Delta Financial Offers Interest-Bearing Bitcoin Accounts

[jonald_fyookball]

Some of the largest corporations in the world use Amazon Web Services.
AWS is the leader in distributed computing services...why are you face palming?

Also all SSL certs are the exact same shit.

for information display fine,

but for a financial firm that may end up holding millions of other peoples funds.... come on, btcdelta seems a little low end

Just saying, there's nothing amateurish about AWS.
http://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/

[1714467305]

1714467305

[1714467305]

1714467305

[franky1]

Some of the largest corporations in the world use Amazon Web Services.
AWS is the leader in distributed computing services...why are you face palming?

Also all SSL certs are the exact same shit.

for information display fine,

but for a financial firm that may end up holding millions of other peoples funds.... come on, btcdelta seems a little low end

Just saying, there's nothing amateurish about AWS.
http://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/

and thats all good for informational displaying corporations.. but banking security-level infrastructure.. btcdelta seems a bit lacking

[gweedo]

I can see people are taking the pirateat40 model.

For any newbies, pirateat40 had a ponzi scheme, which first started off him trying to day trade the funds to get the 7% he was offering.

I don't think it's fair to compare 5% per year with the 7% per week Pirateat40 offered at Bitcoin Saving and Trust.

It is the same model, you do realize that.

How so? This bank is loaning out leverage to people with the deposited btc is it not? Pirate didn't do anything of the sort.

Yes pirate traded his currency, and this bank is lending it out to people to trade. What happens if whales come in and just easily scape the trades and take all the coins, then you don't get your 5% or any coins back. It is highly risky, and so was pirate, same model. Please do your research.

[jonald_fyookball]

Some of the largest corporations in the world use Amazon Web Services.
AWS is the leader in distributed computing services...why are you face palming?

Also all SSL certs are the exact same shit.

for information display fine,

but for a financial firm that may end up holding millions of other peoples funds.... come on, btcdelta seems a little low end

Just saying, there's nothing amateurish about AWS.
http://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/

and thats all good for informational displaying corporations.. but banking security-level infrastructure.. btcdelta seems a bit lacking

Can you back your opinion with any further information?  Are you an expert on computer security infrastructure?

So, they are using the cloud...so what?
Very little can be concluded just based on that, IMO.

There can be just as much security risk running their
own physical servers, and possibly a lot more other
risks such as server availability, DDOS, maintenance, etc.

[Este Nuno]

I can see people are taking the pirateat40 model.

For any newbies, pirateat40 had a ponzi scheme, which first started off him trying to day trade the funds to get the 7% he was offering.

I don't think it's fair to compare 5% per year with the 7% per week Pirateat40 offered at Bitcoin Saving and Trust.

It is the same model, you do realize that.

How so? This bank is loaning out leverage to people with the deposited btc is it not? Pirate didn't do anything of the sort.

Yes pirate traded his currency, and this bank is lending it out to people to trade. What happens if whales come in and just easily scape the trades and take all the coins, then you don't get your 5% or any coins back. It is highly risky, and so was pirate, same model. Please do your research.

It's not the same model at all. They also take US dollars and they're not just going to give out leverage to anyone who walks in the door. Not to mention they will stop people out of a trade if they have to.

It's really not like Pirate at all. A person who took peoples deposits and attempted to day trade with them while promising them ~370% interest is not the same as a financial institution offering 5% per year. Offering leverage and profiting of peoples trading is not the same at all to day trading. I can't imagine where you're connecting the two.

[gweedo]

I can see people are taking the pirateat40 model.

For any newbies, pirateat40 had a ponzi scheme, which first started off him trying to day trade the funds to get the 7% he was offering.

I don't think it's fair to compare 5% per year with the 7% per week Pirateat40 offered at Bitcoin Saving and Trust.

It is the same model, you do realize that.

How so? This bank is loaning out leverage to people with the deposited btc is it not? Pirate didn't do anything of the sort.

Yes pirate traded his currency, and this bank is lending it out to people to trade. What happens if whales come in and just easily scape the trades and take all the coins, then you don't get your 5% or any coins back. It is highly risky, and so was pirate, same model. Please do your research.

It's not the same model at all. They also take US dollars and they're not just going to give out leverage to anyone who walks in the door. Not to mention they will stop people out of a trade if they have to.

It's really not like Pirate at all. A person who took peoples deposits and attempted to day trade with them while promising them ~370% interest is not the same as a financial institution offering 5% per year. Offering leverage and profiting of peoples trading is not the same at all to day trading. I can't imagine where you're connecting the two.

I am looking at both from a rational view. You are looking at one as this financial institution which can't lose money. Plus do they even have the proper licenses? And yes they are giving accounts to anyone that walks in the door, I was given account their I seen there beta in action.

[vpitcher07]

Just from a topical standpoint this website does not look like one I'd run and go throw all my money into....

[Este Nuno]

I can see people are taking the pirateat40 model.

For any newbies, pirateat40 had a ponzi scheme, which first started off him trying to day trade the funds to get the 7% he was offering.

I don't think it's fair to compare 5% per year with the 7% per week Pirateat40 offered at Bitcoin Saving and Trust.

It is the same model, you do realize that.

How so? This bank is loaning out leverage to people with the deposited btc is it not? Pirate didn't do anything of the sort.

Yes pirate traded his currency, and this bank is lending it out to people to trade. What happens if whales come in and just easily scape the trades and take all the coins, then you don't get your 5% or any coins back. It is highly risky, and so was pirate, same model. Please do your research.

It's not the same model at all. They also take US dollars and they're not just going to give out leverage to anyone who walks in the door. Not to mention they will stop people out of a trade if they have to.

It's really not like Pirate at all. A person who took peoples deposits and attempted to day trade with them while promising them ~370% interest is not the same as a financial institution offering 5% per year. Offering leverage and profiting of peoples trading is not the same at all to day trading. I can't imagine where you're connecting the two.

I am looking at both from a rational view. You are looking at one as this financial institution which can't lose money. Plus do they even have the proper licenses? And yes they are giving accounts to anyone that walks in the door, I was given account their I seen there beta in action.

I agree with you that it's not risk free and it's certainly possible that they could lose money. I just feel it's quite different than the Pirate situation is all.

[Swordsoffreedom]

So high risk derivative that allows interest to be generated by providing loans denominated in Bitcoins
Similar to the coinlenders model I presume at the same time they can issue shorts and charge high fees on the loans while building a reserve of Bitcoins guess this mechanism is just asking for trouble but some people will use it.
Like to see them get FDC insurance on this ^_^

[HeliosAct]

So I'm assuming that is a resounding USE AT YOUR OWN RISK and/or DO NOT USE.

[franky1]

Can you back your opinion with any further information?  Are you an expert on computer security infrastructure?

So, they are using the cloud...so what?
Very little can be concluded just based on that, IMO.

There can be just as much security risk running their
own physical servers, and possibly a lot more other
risks such as server availability, DDOS, maintenance, etc.

you would rather trust a guy with crap security to hold millions of dollars, thousands of bitcoins.. on blind faith and not questioning them.

yet you question my credentials, when i have no coins belonging to other people..... thats a weird way to live.

how about realise that btcdelta is accepting dollars.. US dollars.. so show me their money transmission licence.... have you even checked to see if they have one?? or still trusting them on blind faith...?

[jonald_fyookball]

Can you back your opinion with any further information?  Are you an expert on computer security infrastructure?

So, they are using the cloud...so what?
Very little can be concluded just based on that, IMO.

There can be just as much security risk running their
own physical servers, and possibly a lot more other
risks such as server availability, DDOS, maintenance, etc.

you would rather trust a guy with crap security to hold millions of dollars, thousands of bitcoins.. on blind faith and not questioning them.

yet you question my credentials, when i have no coins belonging to other people..... thats a weird way to live.

how about realise that btcdelta is accepting dollars.. US dollars.. so show me their money transmission licence.... have you even checked to see if they have one?? or still trusting them on blind faith...?

My comment had nothing to do
with BtcDelta's integrity, competence,
or anything else.

YOU made the assertion that use of AWS
was somehow bad when you facepalmed it...
and then proceeded to give an opinion on
the appropriateness of it for a bitcoin application,
when you probably have no professional experience in this area,
and certainly don't know how the details of their stack.

I showed you that AWS is the industry leader in
distributed computing and you want to keep arguing.
Do you always have to be right or have the last word?

[franky1]

My comment had nothing to do
with BtcDelta's integrity, competence,
or anything else.

i dont always have to be right. i have in the past apologized to people when im wrong. but this topic is about a financial company that i presume to smell fishy..

.. instead of you investigating the company, looking to see if they even have legitimate business credentials, check if they had legitimate financial approval (licences).. or checking that their security was upto a 'banking standard'

you decide to knit pick the fact that i do not feel that using amazon to be involved in something that should be as, or more secure than a institutional bank as being a good idea...

kinda weird....care so much about my opinion but not care about a businesses validity that will at some point potentially hold thousands of bitcoins.. it amazes me where peoples priorities are..

its like if i said get on with your life, the world is round, and will still be around forever, calm down and live life.. you would reply.
but its not round, theres hills and mountains and deep valleys that make it uneven. theres roads, salt-flats, and building foundations that make places flat.

missing the point of the sentence to knitpick a word

but atleast i have another reason to facepalm, so thanks

[bigasic]

Sounds pretty interesting for sure, but its something that I wont even think about until they have proven themselves.

[daviducsb]

5% does not seem like an outlandish figure. The fact that they are paying out 5% in and of itself does not raise my suspicion.

That said, there is always counterparty risk and security risk. Judging from the tech background of the founders, I would perhaps be less wary of security risk and more wary that some HFT's or other whales find a way to game their platform and leave them insolvent.

I put a teeny bit in there that I can afford to lose.

Would be nice if BTC becomes accepted by a major brokerage that will allow people to trade on margin against it and perhaps buy dividend paying stocks. I called interactive brokers, no dice. Maybe this conversation could be a catalyst for pressuring some of these brokers to do that....

(which they probably won't until the regulatory framework improves-- but it can't hurt to try)

my two cents

[Ron~Popeil]

5% does not seem like an outlandish figure. The fact that they are paying out 5% in and of itself does not raise my suspicion.

That said, there is always counterparty risk and security risk. Judging from the tech background of the founders, I would perhaps be less wary of security risk and more wary that some HFT's or other whales find a way to game their platform and leave them insolvent.

I put a teeny bit in there that I can afford to lose.

Would be nice if BTC becomes accepted by a major brokerage that will allow people to trade on margin against it and perhaps buy dividend paying stocks. I called interactive brokers, no dice. Maybe this conversation could be a catalyst for pressuring some of these brokers to do that....

(which they probably won't until the regulatory framework improves-- but it can't hurt to try)

my two cents

We don't need "regulatory framework." Why does everyone think bit coin needs permission? If you mess with fiat you have to follow regulations from the government that issues it, no government issues bit coin so no government regulations need to be applied. 

[QuestionAuthority]

Sounds pretty interesting for sure, but its something that I wont even think about until they have proven themselves.

Pirate proved himself by running a true ponzi. He used new investor money to pay dividends. I started a thread long ago arguing with Clipse, Goat and pirate@40 about his obvious con and no one listened. This will most likely fall on deaf ears too. If you feel compelled to start earning interest on your Bitcoins, convert them to fiat and get a financial advisor from Vanguard to build you a diversified portfolio. The concept just doesn't work well in Bitcoinland.

[rext]

Sounds pretty interesting for sure, but its something that I wont even think about until they have proven themselves.

Pirate proved himself by running a true ponzi. He used new investor money to pay dividends. I started a thread long ago arguing with Clipse, Goat and pirate@40 about his obvious con and no one listened. This will most likely fall on deaf ears too. If you feel compelled to start earning interest on your Bitcoins, convert them to fiat and get a financial advisor from Vanguard to build you a diversified portfolio. The concept just doesn't work well in Bitcoinland.

Agreed.

[jonald_fyookball]

My comment had nothing to do
with BtcDelta's integrity, competence,
or anything else.

 but this topic is about a financial company that i presume to smell fishy..

Fair enough and apologies if it seemed like I'm trying to pick a fight but
I wanted to make my point that 2 of your 4 original reasons for the company
seeming fishy didn't hold water, at least for me...and i admit I felt a bit
irked when you didn't concede my points and wanted to change the subject.

Anyway, whatever... My points have been made.  Have a nice weekend.

[franky1]

My comment had nothing to do
with BtcDelta's integrity, competence,
or anything else.

 but this topic is about a financial company that i presume to smell fishy..

Fair enough and apologies if it seemed like I'm trying to pick a fight but
I wanted to make my point that 2 of your 4 original reasons for the company
seeming fishy didn't hold water, at least for me...and i admit I felt a bit
irked when you didn't concede my points and wanted to change the subject.

Anyway, whatever... My points have been made.  Have a nice weekend.

i understood your point you were trying to make that amazon is a legit and respected company around the world. but so is mcdonalds.

my point is financial holding companies of potentially hundreds of millions of dollars should set a higher security standard (not amazon, not comodo). just like id never use a fitness centre that had a mcdonalds in it.

the other point i did not get to is that by not bothering to hav their own data centre with security guards and top notch infrustructure, it smells fishy that they subscribed to cheaper ssl and cheap webhosting services, which to me shows lack of security knowledge themselves by using outsourced services, and also shows they do not have much collateral.. meaning when the penny drops they only have a domain name and a couple subscriptions as their collateral (true company value) when they claim bankruptcy (in a mtgox scenario).

it just smells fishy i did not say the word scam... just fishy