BTC-e is an Internet black hole

[cozytrade]

The first one is proposal to use DWOLLA for bitstamp
The second one is bank decision, rather than bitstamp

Of course I did not see bitstamp makes excuses in both case. Could you give us specific articles rather than keywords?

In either case, what is MtGox behaviour? In some part MtGox has been better than bitstamp or btc-e especially in terms of their anonymity. I have not see any similarity regarding withdrawal issue yet, though btc-e has deposit issue. However, there are risk in any exchange that is it.

And Bitstamp is behaving exactly like Mt. Gox in a smaller scale.

Oh man stop spreading bullshit around..

There is no BS, real facts. Many reports of BTC being put on hold under false excuses, do your reasearch.

Link those "reports" or shut the hell up with your FUD.

https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=bitstamp+holding+funds&oq=bitstamp+holding+funds

https://www.google.com/search?q=bitstamp+frozen+account&oq=bitstamp+frozen+account

and so on, just introduce different related keywords

[1713988723]

1713988723

[1713988723]

1713988723

[1713988723]

1713988723

[1713988723]

1713988723

[Cluster2k]

After the MtGox debacle there have been many suggestions that people who keep bitcoins or cash with third parties almost deserve to lose their fortune.  How messed up is that?  Bitcoin is meant to be easier to use and with more freedom than traditional money.  If we require businesses to transfer bitcoins to computers without regular internet connections or paper wallets, how is that achieving the goal of facilitating more people to use bitcoin? 

To get around the often wild fluctuations in bitcoin's value, people have suggested instantly converting bitcoins to cash and back again via exchanges so that the business doesn't carry the commodity value risk.  That's hardly doable when the parallel suggestion is to not keep any bitcoins or money in exchanges in places like Bulgaria to avoid the counter party risk.

MtGox has done more damage to bitcoin than many people yet realise.

[richmke]

MtGox has done more damage to bitcoin than many people yet realise.

I think MtGox only highlighted the risks that everyone already knew. Go with an unregulated exchange, and buyer beware.

People confuse regulation of BTC and regulation of the exchanges. You want regulation of exchanges so things like MtGox do not happen.

[Cluster2k]

MtGox has done more damage to bitcoin than many people yet realise.

I think MtGox only highlighted the risks that everyone already knew. Go with an unregulated exchange, and buyer beware.

The people on this forum were mostly aware, and still managed to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars, sometimes more.  MtGox touted itself as a super way to add bitcoin functionality to your business.  I doubt "everyone" in the business community who used MtGox's service was aware, and accepted, the risk they could one day disappear and take all the funds down with it.  How is that a superior form of doing business than with traditional banks?

People confuse regulation of BTC and regulation of the exchanges. You want regulation of exchanges so things like MtGox do not happen.

Which brings us to the next point.  Which government's domain does BTC-e exist in?  There are suggestions of Cyprus, Bulgaria, and even Russia.  Big differences between the three.  Who is the auditor for BTC-e?  We could start with a simple question: who is the owner?

[exocytosis]

After the MtGox debacle there have been many suggestions that people who keep bitcoins or cash with third parties almost deserve to lose their fortune.  How messed up is that?  Bitcoin is meant to be easier to use and with more freedom than traditional money.  If we require businesses to transfer bitcoins to computers without regular internet connections or paper wallets, how is that achieving the goal of facilitating more people to use bitcoin? 

Exactly! Finally someone who understands this. I've been trying to get this point across numerous times. I even mentioned it earlier in this thread. But most hardcore bitcoiners seem to hate the idea of Bitcoin going mainstream. If every Bitcoin user has to store all their coins in paper wallets or in the form of QR-code engraved rocks or metal bars locked down in unbreakable safes, then how is that going to facilitate a healthy economy and liquid circulation of BTC?

I thought BTC was supposed to be "the money of the internet", an easy, fast and reliable way to do trade across borders.

[richmke]

The people on this forum were mostly aware, and still managed to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars, sometimes more.  MtGox touted itself as a super way to add bitcoin functionality to your business.  I doubt "everyone" in the business community who used MtGox's service was aware, and accepted, the risk they could one day disappear and take all the funds down with it.

When MtGox slowed down in their processing of fiat, that should have been a big red flag.

  How is that a superior form of doing business than with traditional banks?

That's the point: It is not superior if you don't get the guarantees of doing business with a regulated bank.

[leopard2]

After the MtGox debacle there have been many suggestions that people who keep bitcoins or cash with third parties almost deserve to lose their fortune.  How messed up is that?  Bitcoin is meant to be easier to use and with more freedom than traditional money.  If we require businesses to transfer bitcoins to computers without regular internet connections or paper wallets, how is that achieving the goal of facilitating more people to use bitcoin? 

Exactly! Finally someone who understands this. I've been trying to get this point across numerous times. I even mentioned it earlier in this thread. But most hardcore bitcoiners seem to hate the idea of Bitcoin going mainstream. If every Bitcoin user has to store all their coins in paper wallets or in the form of QR-code engraved rocks or metal bars locked down in unbreakable safes, then how is that going to facilitate a healthy economy and liquid circulation of BTC?

I thought BTC was supposed to be "the money of the internet", an easy, fast and reliable way to do trade across borders.

huh? Pardon me?

if you own a lot of fiat, do you have all that in your checking account? Or carry it in your wallet, as cash?

Cold storage is very reasonable as long as you don't lose it; and there are things like Bitsimple.

Your post is silly; just like saying, buying a government bond or using a credit card instead of cash, is bad for liquid circulation of USD.

[Ollie]

Now that freezing of capital and an embargo against Russia has been hinted by US government, did it occur to anyone that BTC-E might be affected? Also, if BTC-E indeed is registered in Cyprus, did their bank accounts also get emptied by the government bail-in?

[phlogistonq]

OHHHHHH thats right, you're not a normal person who believes in Bitcoin.  You're trying to play the system and make a quick buck.  So you *have* to have your coins sitting on the exchange, or you'll miss out on the dips!

If it wasn't for people selling and buying, how would the price get set?

[exocytosis]

OHHHHHH thats right, you're not a normal person who believes in Bitcoin.  You're trying to play the system and make a quick buck.  So you *have* to have your coins sitting on the exchange, or you'll miss out on the dips!

If it wasn't for people selling and buying, how would the price get set?

The vast majority of people on these forums seem to think that Bitcoin can achieve "world domination" and go "to the moon" by being locked up in cold storage. They believe Bitcoin will somehow magically undermine the entire banking system of the world -- by sitting in fireproof safes in the form of paperwallets and encrypted thumbdrives that've never been online.

No wonder less than 0.1 % of the world's population have even heard of Bitcoin. The geeks are hellbent on making it stay that way, hence all the hatred spewed on everyone doing trading or using BTC as a means of exchange.