You can deposit EUR, just not USD. See this post:


As far as I know they're still working on establishing a new banking relationship to handle USD; in the meantime, you can see that while XBT/USD trading is still active on the site, the volume is incredibly low (24 hour volume is 0, I'm not actually sure when last a trade was executed).

Created ticket id 30039 for this; filed under "Other", because none of the Withdrawals categories seemed to apply.

Ah, I figured it out just after I posted my last message; the withheld amount is the sum total of all my wire transfer withdrawals, which are still in "Sending" status despite being successfully sent and received more than a month ago.

I have a strange where there's a large sum showing as "withheld" on my balance for no apparent reason. The balance shown on the "Trade" tab overview looks correct, and is the same as the amount showing available; I also don't have any pending trades listed that I can see, so this "withheld" amount appears to be entirely phantom; it's as if there's completed trades or withdrawals or deposits that the system thinks never completed.

Is this a known issue? If not, I guess I'll open a support ticket.

It looks like he's saying it *has* to run at 1024 diff, not that it *can't* run at 1024 diff. I'm not sure if that applies to both higher and lower difficulties, or what.

If you don't have enough to exchange it at Cryptsy, how much do you really care about the 0.00000001 XBT it will probably convert to?

On my 5870, I get about 150 kh/s at I=12, and 400 kh/s at I=18; that's pretty significant, even if I'm paying a little in stales (about 4.8%, and I think some of that is network-related too, since I'm about 300ms away from the servers).

I'm glad to hear that your problem was resolved (finally). I just want to reiterate that it is definitely important that people publish issues like this, so that the community at a large is aware of what's happening with some users; I don't think you should feel bad about informing people of your problems (as long as the conclusion is also published, as you've done here).

The point is that name-calling etc. doesn't actually accomplish anything except obscure any real issues. I don't think giorgios-pap should be discouraged from complaining about their difficulties with Kraken, but calling someone a liar is actually a fairly serious accusation, especially when they're speaking on behalf of Kraken. This leads to either one of two cases: 1) serious accusations being thrown around with no proof, causing undeserved damage to the reputation of either the accuser or the accused, or 2) an environment in which these sort of accusations are not taken seriously. I don't think either of these is what anyone here actually wants.

Please note that the process that Dargo describes here would appear to be a process that manually bypasses their normal systems for crediting a deposit (which would happen through their API interface with their bank). This type of manual process is something I would assume requires access to their systems that only a few key individuals (or only one, in Kraken's case?) have; you don't want all of your employees being able to arbitrarily credit fake deposits to accounts, after all. I think the explanation as given is believable, although I'm sure Dargo will be the first to acknowledge that the massive delays so far represent an unacceptable level of service. Hopefully, now that they've identified this shortcoming of their processes, they can take steps to improve their processes in future.

(Disclaimer: I have a Kraken account which I trade with; other than this, I have no affiliation or involvement with Kraken at all)

Yes, BTC Guild pays for orphan blocks.

I accidentally made a Bitcoin deposit that exceeded my daily deposit limit; it's now been more than 24 hours, but the transaction is still "on hold". Do I need to contact support to get the transaction processed?

I would expect latency to have an impact primarily in two areas:
1) The time taken to initially start mining
2) Quantity of stale shares submitted

The first point should hopefully be obvious (can't start mining until you have some work from the pool); the second actually stems from the same point, if the pool needs to send you a new work template, the window for stale shares is exactly how long it takes for you to receive the new work template and switch to it.

I think you misread the screenshot. Under "Tier 1" it says "Deposits and withdrawals are limited to virtual currencies only".

API seems to be behind CloudFlare protection now, which passes my web browser but not my API clients :/

Site seems to be back up, but extremely slow.

EDIT: Guess I spoke too soon, getting 502s again.

It wouldn't really make sense for them to hire an army of support staff to sit around doing nothing for 6 months. I would expect that they're taking steps to increase their support capacity given the sudden growth in users, but it's hard to predict things like that in advance.

Is the information in the order book listing (either on the website or through the API) supposed to be delayed or cached? Just now, I had a bid order placed with a price well below the highest ask on the book, but it didn't execute; I noticed a minute later the order book had changed such that the highest ask was now lower, which leads me to think there is some kind of delay / caching in place. If this is correct, it would be nice if this were documented somewhere; it's not so much fun trying to do arbitrage when your order book is out of date.

I agree that this behaviour should be changed, so that the 2FA information is only displayed during setup. However, what you can do right now is enable the "Settings Lock", this causes the 2FA information to be hidden (among other things), and requires a certain period of time to pass before an unlock request completes, making it difficult for somebody to change your settings if they gain access to your account.

If the objective is to minimize bandwidth usage, running a local proxy will help achieving that goal, whereas having all of your miners polling separately will not, even if they're all on the same worker account.

Hey, that picture looks familiar... http://www.pgal.com/portfolio/rice-university-data-center-2/