Bitcoin Forum
December 02, 2016, 06:29:03 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: TradeHill - suspension of US wire deposits / withdrawals  (Read 10686 times)
Jered Kenna (TradeHill)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420



View Profile WWW
January 05, 2012, 10:34:49 PM
 #21

I think the banks are the biggest danger to Bitcoin in the near future. If they all started to decide that they don't want anything to do with bitcoins, the exchanges would be totally frozen out.

It's hard for me to believe that all financial institutions would abandon service of Bitcoin related enterprises absent some legislative action (whereupon I have no doubt that they would do so in a heartbeat.) 




I think it's important to realize that if the current total value of BTC in circulation is 30-40m that's still nothing for a bank.
It's all about risk and if they deem the risk too high they will refuse the account or shut it down.
It's not going to be that long though before some type of precedence is set.

Jered

moneyandtech.com
@moneyandtech @jeredkenna
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480703343
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480703343

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480703343
Reply with quote  #2

1480703343
Report to moderator
kjj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302



View Profile
January 05, 2012, 10:55:52 PM
 #22

Banks existed long before fiat currency and fractional reserve.  They will survive their downfall too.

They won't be happy with it, but when the scenario starts looking like "change or die", I fully expect many of them to change.  And I don't think they can prevent the rise of bitcoin, only delay it.

p2pcoin: a USB/CD/PXE p2pool miner - 1N8ZXx2cuMzqBYSK72X4DAy1UdDbZQNPLf - todo
I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs.  You should too.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1974


View Profile
January 05, 2012, 11:22:17 PM
 #23

I think the banks are the biggest danger to Bitcoin in the near future. If they all started to decide that they don't want anything to do with bitcoins, the exchanges would be totally frozen out.

It's hard for me to believe that all financial institutions would abandon service of Bitcoin related enterprises absent some legislative action (whereupon I have no doubt that they would do so in a heartbeat.) 


I think it's important to realize that if the current total value of BTC in circulation is 30-40m that's still nothing for a bank.
It's all about risk and if they deem the risk too high they will refuse the account or shut it down.
It's not going to be that long though before some type of precedence is set.


The key element of my statement was 'all'.  I thought about trying to elaborate on that but decided not to.

The reason that this is key is that if a handful of 'rouge' institutions decided not to play ball, it would be enough to keep the exchanges happily chugging along (with some requisite adjustments to their pricing models) and thus allow the Bitcoin show to continue in much the same form as it does now.

Not only that, but the (current) $30-40m would suddenly become a significant factor for said 'rouge' institutions and thus a much more incentive to continue on.  That is why I don't see it absent state level legislative actions (state=nation.)  Half-hearted legislative attempts would be worse than nothing as they would create an engine for evolution of 'rouge' organisations, many of the operating in other states.  My bet is that this is part of the reason we in the Bitcoin community have been blessed with apparent ambivalence after Schummer spent a few minutes thinking about things (or more likely, some of his minders whacked him with a clue stick.)


Mobius
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 957



View Profile
January 06, 2012, 01:42:15 AM
 #24

http://tradehillblog.com/2012/01/04/announcement-us-wire-deposits-and-withdrawals-are-temporarily-suspended/

Dear Clients,

We’ve had an issue with our Citibank account and we’ll not be accepting
wire or ACH deposits or executing check, wire or ACH withdrawals for a
short period of time. All the funds are accounted for and we’ll re-commence
operations by Monday or Tuesday next week.

We’ve had an issue or two in the past with banking so we understand the
tension this causes for customers and us. However, we’ve always sorted out
it. There hasn’t been one incident where transactions weren’t executed
properly and accurately once the issue was solved.

If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to send an email to
info@tradehill.com.

Thank you very much!

Regards,
The TradeHill Team

I sent an email message inquiring about being able to withdraw funds via check (USD) since I was not notified of a problem in getting my money sent to me nor was there a visible notice when I was logging in.

It would be good business practice to notify your account holders via e-mail immediately when this occurs and in the sign-in banner page or perhaps the DASHBOARD where account holders are able to see their status, instead of inside the normally small obscure blog link in the bottom corner.

Additionally, what start date does this effect transactions? I placed a withdrawal request on 1-1-2012, I have not seen the status updated nor have I received any notification from you, and if the check was processed will it be returned by the bank? Will they not honor your issued check.

One of the important features of your service is the ability to be issued a check for payment.

Will you be re-reimbursing the mandatory fees imposed by your alternative payment methods if used during this period of your inability to send people their money?

Your communication procedures to the account holders is this matter are sub-standard at best.

The minimum acceptable notification should be ON THE MAIN LOG IN PAGE, followed by an e-mail notification sent to all the account holders.

Posting a notice here in the forum is a poor practice, as not everyone uses the forums, nor do they log in everyday.

Please let us Account Holders know what remediation will be done to address these deficiencies,  HERE in the forum, since this is where you apparently wish to conduct your affairs.

My email was sent from r.grey1@gmx.com. Check it, you will see the notification!
shakaru
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2012, 01:50:02 AM
 #25

 Sad
Is this also affecting Paxum USD withdraws as the usual processing time has passed and nothing as of yet by a good 9 hours. Sent in a ticket and such too.

Mobius
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 957



View Profile
January 06, 2012, 02:24:27 PM
 #26

I guess their response is "In Process", nice way of doing business.
PrintCoins
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 524



View Profile WWW
January 06, 2012, 04:02:02 PM
 #27

I think the banks are the biggest danger to Bitcoin in the near future. If they all started to decide that they don't want anything to do with bitcoins, the exchanges would be totally frozen out.

It's hard for me to believe that all financial institutions would abandon service of Bitcoin related enterprises absent some legislative action (whereupon I have no doubt that they would do so in a heartbeat.)  It's a really interesting question in my mind about what would happen with the value of BTC in that scenario.  I could see it going several different ways.  Among them:

If demand is there it could get fairly pent up and explosive.  After all, banks (mostly) don't want anything to do with drugs which has contributed to them absurdly valuable.  Even though drugs are a physical commodity and thus cumbersome to supply, they are still plenty available and the demand ensures a thriving market.

On the other hand, I sense that a good bit of the demand is by day-trader types who have no real interest in holding BTC and see no value in doing so other than to flip them.  That demand would evaporate without convenient exchanges which could depress the value of BTC considerable.



Tonight on the news "Underground currency bitcoin used for Drugs &... [name some other hot button issues]. Citi and Chase identified as facilitating ... bla bla bla"

Exchanges shut out quickly from all major banking outlets. No law needed. Just bad press. Find a rouge bank that will be willing to work with the exchange, and that bank will have some serious issues getting wire transfers from established banks.

Much of the value of bitcoin would vanish the day of, and traders scramble to get their money out of the exchanges (converting btc to usd and wiring money). New modes of exchange would need to be found (otc and in person). In essence, bitcoin would lose the big time speculators, and exchanges would be reduced to mini transactions, or some other less bank oriented system.

The irony is that if the press was really out there and everyone suddenly had knowledge of bitcoin, more people would want it.

But it doesn't need to go to frontline news to have banks shut exchanges down. If they get a whiff of bad press, it would happen.

I wonder what happened to the value of gold when it was deemed illegal to own. I think that might be a good historical lesson to look at in trying to predict the future of bitcoin (though gold and bitcoin are quite different).

Bitmessage.org: BM-2cT3oFVj68gugBD5JFvP3qmoBHWXJQ6ZkT
BTC Addr:18AA1hq6DVHn5WuK1fQhr5CdkqeG5Mj2ZL <--did you like my post? Send some encouragement here.
Print bitcoin bills: http://print.printcoins.com/
aq
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238


View Profile
January 06, 2012, 09:57:09 PM
 #28

I guess their response is "In Process", nice way of doing business.

The real irony is that Jared (tradehill) complains that banks are slow, and then when one uses an instant method like Paxum, the very same tradehill guys happily add a few days before actually letting you use the funds that they them self got within a single second...
Jered Kenna (TradeHill)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420



View Profile WWW
January 06, 2012, 10:04:42 PM
 #29

I guess their response is "In Process", nice way of doing business.

The real irony is that Jared (tradehill) complains that banks are slow, and then when one uses an instant method like Paxum, the very same tradehill guys happily add a few days before actually letting you use the funds that they them self got within a single second...


The big reason for Paxum delays when they happen is the 3-5 day waiting period after we send them a wire to add more funds to the Paxum account. Mt Gox encounters the same problem and neither of us intentionally sit on Paxum deposits / withdrawals but run in to this when we have much higher or lower volume than expected.

Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it.

Jered

Edit: we should have changed the banner and sent an email, you were spot on.

moneyandtech.com
@moneyandtech @jeredkenna
aq
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238


View Profile
January 06, 2012, 10:25:12 PM
 #30

I guess their response is "In Process", nice way of doing business.

The real irony is that Jared (tradehill) complains that banks are slow, and then when one uses an instant method like Paxum, the very same tradehill guys happily add a few days before actually letting you use the funds that they them self got within a single second...


The big reason for Paxum delays when they happen is the 3-5 day waiting period after we send them a wire to add more funds to the Paxum account. Mt Gox encounters the same problem and neither of us intentionally sit on Paxum deposits / withdrawals but run in to this when we have much higher or lower volume than expected.

Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it.

Jered

Edit: we should have changed the banner and sent an email, you were spot on.

Jered: I was sending some funds TO tradehill - so there was no waiting period involved. It was just that no one at tradehill cared to actually click a button, or whatever manual system you guys have to make funds available after you got the money. So I waited almost 2 workdays. I did the same on MtGox and it took them 1 minute.
There is so much done purely manual at tradehill, that it sometimes amazes me the the actual exchange is automated...
Jered Kenna (TradeHill)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420



View Profile WWW
January 06, 2012, 10:41:12 PM
 #31

I guess their response is "In Process", nice way of doing business.

The real irony is that Jared (tradehill) complains that banks are slow, and then when one uses an instant method like Paxum, the very same tradehill guys happily add a few days before actually letting you use the funds that they them self got within a single second...


The big reason for Paxum delays when they happen is the 3-5 day waiting period after we send them a wire to add more funds to the Paxum account. Mt Gox encounters the same problem and neither of us intentionally sit on Paxum deposits / withdrawals but run in to this when we have much higher or lower volume than expected.

Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it.

Jered

Edit: we should have changed the banner and sent an email, you were spot on.

Jered: I was sending some funds TO tradehill - so there was no waiting period involved. It was just that no one at tradehill cared to actually click a button, or whatever manual system you guys have to make funds available after you got the money. So I waited almost 2 workdays. I did the same on MtGox and it took them 1 minute.
There is so much done purely manual at tradehill, that it sometimes amazes me the the actual exchange is automated...


That was my fault thinking you were referring to Paxum going out.
Thanks for letting me know. I hadn't heard any other complaints about Paxum coming in. I'll speak with them.

Jered

moneyandtech.com
@moneyandtech @jeredkenna
ssaCEO
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 568



View Profile WWW
January 07, 2012, 08:03:08 PM
 #32

Jered, if we really wanted to move cash out quickly through Tradehill and would pay the premium for it, is there a reason it can't be wired from Chile to either a US or European bank account?

Jered Kenna (TradeHill)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420



View Profile WWW
January 08, 2012, 02:13:01 AM
 #33

Jered, if we really wanted to move cash out quickly through Tradehill and would pay the premium for it, is there a reason it can't be wired from Chile to either a US or European bank account?


Unless you're trading Chilean Pesos the funds are either in the US, Europe or India depending on the currency.
The problem isn't foreign banks, it's US banks.

Jered

moneyandtech.com
@moneyandtech @jeredkenna
Trader Steve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 725


"How do you eat an elephant? One bit at a time..."


View Profile
January 08, 2012, 07:44:16 PM
 #34

I think the banks are the biggest danger to Bitcoin in the near future. If they all started to decide that they don't want anything to do with bitcoins, the exchanges would be totally frozen out.

It's hard for me to believe that all financial institutions would abandon service of Bitcoin related enterprises absent some legislative action (whereupon I have no doubt that they would do so in a heartbeat.)  It's a really interesting question in my mind about what would happen with the value of BTC in that scenario.  I could see it going several different ways.  Among them:

If demand is there it could get fairly pent up and explosive.  After all, banks (mostly) don't want anything to do with drugs which has contributed to them absurdly valuable.  Even though drugs are a physical commodity and thus cumbersome to supply, they are still plenty available and the demand ensures a thriving market.

On the other hand, I sense that a good bit of the demand is by day-trader types who have no real interest in holding BTC and see no value in doing so other than to flip them.  That demand would evaporate without convenient exchanges which could depress the value of BTC considerable.



Tonight on the news "Underground currency bitcoin used for Drugs &... [name some other hot button issues]. Citi and Chase identified as facilitating ... bla bla bla"

Exchanges shut out quickly from all major banking outlets. No law needed. Just bad press. Find a rouge bank that will be willing to work with the exchange, and that bank will have some serious issues getting wire transfers from established banks.

Much of the value of bitcoin would vanish the day of, and traders scramble to get their money out of the exchanges (converting btc to usd and wiring money). New modes of exchange would need to be found (otc and in person). In essence, bitcoin would lose the big time speculators, and exchanges would be reduced to mini transactions, or some other less bank oriented system.

The irony is that if the press was really out there and everyone suddenly had knowledge of bitcoin, more people would want it.

But it doesn't need to go to frontline news to have banks shut exchanges down. If they get a whiff of bad press, it would happen.

I wonder what happened to the value of gold when it was deemed illegal to own. I think that might be a good historical lesson to look at in trying to predict the future of bitcoin (though gold and bitcoin are quite different).

Yes, this is the key issue that I've often thought about myself. I think a shut-out by the banks would relegate bitcoin back to a small, "community barter currency" - smaller than it already is. I think only a severe and totalitarian clamp down on voluntary exchange (much more than we have now) could reverse the resulting slowdown and drive faster bitcoin adoption. At what exact point I don't know. The current restrictions on cash transactions that are now being implemented in some parts of Europe may give us some clues. See The Coming Attack On Bitcoin And How To Survive It http://tinyurl.com/3b6d823
srf21c
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
January 08, 2012, 10:21:54 PM
 #35

It seems to me that many of these arguments assume that banks won't be failing themselves and struggling to retain customer confidence.

Who is to say the reverse won't happen, a flight from fiat currency banks into the relative safety and stability of the bitcoin network?
srf21c
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
January 08, 2012, 10:23:47 PM
 #36

There seems to be an unspoken assumption on this thread that banks won't be failing left and right themselves and therefore struggling to retain customer confidence.

Who is to say the reverse won't happen.  A collapse in the fiat currency banking system that precipitates a flight of wealth into the relative safety and stability of the bitcoin network?
Trader Steve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 725


"How do you eat an elephant? One bit at a time..."


View Profile
January 09, 2012, 12:33:57 AM
 #37

There seems to be an unspoken assumption on this thread that banks won't be failing left and right themselves and therefore struggling to retain customer confidence.

Who is to say the reverse won't happen.  A collapse in the fiat currency banking system that precipitates a flight of wealth into the relative safety and stability of the bitcoin network?

Yes, good point.
PrintCoins
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 524



View Profile WWW
January 09, 2012, 12:43:38 AM
 #38

There seems to be an unspoken assumption on this thread that banks won't be failing left and right themselves and therefore struggling to retain customer confidence.

Who is to say the reverse won't happen.  A collapse in the fiat currency banking system that precipitates a flight of wealth into the relative safety and stability of the bitcoin network?

That is a possibility as well. It isn't really related to banks shutting down bitcoin transfers though. This is just a fun upside possibility.

Bitcoin, gold, property, food, oil will all shoot up when wealth flees fiat. That is the way it goes.

Bitmessage.org: BM-2cT3oFVj68gugBD5JFvP3qmoBHWXJQ6ZkT
BTC Addr:18AA1hq6DVHn5WuK1fQhr5CdkqeG5Mj2ZL <--did you like my post? Send some encouragement here.
Print bitcoin bills: http://print.printcoins.com/
Mobius
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 957



View Profile
January 11, 2012, 03:23:18 PM
 #39

From Jan 4, 2012

Quote

Dear Clients,

We’ve had an issue with our Citibank account and we’ll not be accepting wire or ACH deposits or executing check, wire or ACH withdrawals for a short period of time. All the funds are accounted for and we’ll re-commence operations by Monday or Tuesday next week.

We’ve had an issue or two in the past with banking so we understand the tension this causes for customers and us. However, we’ve always sorted out it. There hasn’t been one incident where transactions weren’t executed properly and accurately once the issue was solved.

If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to send an email to info@tradehill.com.

Thank you very much!

Regards,
The TradeHill Team

-------------------------------------------------

It's Wednesday Jan 11, 2012, -- Where are we with this situation?

You still have not posted any NOTIFICATION  on the log in page or the dashboard.
digital
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


View Profile
January 11, 2012, 04:13:13 PM
 #40

I sent a support request in regards to this and this is what I received in return:

Quote
Hi,
First, thanks for using Tradehill and excuse the delay in responding; it’s not typical.
We’ve temporarily disabled domestic and international wire/checks. The reason can be seen on our blog post here: http://tradehillblog.com/
We anticipate having a new domestic and international check/wire solution by the end of the week.
Until then you can use BitInstant or Paxum.
Thanks again and happy bit-trading.
Regards,
Tradehill

I was really looking forward to being able to access my funds by today, but now they say by the end of the week...

edit:

The blog entry they refer to is identical to the op

If I help you out: 17QatvSdciyv2zsdAbphDEUzST1S6x46c3
References (bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=): 50051.20  50051.100  53668.0  53788.0  53571.0  53571.0  52212.0  50729.0  114804.0  115468  78106  69061  58572  54747
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!