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

[adamstgBit]

 

Someone care to explain why BTC-E is nearly $20 behind bitstamp?

What is the cause of this?

simply put, poeple selling on BTC-E are on drugs!

just look at fonzie

[1714922529]

1714922529

[1714922529]

1714922529

[fonzie]

Someone care to explain why BTC-E is nearly $20 behind bitstamp?

What is the cause of this?

simply put, poeple selling on BTC-E are on drugs!

just look at fonzie

Adam, as i have already tested before, the higher i get the lower the price of BTC becomes. Well it´s weekend and SR still delivers like a boss 

[N12]

When on earth will we have Bitcoin tradeable in volume on legitimate exchanges/brokers?

I've never seen a bank or broker 1) ask the kind of questions Bitstamp does AND 2) force you to actually prove it via bank statements, address signing, receipts. Who do they think they are, law enforcement themselves? I can't imagine that this is what the law demands, it goes far beyond it. And of course, not establishing this when already depositing or verifying, and nowhere mentioning this and the thresholds is scammy as hell.

[dreamspark]

No, see, you're lawyering now. Not even that, you're twisting words.

We all know what "withdrawal problems" mean in the context of Bitcoin exchanges: the inability to serve withdrawal requests of customers.

And that's exactly what is not going on over at Bitstamp. What is going on is that, at some point during the past year, (a) they decided they want to establish a more intrusive KYC procedure for large withdrawals, and (b) that they don't want to make a big public announcement about it.

I support their right to do (a), but would have preferred if they would have avoided doing it rather backhandedly, i.e. I don't support (b). But by now everyone who follows the Bitstamp thread knows about it, so it's, if you want to call it, an open secret: if you want to deal in large(ish) sums on Bitstamp, prepare for the additional KYC questionnaire.

Sorry but I'm not twisting words, you can't change the definition of a problem. We obviously disagree so its pointless debating semantics. I think its clear that a withdrawal problem is anything that makes withdrawing either currency problematic, which this does.

I too, support their right to do (a) but think that when you do (a) without (b) be prepared for a backlash from customers who either;

1) Are just generally pretty pissed of with (b)
2) Physically cannot sign their most used address.
3) Wouldn't be prepared to offer that information (which is a personal choice) but didn't have the chance to not use the exchange due to (b) and now their fiat is effectively hostage.
4) Think that a lot of the questions in (a) are far too intrusive. Which I think they are no other financial institution in the same category asks those sorts of questions.  Even my bank doesn't know some of the information they are asking for.
 

If its the law to be this intrusive (which its not) then cite it in the request and I will follow it. Until then they are just another exchange that is all too happy to hold your assets hostage.

[uhoh]

When on earth will we have Bitcoin tradeable in volume on legitimate exchanges/brokers?

I've never seen a bank or broker 1) ask the kind of questions Bitstamp does AND 2) force you to actually prove it via bank statements, address signing, receipts. Who do they think they are, law enforcement themselves? I can't imagine that this is what the law demands, it goes far beyond it. And of course, not establishing this when already depositing or verifying, and nowhere mentioning this and the thresholds is scammy as hell.

I'd say this is the main problem.

There's plenty of alternatives these days. I've personally not got caught up in their crazy KYC yet, had my account pretty much since they opened. Hopefully SecondMarket will change the exchange landscape later in the year.

EDIT:

No one is being forced to use Bitstamp, if you find their requests too searching then use someone else. Bitstamp don't care because although they'll be plenty of innocent users put out by these questions, they will undoubtedly reduce the criminal elements.

[fonzie]

I´m really glad that the ghost of reliable FUD is spooking around again.

[studio1one]

Fibonacci say..

Don't panic.

He does look like a pretty chill guy.

Dude is horizontal man.

[Ivanhoe]

Someone care to explain why BTC-E is nearly $20 behind bitstamp?

What is the cause of this?

simply put, poeple selling on BTC-E are on drugs!

just look at fonzie

Adam, as i have already tested before, the higher i get the lower the price of BTC becomes. Well it´s weekend and SR still delivers like a boss 

Thank you, for your kind words.

[dreamspark]

No one is being forced to use Bitstamp, if you find their requests too searching then use someone else. Bitstamp don't care because although they'll be plenty of innocent users put out by these questions, they will undoubtedly reduce the criminal elements.

Nobodies saying that your being forced to use them in the first place but if these stringent requests aren't advertised or even written anywhere and you sell funds there then you are forced to either;

1) Answer the questions
2)Buy back coins, pay them more fees for doing so and possibly loosing out due to a change in price.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

Fibonacci say..

Don't panic.

He does look like a pretty chill guy.

Dude is horizontal man.

That is just 1 in a series of great hats courtesy of the Fibster.

[oda.krell]

When on earth will we have Bitcoin tradeable in volume on legitimate exchanges/brokers?

I've never seen a bank or broker 1) ask the kind of questions Bitstamp does AND 2) force you to actually prove it via bank statements, address signing, receipts. Who do they think they are, law enforcement themselves? I can't imagine that this is what the law demands, it goes far beyond it. And of course, not establishing this when already depositing or verifying, and nowhere mentioning this and the thresholds is scammy as hell.

Everybody loves Kraken these days, no? From their thread:

Tier 2: Full name, Date of birth, Country of residence, Phone number + Address verification. Tier 3: All the above + Government issued ID, Verified proof of residence; Tier 4: Certificate of Incorporation, etc.

Somewhere else in the same thread:

Processing – your verification information is being reviewed.  Processing may be delayed for any of the following reasons:  IP address and stated jurisdiction mismatch, user under minimum age requirement, unable to verify name, unable to verify address, unable to read document scans/photos, unable to verify notarization.

Granted, looks like the "origin of your funds" question is absent, but other than that: get used to the fact that /all/ major exchanges, whether they are that mythical "legitimate" exchange you keep wishing for, or just our regular old existing exchanges, are covering their asses as hard as possible.

We knew that would happen at the fiat gates. Let's not act all surprised about it now.

[studio1one]

Someone care to explain why BTC-E is nearly $20 behind bitstamp?

What is the cause of this?

simply put, poeple selling on BTC-E are on drugs!

I think you meant to write

the people on BTC-E are selling drugs.

[N12]

Granted, looks like the "origin of your funds" question is absent, but other than that: get used to the fact that /all/ major exchanges, whether they are that mythical "legitimate" exchange you keep wishing for, or just our regular old existing exchanges, are covering their asses as hard as possible.

We knew that would happen at the fiat gates. Let's not act all surprised about it now.

The whole questionnaire I am talking about is absent, this is no different from passport + utility bill which Bitstamp already demands and has you believe you are verified (hell, it says so on your profile), until you withdraw.

There's no way around KYC rules, but Bitstamp has taken it further than anywhere I have ever seen.

[Adrian-x]

You'll get used to the feeling of confusion, I'm sure.
Hope you'll stick around when we're back to 1200 and beyond, will be interesting to see the rationalizations you'll come up with.

I find it amazing how people can put their money into something, without knowing where the profit will be coming from -- and without wanting to know.

in other words,
I find it amazing how people can put their money into food, without knowing where the profit will be coming from -- and without wanting to know.

Jorge I think your statement illuminates your bias.

While I 100% agree with your concern about where the profit comes from, answering this and you have the key to success*, a motive that is largely missing in our economy today. Lack of understanding where the profit comes from is my biggest criticism, of those like  Profesor Bitcoin who advise people to sell now because the market is over exuberant, without actually thinking of the macroeconomic implication of where those profits come from, those who can see this sell high and buy low however they shepherd the sheep for profit, ironically they are still the acute minority.    

I think someone advised you to enhance your understanding in overreaching economic schools of thought, and I'd second that. (Taking the liberty in marking your posts I'd give you a D+ in Classical and Keynesian ideas and E- in Austrian, Monetarism, Marxism ideologies.)

One prominent economic theorist came up with a rather obvious observation, The Subjective Theory of Value.  This is the reason many smart and thinking people buy Bitcoin (they are the shepherds), there is another theory, the greater fool, this is why lots of other people buy Bitcoin (I respect you attempts to discourage the greater fool's form getting involved and your fear of being a greater fools, but let evolution deal with them) the others 68+% are sheeple and buy Bitcoin for combinations of reasons but fall victim to the Fear of missing out, also leading to many of the feedback looks in the cycle and rewording the greater fools.

Not everyone shares your narrative, looking for references to reinforce your overwhelming idea that we are all greater fools.  

Nor does every one share my narrative, looking for references that everyone is stupid, in fact it's my very shortcoming that lead me to so virulently try to understand why anyone at all would even spend  $1 to buy a bitcoin, when I first heard about it, I refused to believe my instincts.  

* wealth comes to those who work hard to make use of the different values for mutual benefit.  

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[rezurect]

Ah ha, new wall @ 530 around 1.5kBTC.
I'd say controlled buying. Trying to keep the price from rallying too fast??

The wall @ 550 is considerably smaller now compared to 22nd. 700 BTC

Good News: Bitfinx is @ 2:1 Bullish.

[oda.krell]

No, see, you're lawyering now. Not even that, you're twisting words.

We all know what "withdrawal problems" mean in the context of Bitcoin exchanges: the inability to serve withdrawal requests of customers.

And that's exactly what is not going on over at Bitstamp. What is going on is that, at some point during the past year, (a) they decided they want to establish a more intrusive KYC procedure for large withdrawals, and (b) that they don't want to make a big public announcement about it.

I support their right to do (a), but would have preferred if they would have avoided doing it rather backhandedly, i.e. I don't support (b). But by now everyone who follows the Bitstamp thread knows about it, so it's, if you want to call it, an open secret: if you want to deal in large(ish) sums on Bitstamp, prepare for the additional KYC questionnaire.

Sorry but I'm not twisting words, you can't change the definition of a problem. We obviously disagree so its pointless debating semantics. I think its clear that a withdrawal problem is anything that makes withdrawing either currency problematic, which this does.

I too, support their right to do (a) but think that when you do (a) without (b) be prepared for a backlash from customers who either;

1) Are just generally pretty pissed of with (b)
2) Physically cannot sign their most used address.
3) Wouldn't be prepared to offer that information (which is a personal choice) but didn't have the chance to not use the exchange due to (b) and now their fiat is effectively hostage.
4) Think that a lot of the questions in (a) are far too intrusive. Which I think they are no other financial institution in the same category asks those sorts of questions.  Even my bank doesn't know some of the information they are asking for.
 

If its the law to be this intrusive (which its not) then cite it in the request and I will follow it. Until then they are just another exchange that is all too happy to hold your assets hostage.

Agreed to some of your points.

1) Yes. Absolutely. You have every right to be pissed off, to stop using them, and even publically say so. What I would prefer however you do is to not use ambiguous wording, that insinuate we have another gox situation at hand here. By all available evidence, that is /not/ the case. Agreed?

2) Complete agreement. But did you actually go through the procedure? I got the impression that, if in doubt, they let it slide (and accept the answer "I have provided all that I reasonably can on this point, but cannot provide any further proof".) That was my experience, but if someone actually has a withdrawal rejected because he couldn't sign from a Bitcoin source that doesn't allow signing -- well, I'd like to hear about that, I would also consider that extremely problematic.

3) see 2) above. My impression is they don't hold anything hostage. They probe quite a bit, but in the end, if you play along more or less, they accept your answers.

4) See my reply to Blitz: they are intrusive because they're scared senseless of having their little money printing machine they got going closed down one day to another because some overeager British or German or US court subpoenas them, and when they can't answer in style, the full wrath of AML procedures are invoked on them.

[akujin]

I avoided gox because of their high fees... That saved me from getting goxed...
I did the same thing with stamp... will they follow gox's path? LOL!  

[oda.krell]

Granted, looks like the "origin of your funds" question is absent, but other than that: get used to the fact that /all/ major exchanges, whether they are that mythical "legitimate" exchange you keep wishing for, or just our regular old existing exchanges, are covering their asses as hard as possible.

We knew that would happen at the fiat gates. Let's not act all surprised about it now.

The whole questionnaire I am talking about is absent, this is no different from passport + utility bill which Bitstamp already demands and has you believe you are verified (hell, it says so on your profile), until you withdraw.

There's no way around KYC rules, but Bitstamp has taken it further than anywhere I have ever seen.

Read again. Unfortunately I can't find the complete list for "tier 4" (to get their highest withdrawal limits applied) but it asks for all the regular ID and living address documents *plus* additional verification some of it notarized if I understand correctly.

There's one obvious difference I see: they're more upfront about it, which is good.

[dreamspark]

Agreed to some of your points.

1) Yes. Absolutely. You have every right to be pissed off, to stop using them, and even publically say so. What I would prefer however you do is to not use ambiguous wording, that insinuate we have another gox situation at hand here. By all available evidence, that is /not/ the case. Agreed?

2) Complete agreement. But did you actually go through the procedure? I got the impression that, if in doubt, they let it slide (and accept the answer "I have provided all that I reasonably can on this point, but cannot provide any further proof".) That was my experience, but if someone actually has a withdrawal rejected because he couldn't sign from a Bitcoin source that doesn't allow signing -- well, I'd like to hear about that, I would also consider that extremely problematic.

3) see 2) above. My impression is they don't hold anything hostage. They probe quite a bit, but in the end, if you play along more or less, they accept your answers.

4) See my reply to Blitz: they are intrusive because they're scared senseless of having their little money printing machine they got going closed down one day to another because some overeager British or German or US court subpoenas them, and when they can't answer in style, the full wrath of AML procedures are invoked on them.

1) Agreed. Although I will say with all available evidence you couldn't have said Gox was going to be bankrupt within a year not so long ago, I'm not saying its another Gox (normal knee jerk reaction, should definitely tone down that rhetoric), but you get my drift.

2) No, I refused to go through the process for the reasons mentioned before. Provide me with adequate warning and I may. Cite the law and I will. Don't ask such obviously unnecessary questions (they are, as said no other broker asks these questions and my bank doesn't know half the things they were asking) and I will.

3) They do hold it hostage though! Unless you play along with them, thats the point. Are we supposed to bend the truth just to play along and then get burnt later down the line?

4) Thats cool and rightly so they should be worried its a high risk businesses to be in but the rewards are plentiful, kinda like Bitcoin in the first place. Within your reply to Blitz though you missed the whole issue, Kraken asks those things, nobody has a problem providing those things. Hell I've provided them to several exchanges. I don't have a problem with KYC or AML but I have a huge problem with how personal and intrusive the questions are.

Sorry, no third party is being trusted with that sort of information until they can provide me with with clear terms. The threshold, why, which law etc etc. These aren't the sort of things you can sneak in and be like "well to be fair it was an open secret".  Don't make out like your all about compliance, regulation  and covering your ass when you can't even put out some explanatory TOS.