Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[oda.krell]

While everyone is bored, what about the transaction fee fraud Bitstamp is doing?

(I assume most of you trade there)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=597647.0

"fee fraud"... big words, huh?

Fact is, I knew about it, but it doesn't affect me more than for just a few cents (despite large volume), because I don't trade with bots or by splitting up a large trade into many small ones.

I can see how it would affect two types of traders: those that use bots to make many very small trades, and the example from the thread, of putting up a large order, and then having someone else "nibble" at it, thus driving up the relative fees.

Not ideal, but I have to ask: how do you prefer it to work otherwise? Rounding to a full cent seems reasonable, so the only solution I can see it calculating the x% fee they advertise over some time span's volume, as opposed to the volume of each (tiny) trade, which is then rounded up to a cent. I can see how Bitstamp would consider that an unnecessary effort to save some traders a few cent.

In either case, and in the spirit of choosing your words super carefully in here (remember kids, there are Bitcoin /fanatics/ in here, not /cultists/), the term "fraud" is entirely misplaced.

[magicmexican]

Oh the pumps!

[dreamspark]

While everyone is bored, what about the transaction fee fraud Bitstamp is doing?

(I assume most of you trade there)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=597647.0

"fee fraud"... big words, huh?

Fact is, I knew about it, but it doesn't affect me more than for just a few cents (despite large volume), because I don't trade with bots or by splitting up a large trade into many small ones.

I can see how it would affect two types of traders: those that use bots to make many very small trades, and the example from the thread, of putting up a large order, and then having someone else "nibble" at it, thus driving up the relative fees.

Not ideal, but I have to ask: how do you prefer it to work otherwise? Rounding to a full cent seems reasonable, so the only solution I can see it calculating the x% fee they advertise over some time span's volume, as opposed to the volume of each (tiny) trade, which is then rounded up to a cent. I can see how Bitstamp would consider that an unnecessary effort to save some traders a few cent.

In either case, and in the spirit of choosing your words super carefully in here (remember kids, there are Bitcoin /fanatics/ in here, not /cultists/), the term "fraud" is entirely misplaced.

By making the minimum trade $5 so the fee is always at least a cent and you cant be conned by 10's of trades at less than a dollar.

EDIT: Plus its not a few cents is it, the OP lost out on $83.

[maximum]

I'll think we'll have some sideways movement for a long time.
The next major push up will come when the EU states start their tax on all financial transactions.

[p0peji]

Wondering how many attempts will be needed to break out above 2700, if it will happen.

[dreamspark]

Apparently we've all been getting it wrong.

Anyone care to comment?

some exchanges are closing due to the fact that they are not using BUSINESS bank accounts, instead they were using personal accounts.

chinese central banks are not commercial banks. they are personal banks. and if a exchange cant handle or be bothered to get a business account, which requires registering a business name with the government, getting tax registration numbers and showing the bank a business plan.. then do you really want to be trading with it, as that is normally a big neon sign that they dont want to be official. and that glows as "risky".

take intersango.. not chinese, but shutdown due to using an account not aimed for business purposes (you truely think amir taaki went through all the proper red tape??? come on!! think about it)

the problem with banks is not actually bitcoin, its lack of transparancy. this is why bobby Lee's chinese exchange is still running, and all the other basement dwelling exchange operators had to close shop.

so the basic point is, if you want to do business with bitcoin, do not use personal accounts.

it is even written by the chinese government themselves in their guidelines that bitcoin exchanges need to get government registered and to do it right. the same goes for any country. china is a no big news event. its the same story as intersango and the other exchanges across the world, in the past.

[Teppino]

hello,

1) just to say it's a plaisure to read you since few days, and see that you talk 99% about the initial topic. ( and not social,  etc...Maybe the ''bet story'' wasn't necessary ;-)  )  

2) Why china rule the BTC world, and not the US ? Is it like this from the begining ?!

China inflated bitcoin 1000% with its trillion dollar shadow currency market, which does not exist in the U.S.

How do we know for sure that numbers? I'm not trying to troll, but i just want to figure out something i might have missed.
As far as i know we had bubbles of comparable magnitude before, with or without China. Add to this the probably fake volume of their exchanges and some doubt might arise. I'm not saying they had no part at all, but maybe they just played the bull market skillfully and now they're doing the same on the bearish waters. But a skillfull player role is very different from market maker one.

[p0peji]

Apparently we've all been getting it wrong.

Anyone care to comment?

some exchanges are closing due to the fact that they are not using BUSINESS bank accounts, instead they were using personal accounts.

chinese central banks are not commercial banks. they are personal banks. and if a exchange cant handle or be bothered to get a business account, which requires registering a business name with the government, getting tax registration numbers and showing the bank a business plan.. then do you really want to be trading with it, as that is normally a big neon sign that they dont want to be official. and that glows as "risky".

take intersango.. not chinese, but shutdown due to using an account not aimed for business purposes (you truely think amir taaki went through all the proper red tape??? come on!! think about it)

the problem with banks is not actually bitcoin, its lack of transparancy. this is why bobby Lee's chinese exchange is still running, and all the other basement dwelling exchange operators had to close shop.

so the basic point is, if you want to do business with bitcoin, do not use personal accounts.

it is even written by the chinese government themselves in their guidelines that bitcoin exchanges need to get government registered and to do it right. the same goes for any country. china is a no big news event. its the same story as intersango and the other exchanges across the world, in the past.

Didnt BTC China get one of their accounts closed?

[gizmoh]

While everyone is bored, what about the transaction fee fraud Bitstamp is doing?

(I assume most of you trade there)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=597647.0

"fee fraud"... big words, huh?

Fact is, I knew about it, but it doesn't affect me more than for just a few cents (despite large volume), because I don't trade with bots or by splitting up a large trade into many small ones.

I can see how it would affect two types of traders: those that use bots to make many very small trades, and the example from the thread, of putting up a large order, and then having someone else "nibble" at it, thus driving up the relative fees.

Not ideal, but I have to ask: how do you prefer it to work otherwise? Rounding to a full cent seems reasonable, so the only solution I can see it calculating the x% fee they advertise over some time span's volume, as opposed to the volume of each (tiny) trade, which is then rounded up to a cent. I can see how Bitstamp would consider that an unnecessary effort to save some traders a few cent.

In either case, and in the spirit of choosing your words super carefully in here (remember kids, there are Bitcoin /fanatics/ in here, not /cultists/), the term "fraud" is entirely misplaced.

Its a question of principle, the maximum fee is supposed to be 0.2% not 1.16%
It affects ALL customers, irrespective of order size. One cannot prevent a bot from nabbing your buy/sell order whether 1 btc or 50 btc and have you pay over 0.2% over such trade.
There is a simple solution to prevent those excessive fees:
The minimum trade amount needs to be changed to $5 on both api and website, so that the charged fee always remains @ 0.2% fee of a trade.

[dreamspark]

Apparently we've all been getting it wrong.

Anyone care to comment?

some exchanges are closing due to the fact that they are not using BUSINESS bank accounts, instead they were using personal accounts.

chinese central banks are not commercial banks. they are personal banks. and if a exchange cant handle or be bothered to get a business account, which requires registering a business name with the government, getting tax registration numbers and showing the bank a business plan.. then do you really want to be trading with it, as that is normally a big neon sign that they dont want to be official. and that glows as "risky".

take intersango.. not chinese, but shutdown due to using an account not aimed for business purposes (you truely think amir taaki went through all the proper red tape??? come on!! think about it)

the problem with banks is not actually bitcoin, its lack of transparancy. this is why bobby Lee's chinese exchange is still running, and all the other basement dwelling exchange operators had to close shop.

so the basic point is, if you want to do business with bitcoin, do not use personal accounts.

it is even written by the chinese government themselves in their guidelines that bitcoin exchanges need to get government registered and to do it right. the same goes for any country. china is a no big news event. its the same story as intersango and the other exchanges across the world, in the past.

Didnt BTC China get one of their accounts closed?

I know thats what I thought so have asked the question, they guy said they are now using a commercial bank.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[oda.krell]

While everyone is bored, what about the transaction fee fraud Bitstamp is doing?

(I assume most of you trade there)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=597647.0

"fee fraud"... big words, huh?

Fact is, I knew about it, but it doesn't affect me more than for just a few cents (despite large volume), because I don't trade with bots or by splitting up a large trade into many small ones.

I can see how it would affect two types of traders: those that use bots to make many very small trades, and the example from the thread, of putting up a large order, and then having someone else "nibble" at it, thus driving up the relative fees.

Not ideal, but I have to ask: how do you prefer it to work otherwise? Rounding to a full cent seems reasonable, so the only solution I can see it calculating the x% fee they advertise over some time span's volume, as opposed to the volume of each (tiny) trade, which is then rounded up to a cent. I can see how Bitstamp would consider that an unnecessary effort to save some traders a few cent.

In either case, and in the spirit of choosing your words super carefully in here (remember kids, there are Bitcoin /fanatics/ in here, not /cultists/), the term "fraud" is entirely misplaced.

Its a question of principle, the maximum fee is supposed to be 0.2% not 1.16%
It affects ALL customers, irrespective of order size. One cannot prevent a bot from nabbing your buy/sell order whether 1 btc or 50 btc and have you pay over 0.2% over such trade.
There is a simple solution to prevent those excessive fees:
The minimum trade amount needs to be changed to $5 on both api and website, so that the charged fee always remains @ 0.2% fee of a trade.

It affects all customers, but not all customers equally, as I'm sure you're well aware.

I place single, large limit orders near market price (i.e. my orders are executed almost instantly). As a result, the rounding affects me only minimally (in relation to the volume of my order).

I can see how you think this is a matter of principle, but your solution is raising the minimum trade amount to 5 USD? I can see bot traders complaining about that...

[knarzo]

I really don't get it what does the community have to gain if Bitcoin drops another 50% ?
 
You will probably get more coins at the expense of new members in the community. Unfortunetly Bitcoin is about greed for most of the trolls here which fail to see that Bitcoin actually has improvements over the current financial system and is not just monopoly money.

And as many wise members said before, never trust nobody on the forum, not Tera, fonzie, MatTheCat or other vocal trolls. Its a fact that they are not posting in your interest and most of them have a personal agenda.

Trust only your judgement.

+1

Well said!  

It is not 'well said'. He is making open accusations against specific forum members as being dishonest.

lol. Tell us more about dishonesty. Obviously obvious 

[magicmexican]

how old are these news?

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/05/06/okcoin-joins-as-gold-level-member/

[dreamspark]

I can see how you think this is a matter of principle, but your solution is raising the minimum trade amount to 5 USD? I can see bot traders complaining about that...

Who matters more to Stamp, some bot traders who should know that they are likely to lose money using bots on Stamp due to this issue (it was also brought up that this is a reason people dont use bots on Stamp) and are also only making trades worth $1 or a customer moving on who reguarly trades amounts in the 20BTC area?

[oda.krell]

I can see how you think this is a matter of principle, but your solution is raising the minimum trade amount to 5 USD? I can see bot traders complaining about that...

Who matters more to Stamp, some bot traders who should know that they are likely to lose money using bots on Stamp due to this issue (it was also brought up that this is a reason people dont use bots on Stamp) and are also only making trades worth $1 or a customer moving on who reguarly trades amounts in the 20BTC area?

Look, from what I wrote it should be clear I really don't mind if they define some min. order size.

But my point was whether this is "fee fraud". And whether I'd consider Bitstamp fraudulent, and not a place where I'd want to keep my money if they continue as they do now. And the answer to that is: I just don't care that much.

If you want to know what I /really/ consider problematic, take a look at the Bitstamp service thread and the discussion about what they accept (or not) as a response to their KYC questionnaire. Link

[RUEHL]

BTC China, Huobi, Okcoin and two other exchanges are pulling out of the BTC Summit. 

http://www.coindesk.com/five-chinese-exchange-ceos-pull-out-conference/

"CEOs of five major Chinese bitcoin exchanges have withdrawn from this weekend’s Global Bitcoin Summit in Beijing, after banks forced most of them to close accounts related to bitcoin activity."

[dogechode]

Another day in the mid 400s range. I'm telling you we will be in 400-500 land for quite a while. Accept it.

[mmitech]

I can see how you think this is a matter of principle, but your solution is raising the minimum trade amount to 5 USD? I can see bot traders complaining about that...

Who matters more to Stamp, some bot traders who should know that they are likely to lose money using bots on Stamp due to this issue (it was also brought up that this is a reason people dont use bots on Stamp) and are also only making trades worth $1 or a customer moving on who reguarly trades amounts in the 20BTC area?

Look, from what I wrote it should be clear I really don't mind if they define some min. order size.

But my point was whether this is "fee fraud". And whether I'd consider Bitstamp fraudulent, and not a place where I'd want to keep my money if they continue as they do now. And the answer to that is: I just don't care that much.

If you want to know what I /really/ consider problematic, take a look at the Bitstamp service thread and the discussion about what they accept (or not) as a response to their KYC questionnaire. Link

you must learn that you cant satisfy all customers, no matter what you will do, there will be always someone shouting and yelling about his dissatisfaction and call you all names, scammer or a fraud or....


why do I advocate Bitstamp ? because they simply work for me, I get my deposits and withdrawals the same or next day and they answer all my tickets, beside, knowing the CEO and some of the employees I think they are far from the "fee fraud" description, in fact I want all businesses around Bitcoin to be as efficient as Bitstamp...


 

[oda.krell]

I can see how you think this is a matter of principle, but your solution is raising the minimum trade amount to 5 USD? I can see bot traders complaining about that...

Who matters more to Stamp, some bot traders who should know that they are likely to lose money using bots on Stamp due to this issue (it was also brought up that this is a reason people dont use bots on Stamp) and are also only making trades worth $1 or a customer moving on who reguarly trades amounts in the 20BTC area?

Look, from what I wrote it should be clear I really don't mind if they define some min. order size.

But my point was whether this is "fee fraud". And whether I'd consider Bitstamp fraudulent, and not a place where I'd want to keep my money if they continue as they do now. And the answer to that is: I just don't care that much.

If you want to know what I /really/ consider problematic, take a look at the Bitstamp service thread and the discussion about what they accept (or not) as a response to their KYC questionnaire. Link

you must learn that you cant satisfy all customers, no matter what you will do, there will be always someone shouting and yelling about his dissatisfaction and call you all names, scammer or a fraud or....


why do I advocate Bitstamp ? because they simply work for me, I get my deposits and withdrawals the same or next day and they answer all my tickets, beside, knowing the CEO and some of the employees I think they are far from the "fee fraud" description, in fact I want all businesses around Bitcoin to be as efficient as Bitstamp...


 

That was the point I was trying to make. Thanks for phrasing it a lot better than me :)