KYE (Know Your Exchange): BitFloor

[2112]

At the request of Gavin Andresen and shtylman couple of messages were deleted from the thread in "Development and Technical Discussion":

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93502.0

In one of the deleted messages shtylman (the operator of BitFloor) had inadvertently disclosed that he isn't an US resident and doesn't reside on Manhattan where the exchange offices are allegedly located. I wish I saved those messages before posting, but I'm working from a borrowed laptop.

Anyway, be safe or be sorry. The choice is yours.

I just had to delete a few for your posts from the technical details for how a wallet move request works thread. Please do try to stay on-topic in the future.

[EnergyVampire]

At the request of Gavin Andresen and shtylman couple of messages were deleted from the thread in "Development and Technical Discussion":

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93502.0

In one of the deleted messages shtylman (the operator of BitFloor) had inadvertently disclosed that he isn't an US resident and doesn't reside on Manhattan where the exchange offices are allegedly located. I wish I saved those messages before posting, but I'm working from a borrowed laptop.

Anyway, be safe or be sorry. The choice is yours.

I just had to delete a few for your posts from the technical details for how a wallet move request works thread. Please do try to stay on-topic in the future.

Can you clarify this a bit? Because I was under the impression that:

1. He lived in Brooklyn (which is just across the bridge from Manhattan).
2. There are many people living in the USA who aren't US residents, are you saying he doesn't live in the USA?

If you guys are willing to pay a fee, I can have someone visit his business/residence and provide videos & pictures. So here we are...

[rjk]

I read that thread, and it appears that you immediately attacked him for not understanding a certain rarely-used portion of the reference bitcoin client. Is there another issue on your end that we need to know about?

[2112]

Can you clarify this a bit? Because I was under the impression that:

1. He lived in Brooklyn (which is just across the bridge from Manhattan).
2. There are many people living in the USA who aren't US residents, are you saying he doesn't live in the USA?

If you guys are willing to pay a fee, I can have someone visit his business/residence and provide videos & pictures. So here we are...

Mr. shtylman had inadvertently disclosed that he is completely unfamiliar with how US banks operate in regards to account overdrafts. I'm suspect that he not only isn't a US resident but he also doesn't have a business nor personal nexus in the USA (meaning a short-term permanent or temporary resident with no family connections).

The business/residence photographs aren't really going to help. In the thread below Mr. shtylman is soliciting for the loans in the form of "rebates for liquidity provider". This is an activity that is regulated in the USA. The loans aren't paid interest in the TVM sense but are paid by a negative trading commission.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93632.0

I would recommend that people who are tempted to became the "liquidity provider" do the same due dilligence as those who became the liquidity providers for Bitcoinica. The regulations in the USA provide for the collateral security and rights of offset that are available to the "liquidity providers".

[rjk]

Can you clarify this a bit? Because I was under the impression that:

1. He lived in Brooklyn (which is just across the bridge from Manhattan).
2. There are many people living in the USA who aren't US residents, are you saying he doesn't live in the USA?

If you guys are willing to pay a fee, I can have someone visit his business/residence and provide videos & pictures. So here we are...

Mr. shtylman had inadvertently disclosed that he is completely unfamiliar with how US banks operate in regards to account overdrafts. I'm suspect that he not only isn't a US resident but he also doesn't have a business nor personal nexus in the USA (meaning a short-term permanent or temporary resident with no family connections).

The business/residence photographs aren't really going to help. In the thread below Mr. shtylman is soliciting for the loans in the form of "rebates for liquidity provider". This is an activity that is regulated in the USA. The loans aren't paid interest in the TVM sense but are paid by a negative trading commission.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93632.0

I would recommend that people who are tempted to became the "liquidity provider" do the same due dilligence as those who became the liquidity providers for Bitcoinica. The regulations in the USA provide for the collateral security and rights of offset that are available to the "liquidity providers".

Overdrafts are not a required feature of a bank, and current regulation demands that all banks send a letter to customers to make them opt-in or out of overdraft protection. (OT: I have opted out)

I don't know what your worry is. It seems that you have something personal against him or his business, and are picking on extremely small points to try and demonstrate an imaginary flaw.

In case anyone is interested in him, here is an interview on Bruce's show in person: http://onlyonetv.com/2012/02/the-bitcoin-show-056-roman-shtylman-of-bitfloor-com/

[2112]

I read that thread, and it appears that you immediately attacked him for not understanding a certain rearely-used portion of the reference bitcoin client. Is there another issue on your end that we need to know about?

Firstly: it isn't called "attack". It is called "cross-exmination" and is one of the core percepts of adversarial system of justice in the USA. It is also commonly used while performing "due dilligence" in the USA.

Secondly: I questioned Gavin Andresen on him continuing to provide what appears like accounting advice, despite the following:

2a) he had closed his personal Bitcoin business (Clearcoin) before he was legally obliged to submit paperwork under the penalty of perjury.
2b) he continues to make implicit statements portraying bitcoin{d,-qt} as compliant with the GAAP (both for the USA and the rest of the Western world and its accounting tradition).

Moderators: I know this is a sore subject on this forum. Try maybe moving it to the appropriate place instead of simply deleting. Thanks.

[shtylman]

Can you clarify this a bit? Because I was under the impression that:

1. He lived in Brooklyn (which is just across the bridge from Manhattan).
2. There are many people living in the USA who aren't US residents, are you saying he doesn't live in the USA?

If you guys are willing to pay a fee, I can have someone visit his business/residence and provide videos & pictures. So here we are...

Mr. shtylman had inadvertently disclosed that he is completely unfamiliar with how US banks operate in regards to account overdrafts. I'm suspect that he not only isn't a US resident but he also doesn't have a business nor personal nexus in the USA (meaning a short-term permanent or temporary resident with no family connections).

The business/residence photographs aren't really going to help. In the thread below Mr. shtylman is soliciting for the loans in the form of "rebates for liquidity provider". This is an activity that is regulated in the USA. The loans aren't paid interest in the TVM sense but are paid by a negative trading commission.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93632.0

I would recommend that people who are tempted to became the "liquidity provider" do the same due dilligence as those who became the liquidity providers for Bitcoinica. The regulations in the USA provide for the collateral security and rights of offset that are available to the "liquidity providers".

What are you talking about? No seriously because none of it makes sense to me. Inadvertently disclosed? Unfamiliar with US banking? Loans? None of this makes any sense nor is it true. Anyone that has met with me in person (there are a number of Bitcoin users who have met me), talked to me on the phone, or otherwise done their research regarding Bitfloor can attest that I do indeed reside in the USA and that Bitfloor is as legitimate as it gets. If you look on the forums you will find nothing but satisfied users and a solid track record.

Your comments about loans and liquidity rebates really shows that you have no grasp of how trading or markets work. Please refrain from making baseless accusations against persons or businesses and claiming you are just "cross referencing" things.

Anyone who reads the linked technical discussion will show that I asked a very legitimate question and you proceeded to give non answers, troll, and otherwise insult anyone else related to that topic.

It is my opinion that you should be banned from these forums for such actions as they reflect poorly on not just your but the bitcoin community. I can't imagine how you respond to actual new users asking relevant questions just to be insulted. And then to go on an claim things about their residency or otherwise legitimacy without having done any research.

[2112]

Overdrafts are not a required feature of a bank, and current regulation demands that all banks send a letter to customers to make them opt-in or out of overdraft protection. (OT: I have opted out)

Mr.Shtylman claimed that many banks in the USA routinely grant overdraft without being asked or informed about customer's identity and location. That actually happens very often, not in the USA, but in the countries where majority of banking deposits is done with the electronic transfers.

I don't know what your worry is. It seems that you have something personal against him or his business, and are picking on extremely small points to try and demonstrate an imaginary flaw.

I know, at the beginning it always looks like nit-picking.

I nitpicked Zhoutong on the day he announced Bitcoinica:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=42267.msg517560#msg517560

I nitpicked Vince Torres withing couple of weeks of announcing trade-btc.com:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=46017.msg562031#msg562031

In case anyone is interested in him, here is an interview on Bruce's show in person: http://onlyonetv.com/2012/02/the-bitcoin-show-056-roman-shtylman-of-bitfloor-com/

[Stephen Gornick]

Secondly: I questioned Gavin Andresen on him continuing to provide what appears like accounting advice, despite the following:

2a) he had closed his personal Bitcoin business (Clearcoin) before he was legally obliged to submit paperwork under the penalty of perjury.
2b) he continues to make implicit statements portraying bitcoin{d,-qt} as compliant with the GAAP (both for the USA and the rest of the Western world and its accounting tradition).

Your previous posts on the subject:
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=42444.msg521426#msg521426

[2112]

What are you talking about? No seriously because none of it makes sense to me. Inadvertently disclosed? Unfamiliar with US banking? Loans? None of this makes any sense nor is it true. Anyone that has met with me in person (there are a number of Bitcoin users who have met me), talked to me on the phone, or otherwise done their research regarding Bitfloor can attest that I do indeed reside in the USA and that Bitfloor is as legitimate as it gets. If you look on the forums you will find nothing but satisfied users and a solid track record.

Your comments about loans and liquidity rebates really shows that you have no grasp of how trading or markets work. Please refrain from making baseless accusations against persons or businesses and claiming you are just "cross referencing" things.

Anyone who reads the linked technical discussion will show that I asked a very legitimate question and you proceeded to give non answers, troll, and otherwise insult anyone else related to that topic.

It is my opinion that you should be banned from these forums for such actions as they reflect poorly on not just your but the bitcoin community. I can't imagine how you respond to actual new users asking relevant questions just to be insulted. And then to go on an claim things about their residency or otherwise legitimacy without having done any research.

I'm sorry I offended you. Time will show like time had shown already. By the way, I used the phrase "cross-examination" not "cross-referencing".

Thank you for everyone's attention.

[shtylman]

Overdrafts are not a required feature of a bank, and current regulation demands that all banks send a letter to customers to make them opt-in or out of overdraft protection. (OT: I have opted out)

Mr.Shtylman claimed that many banks in the USA routinely grant overdraft without being asked or informed about customer's identity and location. That actually happens very often, not in the USA, but in the countries where majority of banking deposits is done with the electronic transfers.

I am not sure what that means. But I can tell you that I got 0 letters. I have checking accounts in Chase, HSBC, ING. And overdraft was always by default on all of my accounts, I had to call them up and remove that feature from all of my accounts.

It means he probly isn't as familiar with US banking as he would like us to believe

[2112]

I am not sure what that means. But I can tell you that I got 0 letters. I have checking accounts in Chase, HSBC, ING. And overdraft was always by default on all of my accounts, I had to call them up and remove that feature from all of my accounts.

That was because when opening the account you consented to the credit check and pledged allegiance to their right of offset. The bank account opening forms in the USA are very long and very confusing. They however are legally significantly different than e.g. forms required when opening stockbrokerage accounts.

[2112]

Constructive protection suggestion:

When depositing USD on Bitfloor (or any other US-based exchange) try using USPS postal money orders. They give you additional protection under mail fraud statues and the USPS postal inspectors enforcement will talk to you even if the sums involved are small. When sending postal money orders do not use FedEx/UPS or other courier services. Use plain old registered mail with return receipt requested.

It is a very low tech but very good protection for those that plan on trading only small sums.

[shtylman]

Constructive protection suggestion:

When depositing USD on Bitfloor (or any other US-based exchange) try using USPS postal money orders. They give you additional protection under mail fraud statues and the USPS postal inspectors enforcement will talk to you even if the sums involved are small. When sending postal money orders do not use FedEx/UPS or other courier services. Use plain old registered mail with return receipt requested.

It is a very low tech but very good protection for those that plan on trading only small sums.

Please do not provide misinformation about our supported deposit methods. We do NOT accept postal money orders. Please refrain from speaking on behalf of our exchange about our deposit options.

We encourage all our users to fully understand our deposit methods and give suggestions to others about how best to use our deposit methods, however we do not encourage the spread of false information about what our deposit methods are. Users are strongly encourage to verify with Bitfloor support and/or the Bitfloor website before assuming anything about how you can deposit funds into your account.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Blatant trolling is blatant.  Honestly OP is just a bunch of unsupported accusations. 

Shtylman made a single statement that "Banks allow negative balances" and the OP spun that into an entire conspiracy theory.

I am not sure what that means. But I can tell you that I got 0 letters. I have checking accounts in Chase, HSBC, ING. And overdraft was always by default on all of my accounts, I had to call them up and remove that feature from all of my accounts.

That was because when opening the account you consented to the credit check and pledged allegiance to their right of offset. The bank account opening forms in the USA are very long and very confusing. They however are legally significantly different than e.g. forms required when opening stockbrokerage accounts.

Which has nothing to do with nothing.   Your entire baseless accusation was based on upon a statement made about BANKS not BROKERAGES!

[blakdawg]

I read that thread, and it appears that you immediately attacked him for not understanding a certain rearely-used portion of the reference bitcoin client. Is there another issue on your end that we need to know about?

Firstly: it isn't called "attack". It is called "cross-exmination" and is one of the core percepts of adversarial system of justice in the USA. It is also commonly used while performing "due dilligence" in the USA.

Um, no. Cross-examination is not a search for the truth or new information, it is a process by which the examining attorney forces a hostile witness to admit various facts that are damaging to the witness' credibility or their adversary's case. One of the basic principles of cross-examination is to never ask a question where you don't know the answer in advance - ideally, the "questions" should be phrased so that the witness can only make a short answer, with the questioner doing most of the talking.

If that's what you want to do, it would probably be more productive if you'd just say what it is you're trying to communicate.

And, yes, it is an important part of the US court system, but this is a message board, not a court.

Can you provide some sort of reference to the use of cross-examination in due diligence? I have been through the startup funding/acquisition grinder a few times and have never even heard someone propose cross-examination as a due diligence technique. In fact, the very idea of it seems counterintuitive, since the goal of a cross-examination is to force the witness to admit facts that the examiner knows in advance but wants to place in front of the finder of fact.

I will certainly agree that part of the "due diligence" process can involve asking pointed or difficult questions, but that's not cross-examination.

[DeathAndTaxes]

This is good advice. The USPIS is very good and very patient.

How exactly is that good advice?  Bitfloor doesn't accept Money Orders so they will be returned.  It waste both the user and operator's time and money.

[2112]

Please do not provide misinformation about our supported deposit methods. We do NOT accept postal money orders. Please refrain from speaking on behalf of our exchange about our deposit options.

We encourage all our users to fully understand our deposit methods and give suggestions to others about how best to use our deposit methods, however we do not encourage the spread of false information about what our deposit methods are. Users are strongly encourage to verify with Bitfloor support and/or the Bitfloor website before assuming anything about how you can deposit funds into your account.

I just quote it for the future reference.

The red flag is "We do NOT accept postal money orders."

Anyone still willing to use BitFloor should spend some time reading the additional ACH/EFT disclosure that comes with their account. It is almost as long as the basic disclosure because you'll going to voluntarily relinquish some protections.

[rjk]

Please do not provide misinformation about our supported deposit methods. We do NOT accept postal money orders. Please refrain from speaking on behalf of our exchange about our deposit options.

We encourage all our users to fully understand our deposit methods and give suggestions to others about how best to use our deposit methods, however we do not encourage the spread of false information about what our deposit methods are. Users are strongly encourage to verify with Bitfloor support and/or the Bitfloor website before assuming anything about how you can deposit funds into your account.

I just quote it for the future reference.

The red flag is "We do NOT accept postal money orders."

Anyone still willing to use BitFloor should spend some time reading the additional ACH/EFT disclosure that comes with their account. It is almost as long as the basic disclosure because you'll going to voluntarily relinquish some protections.

Please point me to an exchange that does accept them. I know of none.

[2112]

Um, no. Cross-examination is not a search for the truth or new information, it is a process by which the examining attorney forces a hostile witness to admit various facts that are damaging to the witness' credibility or their adversary's case. One of the basic principles of cross-examination is to never ask a question where you don't know the answer in advance - ideally, the "questions" should be phrased so that the witness can only make a short answer, with the questioner doing most of the talking.

If that's what you want to do, it would probably be more productive if you'd just say what it is you're trying to communicate.

And, yes, it is an important part of the US court system, but this is a message board, not a court.

Can you provide some sort of reference to the use of cross-examination in due diligence? I have been through the startup funding/acquisition grinder a few times and have never even heard someone propose cross-examination as a due diligence technique. In fact, the very idea of it seems counterintuitive, since the goal of a cross-examination is to force the witness to admit facts that the examiner knows in advance but wants to place in front of the finder of fact.

I will certainly agree that part of the "due diligence" process can involve asking pointed or difficult questions, but that's not cross-examination.

Thank you ofr your comment. It is very interesting to read a perspective of an attorney. But as you've observed this isn't the court and we don't have to obey the the codes of procedure. I purposely didn't say "Federal", because the concept of "cross-examination" is way broader than just Anglo-Saxon legal systems. I'm not going to say that you are "over-lawyered", but perhaps allow yourself to look at the cross-examination from the inquisitorial angle, not adversarial.

In commercial due dilligence settings things are different. I've seen men coming to the meetings wearing hair-nets, counting on their fingers, intensely staring at the presenter's breasts, etc. Anything that works, because you don't do it for an audience, judge and jury; you do it for yourself. The idea is to discern whether the examinee is interested in running a business or is interested in ego gratification.

Anyway, as you have seen the mention of USPS money orders worked like sprinkling of holy water on a devil. The 19-th century mail fraud statues are still potent. And because of the USPS postal inspectors it is easier for the small timer to get the ball rolling: no need to hire an attorney or deal with a local law enforcement. People can go directly on the federal level, where prosecution rates are much higher.