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

[oda.krell]

A magic monkey told me the uptrend will dominate at least through Monday, probably Tuesday.  The monkey also thinks this is the first week of a multi-month uptrend, although he is not as certain.

This particular monkey does quite well at darts in FX and US Equity, FI and Comdty markets.  Not enough data to say how he does in BTC really, although he did call the major tops and bottoms on daily charts on bitstamp data since inception, albiet with a couple of false positives here and there.

Dratted monkey is also telling me that my positions in non-crypto are broken now.  *Sigh*

Magic monkey doesn't know about multi month uptrends, but he tells me I at least can go to sleep without being too worried

[1715299275]

1715299275

[1715299275]

1715299275

[1715299275]

1715299275

[1715299275]

1715299275

[1715299275]

1715299275

[oda.krell]

This has nothing to do with insolvency oda, take your strawmans elsewhere. Telling people they're verified and letting them trade/deposit just fine, not mentioning any sort of anal probes about source of Bitcoins in TOS, and then having it come as a surprise when withdrawing is inacceptable. No real broker will do this.

Go through the last 3 or 4 pages of this thread. Count how often someone asks "does this mean I should be worried about my deposits"? (by my count, around 4 or 5 times).

I will stop building strawmen when you guys stop using the rhetoric reserved for a "danger! get your money out!" situation, where in reality you should be using your "that's against my principles, and all that btc stands for" rhetoric.

[oda.krell]

Sorry but most in here are not saying that they are insolvent. What they are saying is that the intrusiveness goes above and beyond reason and is sprung on you with out any guidelines or clarification, thats not impotent rage. People are allowed to feel how they like about that, both in terms of the requirements themselves and what happens to the data, and discuss it too.

And that quote is out of context of the conversation which was about being asked for proof. He was saying that they don't ask for proof despite evidence to the contrary including a user who posted after that.

I'm aware of the context.

And as I said before: I (and all the other cases I've heard of, except for one now I guess) appeared to get out of those questions just fine without providing ridiculously complicated proofs.

[kurious]

Oh gosh how hard is it :p. Mining, donations, sold stuff online, investments, payment for freelance work. Yes, a few sentences covers it.
They don't even ask for proof of where the funds come from, they just ask where they origin from. Big difference.

Agree with that part til 100%. Bitstamp should give more information on what happens with the passport scans, replies to questionaires etc.

Haha, sorry dude, just forget it. We won't be able to convince them... guess there are quite a few people in here that got burned badly on gox and are now a bit paranoid.

The difference is, the gox problems were completely obvious a long time before it all came crashing down, just look at the huge thread of delayed withdrawals MONTHS before they actually shut down. That is what an exchange in trouble looks like, not this wet fart of impotent rage about their KYC procedures...

Actually - I have been on Stamp since soon after it existed - before I even knew Gox was out there.

I am verified and I just assumed taking cash (once I finally decide I want to) would be as easy as transferring BTC IN

What bugs me - is (assuming this is true) that while I have never had a problem trading or transferring BTC in and out, that they never said I might have to answer a ton of questions to their satisfaction to draw MY money out.

I have just raised a support ticket - asking for details of their withdrawal policy, and taken all my BTC in there out to my wallet.

What is unfair is not TELLING customers that policy has changed - I don't want to find out I will have a problem withdrawing!

This is a rational and reasonable position to have.   Why the hell should they accept my assets and let me trade them for their profit, but demand I jump through hoops when I want my money back?

It's like a nightclub asking you for ID to leave when they let you in without it.

[N12]

This has nothing to do with insolvency oda, take your strawmans elsewhere. Telling people they're verified and letting them trade/deposit just fine, not mentioning any sort of anal probes about source of Bitcoins in TOS, and then having it come as a surprise when withdrawing is inacceptable. No real broker will do this.

Go through the last 3 or 4 pages of this thread. Count how often someone asks "does this mean I should be worried about my deposits"? (by my count, around 4 or 5 times).

I will stop building strawmen when you guys stop using the rhetoric reserved for a "danger! get your money out!" situation, where in reality you should be using your "that's against my principles, and all that btc stands for" rhetoric.

"You guys" doesn't include me (and many others either), I never made that argument. And this has nothing to do with principles but lawfulness. Again, no real broker will ever create a situation where you have money on exchange and are suddenly surprised by some anal probe all the while thinking you were verified and have your money trapped. I can't wait for the day that we don't have to deal with these amateur operations anymore.

Sorry but most in here are not saying that they are insolvent. What they are saying is that the intrusiveness goes above and beyond reason and is sprung on you with out any guidelines or clarification, thats not impotent rage. People are allowed to feel how they like about that, both in terms of the requirements themselves and what happens to the data, and discuss it too.

And that quote is out of context of the conversation which was about being asked for proof. He was saying that they don't ask for proof despite evidence to the contrary including a user who posted after that.

I'm aware of the context.

And as I said before: I (and all the other cases I've hear of, except for one now I guess) appeared to get out of those questions just fine without providing ridiculously complicated proofs.

I have been following this in the past and I had the same impression as you prior to today's reddit post. That is why I am surprised. Perhaps they have changed things? How recent is the last case you heard of where they did not ask for proof?

[dreamspark]

Sorry but most in here are not saying that they are insolvent. What they are saying is that the intrusiveness goes above and beyond reason and is sprung on you with out any guidelines or clarification, thats not impotent rage. People are allowed to feel how they like about that, both in terms of the requirements themselves and what happens to the data, and discuss it too.

And that quote is out of context of the conversation which was about being asked for proof. He was saying that they don't ask for proof despite evidence to the contrary including a user who posted after that.

I'm aware of the context.

And as I said before: I (and all the other cases I've heard of, except for one now I guess) appeared to get out of those questions just fine without providing ridiculously complicated proofs.

Well there's three now. The guy in the thread here, the guy on reddit and the guy on Bitstamps thread. Its by the by anyway and if its happening at all it needs discussion. The just because you were okay and answered the questions and didn't have to provide proof doesn't really seem an objective point of view when addressing the topic. Anecdote != data. 

[oda.krell]

This has nothing to do with insolvency oda, take your strawmans elsewhere. Telling people they're verified and letting them trade/deposit just fine, not mentioning any sort of anal probes about source of Bitcoins in TOS, and then having it come as a surprise when withdrawing is inacceptable. No real broker will do this.

Go through the last 3 or 4 pages of this thread. Count how often someone asks "does this mean I should be worried about my deposits"? (by my count, around 4 or 5 times).

I will stop building strawmen when you guys stop using the rhetoric reserved for a "danger! get your money out!" situation, where in reality you should be using your "that's against my principles, and all that btc stands for" rhetoric.

"You guys" doesn't include me (and many others either), I never made that argument. And this has nothing to do with principles but lawfulness. Again, no real broker will ever create a situation where you have money on exchange and are suddenly surprised by some anal probe all the while thinking you were verified and have your money trapped. I can't wait for the day that we don't have to deal with these amateur operations anymore.

Sorry but most in here are not saying that they are insolvent. What they are saying is that the intrusiveness goes above and beyond reason and is sprung on you with out any guidelines or clarification, thats not impotent rage. People are allowed to feel how they like about that, both in terms of the requirements themselves and what happens to the data, and discuss it too.

And that quote is out of context of the conversation which was about being asked for proof. He was saying that they don't ask for proof despite evidence to the contrary including a user who posted after that.

I'm aware of the context.

And as I said before: I (and all the other cases I've hear of, except for one now I guess) appeared to get out of those questions just fine without providing ridiculously complicated proofs.

I have been following this in the past and I had the same impression as you prior to today's reddit post. That is why I am surprised. Perhaps they have changed things? How recent is the last case you heard of where they did not ask for proof?

Today. Myself :D

[N12]

Today. Myself

Great, thanks for the info. We have conflicting reports then apparently. All the more reason they should make it clear in the TOS.

[JorgeStolfi]

Because Andreas also vouched for Neo & Bee...

Andreas disagrees with you.

"During that call I explained that I could only be involved as a technical advisor and that due to my limited time I could not endorse N&B with investors or take on a director position that would involve fiduciary or oversight responsibilities."

"I had no insight into finances, no oversight, no involvement in marketing or investor meetings, no contact with customers, investors or regulators. "

http://antonopoulos.com/2014/04/18/neo-bee-a-statement-by-andreas-m-antonopoulos-a-consultants-perspective/

In what sense did he vouch for them more than this is an interesting company that could be big and be a viable and valuable business? In what sense did he vouch for them more than any other employee who didn't know the particular finances?

Indeed, I admit that "vouched" is too strong.  He just let his name be used to legitimize the enterprise, and (like the other chief officers) did not see anything wrong with it until after the CEO ran away.  Only then did people read the "prospectus" critically and noticed that there never was a real business plan.

I do not think at all that Andreas was conscious of the scam until that time.  Also, as a tech guy he could be excused for not noticing the financial problems (unlike economist Tuur Demeester).  But the episode does not inspire confidence in his competence as auditor, does it?

[mmitech]

I have been watching this forum long enough but in the last few days I've come to understand why many people decided to leave this forum.... I think I might do soon as well...

[dreamspark]

Indeed, I admit that "vouched" is too strong.  He just let his name be used to legitimize the enterprise, and (like the other chief officers) did not see anything wrong with it until after the CEO ran away.  Only then did people read the "prospectus" critically and noticed that there never was a real business plan.

I do not think at all that Andreas was conscious of the scam until that time.  Also, as a tech guy he could be excused for not noticing the financial problems (unlike economist Tuur Demeester).  But the episode does not inspire confidence in his competence as auditor, does it?

Or as was quoted above he had no access to finances, how can you possibly judge his competence as an auditor based on an advisory tech role working away from the office and having no contact really other than the occasional Skype call. Again this is in the blog.

[oda.krell]

Anecdote != data. 

So my annecdotal case != data.

Your annecdotal case(s) == data.

Sure. Sounds fair. /s


I repeat my main points one more time, then I'm going to duck out of this discussion:

1) It's anal KYC procedure, NOT a  solvency related withdrawal problem like in gox' case. Let's make sure to let the newbies that read along here know that difference.

2) The biggest problem I see so far is that Bitstamp didn't announce this change in procedure BEFOREHAND. I agree with Blitz that this is shitty behavior.

3) What could in principle be an actual problem of gox-ian proportions if they would require proof that users can't reasonably provide. So far, after having read mentions of the KYC procedure around 40 times (my ballpark guess) in the past months, I have /today/ heard the first time of unnecessary proof being required (in the reddit thread). That's 1 out of 40 cases (from my own perspective) and it doesn't exactly make me jump to the conclusion that Bitstamp asks for this regularly now.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[dreamspark]

Anecdote != data.  

So my annecdotal case != data.

Your annecdotal case(s) == data.

Sure. Sounds fair. /s


I repeat my main points one more time, then I'm going to duck out of this discussion:

1) It's anal KYC procedure, NOT a  solvency related withdrawal problem like in gox' case. Let's make sure to let the newbies that read along here know that difference.

2) The biggest problem I see so far is that Bitstamp didn't announce this change in procedure BEFOREHAND. I agree with Blitz that this is shitty behavior.

3) What could in principle be an actual problem of gox-ian proportions if they would require proof that users can't reasonably provide. So far, after having read mentions of the KYC procedure around 40 times (my ballpark guess) in the past months, I have /today/ heard the first time of unnecessary proof being required (in the reddit thread). That's 1 out of 40 cases (from my own perspective) and it doesn't exactly make me jump to the conclusion that Bitstamp asks for this regularly now.

Well I'm discussing the topic either way not saying they are definitely not asking for proof which is the whole issue.

1)how many times does someone have to say we're not saying they're insolvent for you to stop putting up that straw man when replying to someone who's said they're not saying they're insolvent several times.

2)Agree, isn't this one of the things I've been saying.

3)So you can't see the other guy in this thread and the guy in the Stamp thread. Its cool though, ignore them. Even if its not regular should it not concern people that at any point you could be asked to provide proof that you, for whatever reasons they may be , don't want to provide, after the being verified and making the trade and initiating a withdrawal request.

Thats fine I don't think there's much benefit in continuing but understand why people are concerned instead of just calling it impotent rage.

[adamstgBit]

who would have guessed!

[Walsoraj]

I'm surprised more bitbulls are not jumping on the FUD train circling bitstamp fiat withdrawals to encourage btc panic buys.

[oda.krell]

Well I'm discussing the topic either way not saying they are definitely not asking for proof which is the whole issue.

1)how many times does someone have to say we're not saying they're insolvent for you to stop putting up that straw man when replying to someone who's said they're not saying they're insolvent several times.

2)Agree, isn't this one of the things I've been saying.

3)So you can't see the other guy in this thread and the guy in the Stamp thread. Its cool though, ignore them. Even if its not regular should it not concern people that at any point you could be asked to provide proof that you, for whatever reasons they may be , don't want to provide, after the being verified and making the trade and initiating a withdrawal request.

Thats fine I don't think there's much benefit in continuing but understand why people are concerned instead of just calling it impotent rage.

1) Look, you can be all blasé about it and continue saying I'm strawmanning, but fact is that more than one guy in here already got the wrong impression. So, since I consider it important, I want to drive home this point. As often as necessary.

3) Alright, sorry for the "impotent rage". Uncalled for. But see my perspective again. I never traded on gox. One day, I stumble onto this huuuge thread of withdrawal delays. Every day, another page added. Go back a week later. Thread still growing, people still saying "naah, it's fine, they're just a bit slow".
I watched this shits for months! That's a situation in which I get worried about the enterprise as a whole.

I'm sorry for the guys who seem to have stuck a withdrawal now. In my experience, Bitstamp support is fast and rather generous in resolving those issues. If they aren't resolved in a week or two, or more cases pile up, I will change my tune. Until then, I can have sympathy with them individually, but I'm not worried about stamp.

[adamstgBit]

something feels odd about this picture, not sure what it is.

[FattyMcButterpants]

i'm not worried about stamp in particular. i think they are very misguided about AML/KYC procedures - they have no idea what they are doing or how they are supposed to comply and are just trying to throw a net over everything. but that is a big turnoff to customers, especially btc proponents. plus, they have an absolutely pathetic trading engine with massive lag that actually misses orders sometimes. and they just haven't been around long enough for me to put any trust in them. in fact, businesses in the BTC economy have such a black cloud over them, none of them should be trusted at all until a couple more years down the road. so if they ask for my passport and the rest of the anal cavity search? bye, bitstamp.

[adamstgBit]

Building Quality Markets for Digital Currencies

A secure, state-of-the-art exchange platform built by Wall Street veterans for transacting digital currencies

Powered by a platform deployed by some of Wall Street's largest proprietary trading firms and institutions

The exchange central book matches orders based on price/time priority. No fees to transfer money in and out.

two-factor authentication, cold storage of crypto-currency, multi-tiered multi-firewall architecture