I have 0.22769502 BTC to sell but my bank account is in the UK, so Paypal would be better. You can check my posts on here to judge my trustworthiness, I run and advertise a study where I can be identified. I would be fine with sending BTC first.

How about, first I send .022 BTC, then you Paypal me $5. If that trade works out, then I send the rest (0.2 whatever) and you Paypal the rest ($50)?

Not anymore. "I use them regularly for goods or services" is way ahead now.

In other words, they're trying to be a bank! - Only holding a percentage of the actual currency they've been given by their account-holders, then presumably trading it elsewhere for commission.

This is exactly what bitcoin was designed to avoid: central control and exploitation by some self-appointed middlemen. MT Gox could vanish and overnight and a dozen exchanges will spring up to respond to demand for BTC/cash conversion services. BTC cannot be controlled and monopolised by a single entity - it's that way by design.

I've never used MT Gox and never will. They're one of many.

Thanks for everyone who took part so far. Great response! I've enabled Experiments 3 & 4 for the next few participants, so they'll be there and ready to go for anyone else who wants to take part.

Thanks, Amratesh. I've set you up with Experiment 4.

Experiments 3 and 4 are now up and running concurrently.
http://xvams.com/xvams/

The next few people to make a username will find one of each set up and waiting. There's no big hurry, but please only start if you're going to finish. I'll follow people up every few days or so if experiments are not being used.

Yes. I found a bug - The page total is being thrown off by zero scores for some reason, so your checkbox never appears and the experiment remains open. As long as you put in proper values when you tried to re-do those, it'll be fine. I'll let you know when I've sorted it.

[Edit: Bug fixed, it's showing up as closed now. All the data looks fine. Thanks!]

Hi Frost. Experiment 4 is live. I've set one up for your username (Nick1138).

Hi Jimmy,

Experiment 4 is now live, and I've set you up with one.

Note to all. Please could you email me at my email address (lpxpb4@nottingham.ac.uk) for payment as instructed on the site. I do check on here, but not as often as my uni email, which I'm on all the time. Mainly this is for security reasons, so that I know that you *are* the person claiming for an experiment (from your email address).

The one currently on the site is the phase 3 experiment. Phase 4 will be along in about a week or so when I've finished processing the images. For this new one, no word judgements will be made, there will just be similarity, scaling judgements based on sliders and faces.

Thanks for taking part!

Thanks! I sent you the BTC for this experiment.

01/15/2014 12:56         0.008    Sent to 1BitcHiCK1iRa6YVY6qDqC6M594RBYLNPo

Hi Frost. The reason you didn't hear anything straight away is that you're meant to email me at my university email on the site. No probs. I've paid current rate (0.008).

01/15/2014 12:59         0.008    Sent to 14F3q8aysNCw4wmEEStNdSnvyNmEqzBg6B

Everybody who asked for payment got paid. BTW, the naming conventions changed.  What was called "experiment 3" last year is recoded as "experiment 2". This is the 'real' "experiment 3", now, followed by "experiment 4", which is a completely different layout where no word judgements are needed, just scaling with sliders between different images.

Hi All. Just letting you know that XVAMS phase 3/4 has begun. See first post or link for details.

Thanks!
http://www.xvams.com/xvams/account/login.aspx

Nice to see that you're being educated about how broken and messed up the system is that you're inheritting.

But chargebacks must be legitimate. If a credit card user fraudulently pays for a meal using a stolen credit card, the credit card company does not go after the restaurant, it is the CREDIT CARD COMPANY that must bear the brunt of any fraud. It's this accountability for abuse of their own system which - as we all know - bankers and high finance are very well rewarded.

Paypal says:
"A chargeback happens when a buyer asks their credit card issuer to reverse a transaction that has already cleared. This can mean that a payment you’ve received in your PayPal account could be reversed, even if you’ve already posted the goods – which can of course be frustrating.

PayPal will help you as much as possible if you wish to dispute a chargeback, but the final decision lies with the credit card company. However you can also get protection with PayPal's Seller Protection policy."

So if you get scammed YOU ARE ENTITLED TO BE REIMBURSED BY THE CREDIT CARD company who is doing the charging back IF YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE EVIDENCE that the perpetrator of the fraud made the payment under false pretenses and that the buyer received the goods paid for (like the thief buying dinner at the restaurant). Like the restaurant owner, you accepted their brand of payment on good faith, and the understanding that they would not be INSURED BY THE CREDIT CARD COMPANY against fraudulent transactions, you do NOT get a call from the credit card people demanding a refund for the money spent on the thief's dinner! - THAT'S WHAT THE CREDIT CARD FEES WE ALL PAY ARE FOR!

So my response to a chargeback fraud would be:
1) Report the crime to my local police and get an incident number.
2) Print out records from the bitcoin trading site (if you have one) or records for any wallet hosting website showing that assets were transferred to a thief posing as a buyer.

The credit card companies might try to wiggle out of compensating you, but will concede if you scream loudly enough.

The best solution obviously, though, is to avoid Paypal in the first place for these trades, and to understand it is HIGH RISK in this respect. But whatever you do, don't let the b*st*rds try to leave you holding the bag without putting up a fight.

If you're talking about my post, I think you might have misunderstood! They both get a copy of the piece of paper with the private key on it, because that's the equivalent of each of them independently having access to the BTC stored there. That IS what a joint account essentially is, right?

Yes! Blockchain.info is what I meant. Doh!  
And, yes, also. The only way to be 100% safe is to never have your private key online at all. But then you need to access it at SOME point, lol, so you have to make a judgement call on who to trust.

You don't need any fancy software to do this for you. Just generate a private key (your "account number") offline and with wifi/networking disabled for security, then print the private key onto two pieces of paper, one for him one for you. As long as only you two have the private key, then only you two will have access to the BTC in it. Then you can add the account as a "watch" online and start putting BTC into it, secure in the knowledge that there's no way anyone can steal your BTC online because the private key has never gone online. As soon as you want to take some bitcoin OUT of the 'account', though, then you have to create a wallet and add it as a fully functional online account. I use blockchain.info's [edited in response to reply] wallet system, because it's probably the safest bet for entrusting your key to third party.

P.S: To generate a private key ('account number plus access') offline. Go to an online generator like http://brainwallet.org/ (make sure it works as a javascript client-side app so it runs offline) and save the web page to your local drive. Then run THAT file when you're offline and unconnected. This will give you a secure key that has never been 'seen' by the internet.

Yes. Sounds like a watch only address. Great for 100% paper wallets, but you have to enter your private key into the wallet to actually have access to the funds at your address. I think you might have scanned/typed in the wrong code.