meant paltalk? http://www.paltalk.com/  |
|
|
|
|
I'm in San Diego, add me to the list.
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't matter. Any AML crap that goes into the Satoshi client will get stripped out in other forks.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Eben Alexander has taught at Harvard Medical School and has earned a strong reputation as a neurosurgeon. And while Alexander says he's long called himself a Christian, he never held deeply religious beliefs or a pronounced faith in the afterlife. But after a week in a coma during the fall of 2008, during which his neocortex ceased to function, Alexander claims he experienced a life-changing visit to the afterlife, specifically heaven. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/heaven-real-says-neurosurgeon-claims-visited-afterlife-213527063.htmlHmm, not sure what to make of this. Did this guy really experience the afterlife or did he just wake up from a coma and decide that he was going to make money off a book and get publicity? |
|
|
|
http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/156072/bitcoin.pdf
The article does raise a very serious point (oversight) in the bitcoin protocol -- suppose I put a high transaction fee on my transaction because I want it verified quickly....and the first node that I send to (and let's say the only node I can connect to) see that high fee, why would that node send the transaction to other nodes rather than spend a few weeks trying to include it in a block that it solves itself (and hence collects the fee)? Receiving nodes have no reason to forward transactions on, and in fact, have an incentive to not forward paying transactions. That to me sounds like a big deal...you don't want each client to have to purposefully connect to thousands of nodes to broadcast transactions to get a decent confirmation time...that's not very p2p  Strange, I haven't heard of this problem playing out in practice. I doubt it would...there are like....uhh...no significant transaction fees...right? addendum -- nothing compared to the block reward, that's for sure... To be clear, this disincentive to not broadcast applies to mining nodes, right? Personally, I just run the Bitcoin qt client and have no reason to stop transactions from being broadcast. |
|
|
|
http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/156072/bitcoin.pdf
The article does raise a very serious point (oversight) in the bitcoin protocol -- suppose I put a high transaction fee on my transaction because I want it verified quickly....and the first node that I send to (and let's say the only node I can connect to) see that high fee, why would that node send the transaction to other nodes rather than spend a few weeks trying to include it in a block that it solves itself (and hence collects the fee)? Receiving nodes have no reason to forward transactions on, and in fact, have an incentive to not forward paying transactions. That to me sounds like a big deal...you don't want each client to have to purposefully connect to thousands of nodes to broadcast transactions to get a decent confirmation time...that's not very p2p Strange, I haven't heard of this problem playing out in practice. |
|
|
|
So what is the impact to the BTC community? Are we about to see mainstream software companies accepting BTC as payments?
No way. Even if they wanted to they wouldn't because the market cap of Bitcoin is too low and the liquidity is just not there. These companies deal in billions, not thousands. If they can't liquidate millions of dollars worth of BTC on a moments notice they won't touch it. Unless they wanted to use Bitcoin for some niche product/service. |
|
|
|
|
These guys seriously think they can meander their way through the regulatory landscape? It's obvious that as soon as they piss off the BATF for whatever reason, they will go to jail on some charge. I'm sure there are plenty of regulations to nail them on. They are in a legal grey area alright. That legal gray area is going to get them 4 gray walls and some bars pretty soon.
They should have set up their site behind TOR and they should not have revealed their identities.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
