A deal must have been made, yeah. Perhaps this is how Mt Gox are going to deal with their issues.

Ah, there is some public info if you wish to believe it:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=179586.msg2964575#msg2964575

All news is on page 1 of the other thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=254930.0


Amen to that.

Last answer because this is gonna fill the thread - PM me if you want to discuss it more

I'm not talking about the legal issues, beyond the risk that Gox disappears due to existing problems (small but real right now - and I would never risk a business on that), I'm talking about the bank transfers.

I'm not talking about a problem converting on an exchange, I'm talking about getting the USD back in a predictable and usable fashion. A conversion is useless otherwise.

I accept that you disagree but, respectfully, I know more about this area of Bitcoin than you do (and others will know more than I, and perhaps Ken for all I know). And this is all moot because I'd expect most of the funds to have been converted by now.

I really do understand the process. It's not the conversion that's the problem, it's the banking. And it is complex because you don't want that money being locked out or to have an unknown transfer time which can be weeks or months. Unfortunately VMC are US based - this is all non trivial.

I already pointed out emergency transfers can (apparently) be requested for 5% on Gox but it offers no guarantees and is definitely not as easy as you say. Then you have to be allowed to keep and use the money in your bank, which is also not as easy as you may think.

On top of that, at the point where the IPO was successful, Gox were in a worse situation. Even if it were more feasible now (and it's only slightly so), then I'd expect that the majority of the funds would have been converted already.

Running a business you need to know when you'll have your money. There are risks whichever way you look at it, but the risk of never getting your money (Gox) or it being delayed possibly months is the worst one. That was the situation with Gox at IPO time and it still more or less is. That's why Gox has such a premium. It doesn't work like you say it does - other evidence being the lack of meaningful arbitrage.

Tradehill is set up in the US specifically to deal with the US regulatory/banking situation and high value traders (/dark pools), but AFAIK Tradehill are very much a work in progress. You can actually go meet Tradehill in the US easily. I was at the Bitcoin London talk where they said they had more lawyers than techies, and I spoke to several people at the conference who are working in this area of Bitcoin.

When you deal with dark pools and large amounts, you also have to negotiate timing and rate.

With respect (genuinely, as I can see you're a big ActM supporter), I don't think you understand the intricacies here.

Finally, we don't even know if the money has been converted, all we know is that he deail hasn't been signed off AND paid for, since that's the point at which I'd hope to see a press release.

(Few minor edits made)

It'd be far too risky to use Gox right now and a very silly thing to do. Why risk your entire company when you don't need to, maybe for a few %? It'd be absolutely crazy.

BTW You can try and get an emergency transfer by paying 5% to Tux but that is also hit and miss. The funding issue isn't a myth either - I've been following it pretty closely. Mt Gox delays can be months or completely unpredictable. You can't perform business that way.

You also have to deal with banks on our side of the equation. It's actually very complex to convert that amount of money any time, let alone working with Bitcoin.

re: Tradehill - this sort of amount would probably be done in a dark pool so the (public) volume is irrelevant.

Sorry stuart but the above information is completely irrelevant for Ken's conversion or eASIC.

It's virtually impossible to get money out of Gox, and when you can it is taking many, many weeks. The Gox price is now 20% above any other exchange as well, so the price too is irrelevant.

Those trading on Gox are now people getting out or those trying to profit from what could be Gox's fall.

Dividend payments come through the exchanges. It is not for any of the funds etc to collect emails and so on.

Btct email when dividends are paid.

This is one for the Bifunder thread and UKYO, not ActiveMining.

Can a few miners/pools get together to fund Marco or someone similar?

Is this something the Bitcoin Foundation could or should be doing? Particularly since there appear to be concerns that it should be done properly to (try to) avoid a bad precedent being set.

Sorry if it felt like I was picking on you, I just have a beef with personal attacks on people.

I feel there is a terrible two faced-ness about many people on this forum. On the one hand, there is a huge fight against regulation of any kind. On the other, you get problems or complaints genuine scammers, with Avalon delays and screw ups, Mt Gox issues or hacks, your problem with TradeFortress' offerings, and so on. People talk about going to court, or reporting problems to various authorities.

Either it is the wild west or it isn't. Either you take regulation with its good and bad points or you don't. Not all regulation is about evil governments, much of it is to protect you, the consumer.

BTW I'm not in any way defending the lengths people must go to comply or the horrendous costs in some cases (US state money transmitter licenses anyone?).

The truth is that almost the entire Bitcoin ecosystem has been operating like the Wild West and the results of this are coming to the fore. The amounts involved are now too big to ignore, the problems too significant when bad things happen.

However, we all know that the Bitcoin world couldn't have got this far by playing the same game as big banks and the SEC and dealing with AML from day 1 and so on.

The dirty truth is that most people on this forum have used a Bitcoin services which is legally grey or worse, and they take that risk because they believe in Bitcoin or they want to improve their Bitcoin holdings. It doesn't make what they did illegal, I'm just making the point.

Just wanted to add this as the question/poll isn't right.

The question isn't "are bitcoin gambling sites illegal" but whether any are fully compliant with gambling legislation across relevant territories. There is nothing inherently illegal about running a gambling site which accepts or pays out in Bitcoin AFAIK.

And it is a genuine question because for all I know there may be one or more legal ones. I'd be very surprised if some aren't in the process of being made legal.

Indeed, I know for a fact that certain well known people in the gambling world have a strong and active interest in Bitcoin, I just don't know what they are up to.

(thanks for the correction Viceroy)

Minor point, but the question isn't "are bitcoin gambling sites illegal" but whether any are fully compliant with gambling legislation across relevant territories. There is nothing inherently illegal about running a gambling site which accepts or pays out in Bitcoin AFAIK.

Also, with relevance to legalities generally, Marco Santori has a two part series on CoinDesk:

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-law-what-us-businesses-need-to-know/

BTW I also expect that TF's loan service is illegal. In fact, I can't see how it isn't, although it depends where he is based and of course he could have the licenses... but probably not. Like most Bitcoin financial services, invest at your own risk.

BTCT is in the same boat IMHO. UKYO argues that Bitfunder isn't but at best they are in a very grey area and are playing a clever game (particularly by being based in a well selected location apparently). Several funds are in very dubious positions.

Mt Gox got caught out, other exchanges are going through all their own issues.

Selling your own Bitcoins is possibly illegal in the US.

Etc etc etc.

My point comes back to why this picking on TradeFortress? If he is scamming, evidence evidence evidence!

Hold on, I didn't defend TF, I just said that the attacks I saw seemed personal and with dubious merit. Just to be clear!

As for bitcoin gambling sites, it's about jurisidiction, both where they can be played and where they are hosted. I've worked in gambling so am aware of some of the problem areas.

For a bitcoin site to be legal it's going to depend upon them complying with the relevant rules, which include determining whether it is gambling, skill based gaming, and so on.

If it is gambling, regardless of where you are then I believe you need to do full KYC to avoid dealing with US customers. I could be wrong on this now so please correct me if so. Gambling is a big topic full of little details and often changing and I make no claim to being an expert.

Territories where most gambling companies are hosted take international gambling restrictions extremely seriously, while if you're based in e.g. the UK then there are very strict rules to comply with. I even think I remember our client's servers & software had to be examined and certified to make sure it complied with the rules.

The fact that the gambling is in Bitcoin is irrelevant. That's not an argument that will hold any water.

Good grief guys. Ripple/Opencoin aren't competition whatsoever. They're totally and utterly different.

His attack is against the currency; he doesn't see that it works and he thinks it's a way for OpenCoin to make money through pre-mining and that's it. I'm not with him on this at all and nor do I agree with the nature of his attacks but it's still very different.

I can't say if he's scamming or not, that's for you to show, but it's still coming across as a personal attack/witch hunt. As for the legalities of his offerings, I think you'll find his business is one of any number of current Bitcoin businesses that are in the grey area of the law or flat out illegal. If you go for him, you should go for the majority of Bitcoin businesses - e.g. virtually every gambling site. You can't have it both ways.

About Avalon?

I don't like weexchange at all but it's trivial to put money it, wait for 6 confirms, then move it to BF immediately. Getting money out similarly.

You can always do it a few BTC at a time if you're worried.

One is a personal attack and one is not.

TF's attack is on a currency. Do I agree with him? No I don't. If he paid to advertise this fact then no I don't agree with that personally but in the end it's done as a political statement or for some commercial reason I'm unaware of.

That is very different from setting up a site to attack an individual and then taking advertising on that site.

It's making all this seem very personal. Just my opinion.

No, I didn't comment on TradeFortress at all and nor am I going to because I'm not in either camp.

I was commenting on what is clearly a very personal grudge being handled badly.

So you're going to launch a website where you make allegations against another person, possibly illegal allegations, and you're offering ad space on it.

Now that is a scam.

Whatever your issues with TradeFortress, you are not coming out of this well.

Received the dividends on my tendered shares last night