Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2016, 08:19:30 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Dwolla's Response to TradeHill | Lies and Defamation?  (Read 5547 times)
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
March 07, 2012, 04:46:50 AM
 #21

the amount for damages requested in the suit don't correlate with the losses that can be attributed to dwolla though.  dwolla can change their policy at any time.  maybe dwolla should be on the hook for the reversals and the funds they still have held (total under $100k) but blowing that total into a two million lawsuit reeks.
The legal system can't work that way. Dwolla should have eaten those losses. If the lawsuit just makes Dwolla pay the amounts they should have paid anyway, then all the harm they caused is unaddressed. There is no reason Dwolla should not be responsible for the consequential damages their fraud caused. And given that was seems to be an intentional and considered fraud, there should be punitive damages as well.

Quote
it is like if a retail business launches to sell this widget that it can buy at a discount from a certain supplier and then that supplier stops carrying that widget.  it isn't the supplier that is responsible if the retailer then incurs losses and eventually goes out of business as the result.
No, that's true. But if a thief steals the money they would have used to buy the widget and they lose profits as a result, the thief should be liable for those losses as well.

Quote
plus, we saw what happened at paxum.  this gives banks and competitors even more reason to keep their distance from bitcoin.  this isn't france.  we are not guaranteed a bank account.  if a bank suspects a customer will be a risk for litigation, they'll opt for not establishing or severing any banking relationship with that customer.
Yes, and had Dwolla simply severed its relationship with TradeHill, the situation would have been completely different. They certainly had every right to do that. Sadly, that's not the choice Dwolla made. But they have to live with the consequences of the choice they did make.

I am an employee of Ripple.
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
1481141970
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481141970

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481141970
Reply with quote  #2

1481141970
Report to moderator
Transactions must be included in a block to be properly completed. When you send a transaction, it is broadcast to miners. Miners can then optionally include it in their next blocks. Miners will be more inclined to include your transaction if it has a transaction fee.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481141970
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481141970

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481141970
Reply with quote  #2

1481141970
Report to moderator
ssaCEO
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 568



View Profile WWW
March 07, 2012, 04:56:24 AM
 #22

Two questions.

#1, This:
why was mt gox seemingly unaffected by this?
Because if TH suffered $100k in losses and MtGox did 7x the volume, well, do the math... so either MtGox worked something out with Dwolla that TH didn't have the muscle to work out, or they ate it and they aren't revealing how much they lost because on the whole Dwolla is still a profitable and necessary source of inbound currency. Not that I blame them, they probably saved all of us and saved Bitcoin from total devastation by keeping the lid on it back in August and quietly absorbing the damage... and in that case MtGox are the real heroes here.

#2 According to the article, Tradehill sold off Bitcoin.com. For $1M. Which is part of what they're suing Dwolla for. What???

evoorhees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994


Democracy is the original 51% attack


View Profile
March 07, 2012, 05:10:30 AM
 #23

...
Let's use the Wayback Machine to see Dwolla's TOS on July 3rd, 2011
http://web.archive.org/web/20100730001213/http://www.dwolla.org/help/terms-of-use/
...

Now my question is this. How many members of the bitcoin community are going to save a copy of the above archived TOS onto their own computers around the world just in case Dwolla manages to pressure archive.org to remove said archive?

I did it before even seeing your post lol Wink  PDF on my desktop.
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
March 07, 2012, 05:19:29 AM
 #24

Because if TH suffered $100k in losses and MtGox did 7x the volume, well, do the math... so either MtGox worked something out with Dwolla that TH didn't have the muscle to work out, or they ate it and they aren't revealing how much they lost because on the whole Dwolla is still a profitable and necessary source of inbound currency.
Or the fraud was largely the result of one coordinated group and they preferred TradeHill for some reason. Perhaps they just tried TradeHill first, it worked, and they had no reason to try anything else. Perhaps TradeHill processed things faster. Or perhaps Mt. Gox had faster/better cash outs, so they wanted their money in TradeHill so they could buy Bitcoins to cash out at Mt. Gox.

Quote
#2 According to the article, Tradehill sold off Bitcoin.com. For $1M. Which is part of what they're suing Dwolla for. What???
Where are you seeing this? I was under the impression they bought bitcoin.com (and a few other domains) for $1 million.

I am an employee of Ripple.
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
moocow1452
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 240

Don't mind me.


View Profile
March 07, 2012, 05:58:54 AM
 #25

What happened at Tradehill was a shame and a circlejerk of dickishness from a bunch of parties and ignorance for others, but if Mt. Gox is still playing nice, Dwolla can't be comfortably evicted from the Bitcoin network, nor does it want to be, as indicated by it keeping an open conn with Gox. So, if we can assume that Tradehill wasn't an act of malice for the lulz, why can't we just wait until Dwolla settles under the table for a bundle of undisclosed funds, salvages the new startup smell and put this thing behind us. They are still the best way to get bitcoin from a checking account, and until or unless someone comes up with something better made for passing Bitcoin, they are a valid part of the system, we are not forced to use them, and we shouldn't go off on a bloodfrenzy because they done goofed, right?
Jonathan Ryan Owens
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 392



View Profile WWW
March 07, 2012, 06:33:25 AM
 #26

What happened at Tradehill was a shame and a circlejerk of dickishness from a bunch of parties and ignorance for others, but if Mt. Gox is still playing nice, Dwolla can't be comfortably evicted from the Bitcoin network, nor does it want to be, as indicated by it keeping an open conn with Gox. So, if we can assume that Tradehill wasn't an act of malice for the lulz, why can't we just wait until Dwolla settles under the table for a bundle of undisclosed funds, salvages the new startup smell and put this thing behind us. They are still the best way to get bitcoin from a checking account, and until or unless someone comes up with something better made for passing Bitcoin, they are a valid part of the system, we are not forced to use them, and we shouldn't go off on a bloodfrenzy because they done goofed, right?

Correct.

stochastic
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


View Profile
March 07, 2012, 06:44:00 AM
 #27

I stopped using Dwolla after Paxum ran away.

Introducing constraints to the economy only serves to limit what can be economical.
matonis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 301



View Profile WWW
March 07, 2012, 12:18:33 PM
 #28

Dwolla has always had a peculiar business model with loss-leader pricing that doesn't scale. Sensing a future acquisition, they are going for market share and mind share more than profits. I predict that they save legal fees and settle it for $300k.

Founding Director, Bitcoin Foundation
I also cover the bitcoin economy for Forbes, American Banker, PaymentsSource, and CoinDesk.
MPOE-PR
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
March 07, 2012, 01:03:00 PM
 #29

Quote
Rather than doing the honest thing, covering the losses and changing the business so it could move forward, they instead just passed the costs of their mistake onto their customers and began spreading lies (we always said we would charge back ...) and smears (when a merchant is a constant source of fraud ...) to cover their tracks.
That pretty much sums it up I'd say. For shame.

Quote
why was mt gox seemingly unaffected by this?
Maybe they're behind it. They were trying to sink Bitcoinica earlier with account limitation and all, Dwolla is a tiny start-up, who's to say MtGox didn't get in touch and made a little side deal to crush competition? Not like they've ever done anything to actually foster competition in their existence so far.

My Credentials  | THE BTC Stock Exchange | I have my very own anthology! | Use bitcointa.lk, it's like this one but better.
Boussac
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1173


e-ducat.fr


View Profile WWW
March 07, 2012, 01:29:00 PM
 #30

From what I can read about this story, Dwolla has joined the pack they claimed they would "disrupt": banksters

JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
March 07, 2012, 02:09:27 PM
 #31

From what I can read about this story, Dwolla has joined the pack they claimed they would "disrupt": banksters
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

I am an employee of Ripple.
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
triplehelix
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84



View Profile
March 07, 2012, 03:23:30 PM
 #32

From what I can read about this story, Dwolla has joined the pack they claimed they would "disrupt": banksters

how do you disrupt the banksters while having a cozy relationship with the fed?
k
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 452


View Profile
March 08, 2012, 12:24:27 AM
 #33


#2 According to the article, Tradehill sold off Bitcoin.com. For $1M. Which is part of what they're suing Dwolla for. What???

My understanding from what I've read and reading between the lines is that Tradehill got control of the Bitcoin.com domain for a $1million equity stake in Tradehill (don't know what % stake that was or what Tradehill was valued at) and control of the Bitcoin.com domain was contingent on using it to run an exchange. When the exchange business ended the control of the domain had to go back to the original owerners.

Anyone know who owns the bitcoin.com domain? When was it first registered?
triplehelix
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84



View Profile
March 08, 2012, 12:43:00 AM
 #34

Anyone know who owns the bitcoin.com domain? When was it first registered?

looks like it was first registered 12 years ago, and has gone through a few hands:

http://www.hosterstats.com/historicaldns.php?domain=bitcoin.com
Jered Kenna (TradeHill)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420



View Profile WWW
March 08, 2012, 12:44:08 AM
 #35


#2 According to the article, Tradehill sold off Bitcoin.com. For $1M. Which is part of what they're suing Dwolla for. What???

My understanding from what I've read and reading between the lines is that Tradehill got control of the Bitcoin.com domain for a $1million equity stake in Tradehill (don't know what % stake that was or what Tradehill was valued at) and control of the Bitcoin.com domain was contingent on using it to run an exchange. When the exchange business ended the control of the domain had to go back to the original owerners.

Anyone know who owns the bitcoin.com domain? When was it first registered?

100% correct, I'm assuming that they will at some point come forward so don't worry about it too much, nothing weird going on.
It's not another big Satoshi mystery.

Jered

moneyandtech.com
@moneyandtech @jeredkenna
Littleshop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316



View Profile WWW
March 08, 2012, 12:46:02 AM
 #36


#2 According to the article, Tradehill sold off Bitcoin.com. For $1M. Which is part of what they're suing Dwolla for. What???

My understanding from what I've read and reading between the lines is that Tradehill got control of the Bitcoin.com domain for a $1million equity stake in Tradehill (don't know what % stake that was or what Tradehill was valued at) and control of the Bitcoin.com domain was contingent on using it to run an exchange. When the exchange business ended the control of the domain had to go back to the original owerners.

Anyone know who owns the bitcoin.com domain? When was it first registered?

take from it what you will:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=9442.0;all

domain tools has a pay service that lets you see the past registrar information as well.  

http://www.domaintools.com/research/whois-history/?page=results&q=bitcoin.com

Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302


Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending


View Profile
March 08, 2012, 06:52:32 AM
 #37


#2 According to the article, Tradehill sold off Bitcoin.com. For $1M. Which is part of what they're suing Dwolla for. What???

My understanding from what I've read and reading between the lines is that Tradehill got control of the Bitcoin.com domain for a $1million equity stake in Tradehill (don't know what % stake that was or what Tradehill was valued at) and control of the Bitcoin.com domain was contingent on using it to run an exchange. When the exchange business ended the control of the domain had to go back to the original owerners.

Anyone know who owns the bitcoin.com domain? When was it first registered?

take from it what you will:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=9442.0;all

domain tools has a pay service that lets you see the past registrar information as well.  

http://www.domaintools.com/research/whois-history/?page=results&q=bitcoin.com

Whoever owns it, has it redirecting to bitcoin.org.
stochastic
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


View Profile
March 08, 2012, 08:17:11 AM
 #38

wait... someone gave up a $1 million equity stake for a domain name?

Introducing constraints to the economy only serves to limit what can be economical.
MPOE-PR
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
March 08, 2012, 09:54:46 AM
 #39

Quote
wait... someone gave up a $1 million equity stake for a domain name?
Doesn't add up now does it.

My Credentials  | THE BTC Stock Exchange | I have my very own anthology! | Use bitcointa.lk, it's like this one but better.
padrino
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
March 08, 2012, 01:56:18 PM
 #40

wait... someone gave up a $1 million equity stake for a domain name?

Ummm, this is somehow news, it's happened many times before with much more than $1M dollars, it's a risky bet in either case but the basic throught process is that if you own the domain that is easily identified with the thing then you will pickup a huge amount of traffic.

1CPi7VRihoF396gyYYcs2AdTEF8KQG2BCR
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  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!