Unbiased pros and cons of circle.

[gadman2]

I use coinbase regularly and I don't have much problems doing business with a centralized exchange.

What are some of the advantages of circle over coinbase, and what are some of the disadvantages.

I know it's new and the site may not have all the available information. But what harm could it cause someone who has - absolutely- nothing to hide.

[keithers]

Nothing is really wrong with it, and I believe a little competition is actually healthy for the market.   I think what a lot of people have against Circle, is that they seem to be basically re-inventing the wheel by bringing old school banking practices into the BTC market.  

It is a double edged sword, because free insurance, and things like that are HUGE for mainstream adoption, however if pushed by the government, they would have the ability to freeze and hold anyone's funds without warning.  

The ability to be able to instantly purchase BTC (without having to wait for ACH bank transfer), is also a really attractive feature that will steal some users away from Coinbase.

[inBitweTrust]

The ability to be able to instantly purchase BTC (without having to wait for ACH bank transfer), is also a really attractive feature that will steal some users away from Coinbase.

I agree with most of your comment except the last part which is a wash for both companies as you will need the same level of verification for circle as coinbase to perform instant BTC purchases:

http://blog.coinbase.com/post/55203204550/instant-bitcoin-purchases-at-coinbase

Additionally, I don't see what the big deal is with all the complaints on the other threads in regard to Cash only withdrawals. From the video you can clearly see you can simply pay to one of your addresses to withdraw BTC instead of fiat.

I signed up with circle because competition is a good thing and I love the flexibility of looking at 2 exchanges and seeing which one has the better deal when purchasing.

What we should reinforce with both circle and coinbase despite insurance and protections is for technical users to treat both these companies like exchanges only and immediately withdraw BTC. Hopefully more hardware wallets will come out also so Luddites can be given the same advice as well.

[ranlo]

I think that the concept behind Circle is great. The problem is that there is not nearly enough information on the insurance (how it is going to work, who their provider is, etc.). It's leading a lot of us to believe that the insurance idea is unsustainable. Until we get more information on that, it's hard to make an accurate judgement.

[inBitweTrust]

I think that the concept behind Circle is great. The problem is that there is not nearly enough information on the insurance (how it is going to work, who their provider is, etc.). It's leading a lot of us to believe that the insurance idea is unsustainable. Until we get more information on that, it's hard to make an accurate judgement.

Insurance really shouldn't be considered as much of a benefit either because:

https://www.circle.com/user-agreement

"If your bitcoins are lost or stolen as a result of your own failure to maintain proper security protocols in accordance with Section 1.3, such loss is not be covered by Circle’s insurance."

This is equally applicable to Xapo and Elliptic Vault who offer insurance. Basically, what this insurance covers is third party oversight to insure security of others and/or owners stealing funds. This is important but you are just as at risk from theft if you stored your bitcoins yourself.

Additionally, we don't want to encourage people to become comfortable with hot wallets as they will open themselves up to other forms of theft like unjustified taxes and privacy invasion. 

Bitcoin is meant to be Peer to Peer; lets keep it clean!

[inBitweTrust]

But what harm could it cause someone who has - absolutely- nothing to hide.

Everyone has something to hide and privacy is important for the most ethical of individuals because of ambiguous laws we all can be convicted of committing multiple felonies each day.

This being said, if you already have a coinbase account ,you may as well get a circle account.

[ranlo]

I think that the concept behind Circle is great. The problem is that there is not nearly enough information on the insurance (how it is going to work, who their provider is, etc.). It's leading a lot of us to believe that the insurance idea is unsustainable. Until we get more information on that, it's hard to make an accurate judgement.

Insurance really shouldn't be considered as much of a benefit either because:

https://www.circle.com/user-agreement

"If your bitcoins are lost or stolen as a result of your own failure to maintain proper security protocols in accordance with Section 1.3, such loss is not be covered by Circle’s insurance."

This is equally applicable to Xapo and Elliptic Vault who offer insurance. Basically, what this insurance covers is third party oversight to insure security of others and/or owners stealing funds. This is important but you are just as at risk from theft if you stored your bitcoins yourself.

Additionally, we don't want to encourage people to become comfortable with hot wallets as they will open themselves up to other forms of theft like unjustified taxes and privacy invasion. 

Bitcoin is meant to be Peer to Peer; lets keep it clean!

This also means that a big hack could be ignored by them and they could just as easily claim it's the users' faults and not theirs. Whether or not they'd do that, of course, is unknown. But they have opened up that possibility with their statement.

[CurbsideProphet]

I think it's difficult to list out pros and cons of a service when most people don't have access yet but lets not act like Coinbase has been all that perfect either.  There's been numerous accounts of people getting the "high risk" flag when they purchased BTC as it was skyrocketing up, making it a little suspicious as the transactions were not honored.

We just have to wait and see, I think more than the insurance thing, Circle's profitability model is what I question most right now.  If they charge no fees and need to keep 100% reserves, I don't see what's in it for them.

[ChuckBuck]

Nothing is really wrong with it, and I believe a little competition is actually healthy for the market.   I think what a lot of people have against Circle, is that they seem to be basically re-inventing the wheel by bringing old school banking practices into the BTC market.  

It is a double edged sword, because free insurance, and things like that are HUGE for mainstream adoption, however if pushed by the government, they would have the ability to freeze and hold anyone's funds without warning.  

The ability to be able to instantly purchase BTC (without having to wait for ACH bank transfer), is also a really attractive feature that will steal some users away from Coinbase.

You don't have to wait for ACH bank transfer in Coinbase once you've verified a credit card.

All my BTC purchases are instant now.

[keithers]

I think that the concept behind Circle is great. The problem is that there is not nearly enough information on the insurance (how it is going to work, who their provider is, etc.). It's leading a lot of us to believe that the insurance idea is unsustainable. Until we get more information on that, it's hard to make an accurate judgement.

 A lot of mainstream users won't care who provides the insurance, just as long as they can have their BTC replaced if it is somehow stolen.  It will be interesting to see how BTC is replaced if there is a large variance in prices at the time of a theft vs. the time of the initial deposit.

  Take for instance insurance on property that you own.   Sometimes insurance claims depreciate the value of your goods when you make an insurance claim for theft.  Since the IRS recently said that BTC was property and not a currency, I am wondering if the insurance will take a similar stance.

[keithers]

Nothing is really wrong with it, and I believe a little competition is actually healthy for the market.   I think what a lot of people have against Circle, is that they seem to be basically re-inventing the wheel by bringing old school banking practices into the BTC market.  

It is a double edged sword, because free insurance, and things like that are HUGE for mainstream adoption, however if pushed by the government, they would have the ability to freeze and hold anyone's funds without warning.  

The ability to be able to instantly purchase BTC (without having to wait for ACH bank transfer), is also a really attractive feature that will steal some users away from Coinbase.

You don't have to wait for ACH bank transfer in Coinbase once you've verified a credit card.

All my BTC purchases are instant now.

You can only instant purchase up to $1,000 in BTC on Coinbase, which isn't that much.   If you want to buy 10BTC or something like that, you have to wait for ACH bank transfer (to limit Coinbase's risk exposure)

[MrWDunne]

I've said this once, and I shall say it again. Circle is only insured as much as if they are hacked/robbed it is covered. If your account is phished you are just as screwed as you are with any other exchange.

I really hope people don't rely on that insurance to keep them safe.

[Bit_Happy]

The biggest 'pro' is that competition can make the best companies stronger.
Coinbase might respond with improved service and less frequent questionable "flagged" transactions.
New people will be attracted to BTC, and 'purists' don't need to go anywhere near Circle.

It's a win/win, not some kind of new drama that people need to "speak out against", imo.

[acoindr]

I think what a lot of people have against Circle, is that they seem to be basically re-inventing the wheel by bringing old school banking practices into the BTC market.

This may surprise many here, but not everyone wants an alternative to old school banking practices. They may appreciate lower fees with faster and wider transfer ability, but not everyone has an anarcho-capitalist yardstick to judge services by. Nor do they relish getting down and dirty learning complicated technology. They just want something that works simply and safely.

If Bitcoin is to be used by large numbers of people it needs to accommodate different types of people using it different ways too.

[inBitweTrust]

You can only instant purchase up to $1,000 in BTC on Coinbase, which isn't that much.   If you want to buy 10BTC or something like that, you have to wait for ACH bank transfer (to limit Coinbase's risk exposure)

It has been almost a year since Coinbase allowed up to 50 BTC instant purchases for fully verified accounts.

http://blog.coinbase.com/post/55203204550/instant-bitcoin-purchases-at-coinbase

That's around a 22k limit at todays prices which is fine for most.

From the circle video you have to fully verify as well.

[ranlo]

You can only instant purchase up to $1,000 in BTC on Coinbase, which isn't that much.   If you want to buy 10BTC or something like that, you have to wait for ACH bank transfer (to limit Coinbase's risk exposure)

It has been almost a year since Coinbase allowed up to 50 BTC instant purchases for fully verified accounts.

http://blog.coinbase.com/post/55203204550/instant-bitcoin-purchases-at-coinbase

That's around a 22k limit at todays prices which is fine for most.

From the circle video you have to fully verify as well.

I think a good question, though, is how often your purchased are going to be canceled at Circle due to being "high risk." This has been a pretty big problem with Coinbase.

[ChuckBuck]

Sent a Circle request just to see what this service is all about, and get $10 free in Bitcoin.

Hard to believe it's completely free, there's gotta be a catch somewhere.

[inBitweTrust]

We just have to wait and see, I think more than the insurance thing, Circle's profitability model is what I question most right now.

Profit is made off he buy/sell spread like coinbase. It will be intresting to see if circle has a higher buy sell spread which makes the 1% fee coinbase charges moot. Coinbase may need to lower rates to compete.

I think a good question, though, is how often your purchased are going to be canceled at Circle due to being "high risk." This has been a pretty big problem with Coinbase.

Very good point, I usually only see this when there is a very large purchase. Competition may clean up this behavior or perhaps if both companies pull these "security" moves you now can have the choice of splitting multiple smaller buys between exchanges so you don't get flagged.

[ranlo]

Very good point, I usually only see this when there is a very large purchase. Competition may clean up this behavior or perhaps if both companies pull these "security" moves you now can have the choice of splitting multiple smaller buys between exchanges so you don't get flagged.

I've seen a lot of cases on Reddit where people purchased less than a Bitcoin and were flagged. Some people had purchased 100+ BTC over a month or two and then get flagged on a smaller purchase. The system is erratic.

[inBitweTrust]

Very good point, I usually only see this when there is a very large purchase. Competition may clean up this behavior or perhaps if both companies pull these "security" moves you now can have the choice of splitting multiple smaller buys between exchanges so you don't get flagged.

I've seen a lot of cases on Reddit where people purchased less than a Bitcoin and were flagged. Some people had purchased 100+ BTC over a month or two and then get flagged on a smaller purchase. The system is erratic.

If that is a case, that would indicate a less optimal algo being used to flag than possible manipulation. However, whatever gets flagged seems probabilistically to occur when the price has dipped for a brief moment....so.....