Topic: [ANN] Bittrex - Next generation exchange (btc/ltc/eac/ppc/rdd/ftc/and more) - page 115. (Read 168064 times)

We must give credit to Bittrex for crediting the exact BCC on time in everyone's account without making out any fraud of it.

Look at LocalBitcoins.com, they stole our BCC.

can you elaborate what happen? first, are you a verified user of bittrex or not? if not then you already gave us the idea why you are asking that question here.

did your coins suddenly disappeared? or you cant make any withdrawals? share with us the details please

Bitrrex where are my coins?

Is there really no official statement from bittrex what about legacy accounts/blocked accounts and this verifications stuff?

I also have a legacy account and I can't remember if I verified long time ago when I registered, I guess not.
But for now I can trade and withdraw as usual.

Should I withdraw everything until there was an official statement?

edit:
Looks like this is the answer?:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.20670233

just wanted to know if "remember me" is actually works ?
i'm checked it but still i keep logging out from the the sites if i closed it for a while

Maybe the intention is not really bad and maybe their action is not in bad faith. I think it is just the execution of that got got wrong. They wanted their customers to comply with the KYC and at least the basic one and they did it in the middle of problems with the other exchanges and while government is starting to look at crypto.

But it wont hurt if KYC is really just the issue because we can easily comply with it. It would hurt a lot if there is a really big issue that we don't know yet.

This is seriously scummy behavior, how can these bittrex people think this is okay...

And you can say ooh the verification progress just takes a few minutes blabla..
NO..we deposit 1 bitcoin we should be able to take our 1 bitcoin out whenever we want, not on some illegal terms you guys made up in the bittrex back office.

I think after polo dies, bittrex will be the next one to go down..I always liked the exchange, but if you enforce rules like this...

you will very likely get the account disabled message and be forced to verify so don't deposit your alts if that's an issue for you, the verification wasn't a problem for me because i don't hide my irl identity but it is a problem that they allow you to deposit coins and then tell you you can't withdraw without it, i get why they need to do it with old accounts getting jacked etc but it needs to be disclosed up front

Nice and thank you for sharing.  So it is just a problem of having your account verified.  Since I already did the basic verification then I can transact easily and without any problem at all.  My trading journey will now start at bittrex.

Again thank you for sharing this.

Ok, here's my experience.

I tried to test the water few days ago by withdrawing 0.004. I realized that prior to withdrawing, I got the limit stated by few people here, 0.025BTC, so I did the basic verification, got approved within minutes, and I saw that I have 3BTC limit. I withdrawn the amount without any problem, 0.003 (0.004 minus fee) landed rather quickly at my wallet.

Thinking that maybe there will be a different case if I send a bigger amount, I tried to WD 1BTC just now and it also landed safely.

So far everyone seems to be having problems when performing a trade or a withdrawal on an unverified legacy account.

If I was you, I'd verify before I needed the coins, so you can request withdrawals.

can anyone update me on the issue with legacy accounts, i have one and i have never verified it, will i encounter problems when i want to make a withdrawal?
i am asking this because i can't check, my funds are all tied up in altcoins right now.

Stop holding people's bitcoin hostage bittrex...looks really really bad on you guys.

If this was a term of service that was required for you to make said deposit, and they did not reasonably disclose it to you ( it was hidden within fine print somewhere), and they accepted the deposit, whilst you were led to believe your transaction would be without any problem, this, in fact, is known as fraudulent concealment.

99% of what these exchanges do is blatantly illegal. If i hide in a 10,000 word document some bad faith term that gives me rights to steal from you, would it hold up in court with the proper argument? Of course not.

They simply hide their bad faith dealings under Color Of Law.

If I enter a bank and the cashier asks me to identify myself before depositing into a third party's account, and I don't carry my ID with me, should the cashier keep the money I intended to deposit?

Re: Disallowance of the right of legacy users to withdraw funds

Actually, 'Ryan',

What Bittrex is engaged in here, legally, is known as fraudulent misrepresentation. In the law of contracts, Bitrex, the obligor, made an offer to the consumer, the obligee, by stating specific terms to induce said obligee into assenting; thereby exchanging valuable consideration and forming a binding agreement by the acceptance of said consumer deposit; Consequently, Bitrex has by construction entered into a binding obligation to the initial asseverated terms.

Now, with what may be construed as unreasonable notice, Bitrex has opted to alter the terms of the contract (a modification), which appears, prima facia, to create a 'new' agreement that gives the obligor, Bitrex, an unreasonable advantage (unconscionable) over a weaker party, and therefore gives the consumer full legal rights to accept or decline said new offer (in a unilateral modification, the other party may assent or rescind); in-point of fact, the obligee (consumer) has already performed his end of the initial bargain by the delivery of said consideration by depositing into an account at Bittrex.

Subsequently, only the obligor, Bittrex, is left to fulfill its initial obligation to the original terms, else the initial agreement is now fully avoidable (full rights to void any prior arrangement) by the consumer.


Ergo, by inference, either through fraud, misrepresentation, or otherwise ineptness, Bittrex has unreasonable modified its terms without giving the obligee his legal option to rescind the new offer of contract, and has therefore unjustly enriched itself at its customer detriment.

Legal Definition; Misrepresentation
"An assertion or manifestation by words or conduct that is not in accord with the facts.
Misrepresentation is a tort, or a civil wrong. This means that a misrepresentation can create civil liability if it results in a pecuniary loss.
To create liability for the maker of the statement, a misrepresentation must be relied on by the listener or reader. Also, the speaker must know that the listener is relying on the factual correctness of the statement. Finally, the listener's reliance on the statement must have been reasonable and justified, and the misrepresentation must have resulted in a pecuniary loss to the listener. A misrepresentation need not be intentionally false to create liability. A statement made with conscious ignorance or a reckless disregard for the truth can create liability. Nondisclosure of material or important facts by a fiduciary or an expert, such as a doctor, lawyer, or accountant, can result in liability."


The point being, a unilateral modification in effect creates a new offer, therefore giving the obligee the right to accept or refuse said new offer, with a reasonable opportunity to extricate himself, in full or otherwise, from the antecedent one; wherein, the effect in this case, by deprivation of property (intangibles), may in fact create for Bittrex the additional tort of Larceny by extortion, or deprivation of rights/property; Whereby one party intends to deprive another party of his belongings; which is not only a civil, but a criminal tort.


BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!


Here is yet an additional legal term to forward to your seemingly incompetent team of Lawyers: Larceny; defined. 1. A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property from an owner thereof.


Conclusively, should Bitrex have intentionally misrepresented a material fact to induce a consumer into engaging (depositing funds) in a commercial transaction on the subsequent understanding of rights to said deposits, without full disclosure to potentially subsequent mala fide or otherwise unconscionable term (the present modification), what we have left here may simply be a case of Fraud in the Inducement, which, a priori, creates a Void contract; giving the consumer full rights to rescind and withdraw his funds, immediately.


Subsequently, if the consumer has relied on the initial terms of service to his detriment...wherein Bittrex has now unjustly enriched itself, well, it seems Bitrex may be in a bit of a pickle, wouldn't you agree?


So...'Ryan', what's it gonna be? Allow the people their legal right to rescind and withdraw their money, or open yourselves to a cause of action for potential torts; e.g. compensatory...or possibly punative damages....


Ask yourself in these situations, what would Jesus do?

If the problem is just that legacy users must verify, why not state it clearly with a warning on their site? To get them to deposit first?

I'm really happy with Bittrex as for now. Moved from polo who's support seems to be going down really bad.

I've had my problem solved meanwhile, and as I said in another thread, I think Bittrex's problem is their FAQ regarding account verification. They should state there that even Legacy accounts must verify themselves and state more clearly that if you only need Basic Verification you should do BOTH verification steps.

They should also update their FAQ regarding the "ACCOUNT_DISABLED" error, as their link on the withdrawal page when this error occurs doesn't even list said error.


I did indeed log from a different IP. I always wondered if that was part of the issue.


Any particular reason for this? I indeed have a legacy account.


I now see why I couldn't seem to join... Wrong link.


How would one be able to apply?


Hummm, so maybe meanwhile they disabled deposits on locked accounts. If so, good call.

Have you tried to withdraw as well and if you are a verified account holder? Can you confirm please?

Thanks