is BITINSTANT scamming??!

[Gareth Nelson]

Please do not make accusations like this without evidence,

There is plenty of evidence in your support thread.

There's "evidence" of delayed orders which our support team are constantly working on and resolving every day.

as it happens the last order to execute under an hour took about 1 minute and executed just now (I checked just as I was posting this).

Looking at the last 2 months, would you honestly argue that a 1 minute delivery time frame, or even the one hour time frame specified in your FAQ, is a "typical" time frame?

No, I wouldn't - we've had a rough period where a lot of orders were delayed causing a backlog, especially within the past 2 months or so - but this is improving and I remind you that people whose orders execute fine don't post complaining about it.
Unfortunately I can't give you the details of individual orders without customer consent, so instead we will be releasing statistical data fairly soon to demonstrate what kind of timeframes people actually get.

Typical timeframes are somewhere between 1 minute to 4 hours for most orders recently, that's updated from our old 1 hour timeframe (our current hard deadlines - beyond which customers are entitled to a refund, are set to 24 hours).

What can happen is we get delays which can temporarily slow down processing or cause problems, which is why we have expanded our deadlines to 24 hours.

Are you honestly saying that even 24 hours is "typical" of transactions at Bitinstant these days?  Even if it is, the "typically available within 1 hour" statement is still in your FAQ as of 1:34pm Pacific time on 4/25/13.  That is a fraudulent statement, even according to what you have said here.

I wish BitInstant worked as promised, it would make my business much easier.  Unfortunately, in my experience and that of many of my customers, it doesn't.

Again, people don't post complaints when the service works fine - most of the orders I can grab from our list of today's orders actually executed in about a minute.

[1714095565]

1714095565

[1714095565]

1714095565

[1714095565]

1714095565

[1714095565]

1714095565

[MPOE-PR]

Again, people don't post complaints when the service works fine - most of the orders I can grab from our list of today's orders actually executed in about a minute.

This is a valid point actually. If you used a single address model people could trivially verify about how much BTC you're pumping out and that'd perhaps serve as a quiet bolster for your position.

[keatonatron]

forums are not the way to contact bitstamp...

Actually, for me it was the only way to contact them  Sending an e-mail for support was pointless. Once I got on here and sent a PM to someone in charge my problem was cleared up within a day.

I agree their communication is atrocious, but since I've had many (10+) successful less-than-1-minute transfers with them, and my one problem transfer was eventually cleared up once I contacted the right person the right way, I don't think they are intentionally trying to rip people off.

[scintill]

as it happens the last order to execute under an hour took about 1 minute and executed just now (I checked just as I was posting this).

Would you have said anything if it were longer?  It's a pretty meaningless statistic, like saying "The last Bitcoin transaction on the network took 5 minutes to confirm, therefore the average transaction takes that long."  Is this counting orders your system marks as "filled" after 2 minutes and then emails the customer an error in the APIResponse field, leaving them to contact you to actually get the order filled?  (I have one such instance several months ago, admittedly it may not be very common.)

[Gareth Nelson]

as it happens the last order to execute under an hour took about 1 minute and executed just now (I checked just as I was posting this).

Would you have said anything if it were longer?  It's a pretty meaningless statistic, like saying "The last Bitcoin transaction on the network took 5 minutes to confirm, therefore the average transaction takes that long."  Is this counting orders your system marks as "filled" after 2 minutes and then emails the customer an error in the APIResponse field, leaving them to contact you to actually get the order filled?  (I have one such instance several months ago, admittedly it may not be very common.)

Median execution time at start of april (sampling data from first of april to the 5th of april) was 81.89 seconds, mean was 1743.84 seconds, quickest was under a second, longest was 12 days

We'll be releasing more formal stats sometime over the next month with much more detail.

[Gareth Nelson]

as it happens the last order to execute under an hour took about 1 minute and executed just now (I checked just as I was posting this).

Would you have said anything if it were longer?  It's a pretty meaningless statistic, like saying "The last Bitcoin transaction on the network took 5 minutes to confirm, therefore the average transaction takes that long."  Is this counting orders your system marks as "filled" after 2 minutes and then emails the customer an error in the APIResponse field, leaving them to contact you to actually get the order filled?  (I have one such instance several months ago, admittedly it may not be very common.)

Forgot to respond to the APIResponse issue - I don't have formal stats on that one yet, but it roughly happens in 1 out of every 10 failed orders (in other words, for every 10 orders that a customer contacts support about, about 1 in 10 of those has a dodgy APIResponse field).

The stats I posted just above simply count the time between "New Order" and "Order executed" events.

[scintill]

Median execution time at start of april (sampling data from first of april to the 5th of april) was 81.89 seconds, mean was 1743.84 seconds, quickest was under a second, longest was 12 days

We'll be releasing more formal stats sometime over the next month with much more detail.

i appreciate the transparency.  It should be noted that this is a 5-day period at the later end of your own admitted "rough period where a lot of orders were delayed causing a backlog, especially within the past 2 months or so."  Since it's toward the end when you say things are getting better, it may not be a fair representative sample.  I wouldn't be surprised if your entire ~2 year history has a better record, but it probably also has a lot smaller average volume than you've had in the last 2 months.  Also, with a mean of 1743.84 seconds / 60 = 29 hours, it looks like your average order over this period took longer than your 24-hour maximum deadline.  I'm frankly not all that familiar with statistics or even the legal definitions of statistical service guarantees, but from my understanding of your numbers, saying "Funds... are typically available within one hour at the exchange" sounds like a bit of a stretch if not completely false, at least during this sample period. (Edit: wrong, the mean is 29 minutes.)

Forgot to respond to the APIResponse issue - I don't have formal stats on that one yet, but it roughly happens in 1 out of every 10 failed orders (in other words, for every 10 orders that a customer contacts support about, about 1 in 10 of those has a dodgy APIResponse field).

Well, I guess I'm glad it's a low-ish percentage, but I hope no orders with dodgy APIResponse fields are being automatically closed anymore.  My order was marked as executed but I hadn't received the funds, and was emailed an APIResponse error code.

[Gareth Nelson]

Median execution time at start of april (sampling data from first of april to the 5th of april) was 81.89 seconds, mean was 1743.84 seconds, quickest was under a second, longest was 12 days

We'll be releasing more formal stats sometime over the next month with much more detail.

i appreciate the transparency.  It should be noted that this is a 5-day period at the later end of your own admitted "rough period where a lot of orders were delayed causing a backlog, especially within the past 2 months or so."  Since it's toward the end when you say things are getting better, it may not be a fair representative sample.  I wouldn't be surprised if your entire ~2 year history has a better record, but it probably also has a lot smaller average volume than you've had in the last 2 months.  Also, with a mean of 1743.84 seconds / 60 = 29 hours, it looks like your average order over this period took longer than your 24-hour maximum deadline.  I'm frankly not all that familiar with statistics or even the legal definitions of statistical service guarantees, but from my understanding of your numbers, saying "Funds... are typically available within one hour at the exchange" sounds like a bit of a stretch if not completely false, at least during this sample period.

Forgot to respond to the APIResponse issue - I don't have formal stats on that one yet, but it roughly happens in 1 out of every 10 failed orders (in other words, for every 10 orders that a customer contacts support about, about 1 in 10 of those has a dodgy APIResponse field).

Well, I guess I'm glad it's a low-ish percentage, but I hope no orders with dodgy APIResponse fields are being automatically closed anymore.  My order was marked as executed but I hadn't received the funds, and was emailed an APIResponse error code.

1743.84 seconds is not 29 hours!
There are 3600 seconds in an hour:
1743.84/3600.0 = 0.4844

Just under half an hour, or 29.064 minutes (minutes, not hours)

[scintill]

1743.84 seconds is not 29 hours!
There are 3600 seconds in an hour:
1743.84/3600.0 = 0.4844

Just under half an hour, or 29.064 minutes (minutes, not hours)

Oops, how embarrassing.  I will strike that out.  My apologies for being misleading, it was an honest mistake.

Edit: At the risk of sounding like a sore loser when I've been made a fool of on my basic time math:  I would still wonder if a bigger/earlier sample would be worse, and if the "Order executed" event timestamp is always correct.  If I'm understanding your 1/10 APIResponse support-case estimate, and am correct in assuming that these orders had an "Order executed" event logged before support was contacted, and that the "Order executed" event timestamp was not corrected or re-set to the actual completion time... then the average could be higher.  Feel free to correct me if any of those assumptions are incorrect.  My own order from January, which falls into this category, still reports an incorrect "Order executed" timestamp on the status page, off by the several days it took Support to manually clear the order.

Looking forward to regular public statistics, for everyone's good.

Edit 2: Upon looking at this thread's history more, I regret feeding this thread as a lot of it is baseless accusations and my own stupid incorrect math.  However I believe my points above to have merit, and look forward to seeing them addressed by either more information, a change on BitInstant's part, or correction on any other mistakes I have made.

[crazylikeafox]

as it happens the last order to execute under an hour took about 1 minute and executed just now (I checked just as I was posting this).

Would you have said anything if it were longer?  It's a pretty meaningless statistic, like saying "The last Bitcoin transaction on the network took 5 minutes to confirm, therefore the average transaction takes that long."  Is this counting orders your system marks as "filled" after 2 minutes and then emails the customer an error in the APIResponse field, leaving them to contact you to actually get the order filled?  (I have one such instance several months ago, admittedly it may not be very common.)

Median execution time at start of april (sampling data from first of april to the 5th of april) was 81.89 seconds, mean was 1743.84 seconds, quickest was under a second, longest was 12 days

We'll be releasing more formal stats sometime over the next month with much more detail.

You are absolutely right that the forum complaints could only represent a minuscule fraction of your gross transaction volume.  I hope that is the case.  I'm just curious, if it wasn't a financial problem, why for at least most of March, you were letting your reputation sink precipitously by not resolving transactions that had issues if it represented such an inconsequential portion of your transactions?  Also, any technical issues could have been easily sorted in this time frame.  I'm not saying you're lying, I'm just saying that none of it makes sense.

Whatever the reasons for the issues, it does appear that Bitinstant is marginally more healthy than it was 2 months ago.  Hopefully you can fully recover from whatever has happened.

[odolvlobo]

You are absolutely right that the forum complaints could only represent a minuscule fraction of your gross transaction volume.  I hope that is the case.  I'm just curious, if it wasn't a financial problem, why for at least most of March, you were letting your reputation sink precipitously by not resolving transactions that had issues if it represented such an inconsequential portion of your transactions?  Also, any technical issues could have been easily sorted in this time frame.  I'm not saying you're lying, I'm just saying that none of it makes sense.

Whatever the reasons for the issues, it does appear that Bitinstant is marginally more healthy than it was 2 months ago.  Hopefully you can fully recover from whatever has happened.

I can answer this. The reason is that nobody (except BitInstant, of course) pays attention to these "BitInstant is a scam" threads. People that have been around a while are reasonably certain that the newbies that post these threads are wrong.

[crazylikeafox]

I can answer this. The reason is that nobody (except BitInstant, of course) pays attention to these "BitInstant is a scam" threads. People that have been around a while are reasonably certain that the newbies that post these threads are wrong.

They probably aren't wrong.  There is alot of smoke, and generally where there is smoke there's fire.  Something bad happened over there, and they are probably recovering to some degree because of transaction fees over the last few months.  I don't care what happens, unless something has gone seriously off the rails, you don't operate a business where trust is your primary asset and effectively refuse to address the problems of customers that are publicly complaining of money missing for more than a month.

[MPOE-PR]

Edit 2: Upon looking at this thread's history more, I regret feeding this thread as a lot of it is baseless accusations and my own stupid incorrect math.  However I believe my points above to have merit, and look forward to seeing them addressed by either more information, a change on BitInstant's part, or correction on any other mistakes I have made.

I like the kid, he's got mettle.

[clint25n]

In BitInstant's defense, I personally bought Bitcoins sent directly to my wallet a couple days ago, and then some again today. I live right across from a payment center, and by time I got home (3-5mins), it was already in my wallet. So perhaps their growing pains are over.

Thank you for the service BitInstant!

clint25n