I can't get into my bitcoin-central account anymore, haven't been able to withdraw my funds yet.
Topic: Bitcoin-Central, first exchange licensed to operate with a bank. This is HUGE - page 8. (Read 191876 times)
June 03, 2013, 08:59:09 PM
June 03, 2013, 01:56:10 PM
davout, is it possible to get a list of trades with the following info for my bitcoin-central account:
and a list of deposits and withdrawals?
- trade_id (optional but makes sense for updates and such)
- timestamp (or at least date)
- currency pair
- price
- amount
- buy/sell
and a list of deposits and withdrawals?
Yes, email me.
I received this information from davout about a week ago.
Thanks, man, and good luck with your plans. I'll likely be sticking with you guys.
June 03, 2013, 08:28:02 AM
What is this thread about? Would you mind trolling somewhere else? OP would you mind removing some noise? I come here to get updates on the project, not to read personal insults between others.
indeed, at least it bumps the thread with the hope of once actually having a pertinent update.Oh look, Bitdragon.
June 02, 2013, 01:15:52 PM
What is this thread about? Would you mind trolling somewhere else? OP would you mind removing some noise? I come here to get updates on the project, not to read personal insults between others.
indeed, at least it bumps the thread with the hope of once actually having a pertinent update. 
June 02, 2013, 09:48:52 AM
What is this thread about? Would you mind trolling somewhere else? OP would you mind removing some noise? I come here to get updates on the project, not to read personal insults between others.
June 02, 2013, 03:23:01 AM
it's probably safe to fear you do NOT mean to leave the forums.
Unlike you, I'm actually paid to hang out with all the idiots.
you've been looking into the abyss, it starts to show.
June 01, 2013, 05:52:43 PM
it's probably safe to fear you do NOT mean to leave the forums.
Unlike you, I'm actually paid to hang out with all the idiots.
June 01, 2013, 03:48:21 PM
a) it's an "I look at the sheer volume traded on the exchanges" since, say, beginning of this year. since OTC-volume is recorded exactly nowhere, it's safe to assume (imho) that it's lower. you prove me wrong. o shit, that's not what you do, you just spout insults and light straw men for arguments.
In this case I just nod and move on.
it's probably safe to fear you do NOT mean to leave the forums.
June 01, 2013, 03:45:28 PM
a) it's an "I look at the sheer volume traded on the exchanges" since, say, beginning of this year. since OTC-volume is recorded exactly nowhere, it's safe to assume (imho) that it's lower. you prove me wrong. o shit, that's not what you do, you just spout insults and light straw men for arguments.
In this case I just nod and move on.
June 01, 2013, 02:14:56 PM
a) highly doubt that TBH, at least for the last 18 months.
But is this based on anything at all or nothing whatsoever? Is it more of a "I don't believe black swans exist in Australia, in spite of me never having been there, on the grounds that all the swans I ever saw here in England were white and none even slightly gray", or is it more of a "I heard reports of black swans, but I've investigated the various places and could find none"?
b) it doesn't matter at all what I believe. it just matters how it is handled and regulated. handling and regulating it as a commodity/property would be one of the more stupid options.
You are basically arguing that "handling" whatever that means and regulation are going to follow the smart path or avoid the stupid options? Through what thought process exactly do you come to this conclusion? It's not supported historically, or by any sort of mechanism I can think of.
Other than that, regulation is irrelevant in this discussion. We are talking about what Bitcoins are. If for instance some government comes forth with regulation requiring water to be viewed as an alcohol this won't at all change the fact that water is an oxide. It will maintain the properties of oxides (such as inflammability) and not acquire the properties of alcohols.
More narrowly, in the discussion of title, which is a term of art, nobody has any title to any Bitcoin. The working of titles does not change with regulation.
a) it's an "I look at the sheer volume traded on the exchanges" since, say, beginning of this year. since OTC-volume is recorded exactly nowhere, it's safe to assume (imho) that it's lower. you prove me wrong. o shit, that's not what you do, you just spout insults and light straw men for arguments.
b) again, please read carefully. stop lighting straw men. it doesnt matter at all what bitcoin IS and what it is not, since obviously perceptions of this change according to the use bitcoin is put forward to. what does matter, however, is how bitcoin is handled and it does of course matter very much how it is regulated. regulation relies on a very narrow set of views upon one certain matter. this very narrow set of views turns into one very narrow set of laws. of the many things bitcoin could thus be oversimplified into being, "digital property" is the one that makes the least sense for the furthering of the acceptance of bitcoin, consequently its success.
regulation will not follow the smart path (backing the fuck off). but that doesn't mean that we in this forum should further these fucktarded views by encouraging a decrepit attempt to define it.
June 01, 2013, 12:30:26 PM
They can't confiscate funds in the customer's private wallet.
This is exactly what I'm saying. If you offer your customers services that help them transact from one private wallet to another without being capable of confiscating their funds if you're ordered to, then you don't comply with current regulation. You'll be tagged money launderer.Show me the regulation or go away in shame.
June 01, 2013, 12:24:23 PM
Technically bitcoins are created by miners and never move from the place in the blockchain where they were placed, or precisely the block where they showed up originally. People only move around digitally signed ownership contracts over bitcoins, not the physical possession over a tangible object.
This is a wrong assumption, paraipan. Bitcoin blockchain is one giant digital storage. You are right, bitcoins never leave this digital storage, but they do move inside it from one shelf to another. The shelves of this storage are the existing (already present on the blockchain) and also the newly created public keys. This process actually represents moving digital objects in a digital coordinate system. This movement takes time to be completed and verified between 10 minutes and 1 hour.In contrast, transfer of ownership is instantaneous. It takes couple of seconds just to sign a contract. For example, the so called off-chain bitcoin transactions will be what you describe and they shall be instantaneous.
June 01, 2013, 11:25:57 AM
MPOE-PR you are free to take whatever direction suits your interests best, and trolling in this thread will do not help you pass your extensive knowledge over the issue to the masses either.
Technically bitcoins are created by miners and never move from the place in the blockchain where they were placed, or precisely the block where they showed up originally. People only move around digitally signed ownership contracts over bitcoins, not the physical possession over a tangible object. Think bigger, don't be dense. You are entitled to use your bitcoins if you can properly sign the property transfer with your private keys. Bitcoins don't suddenly cease to exists if you are incapable to prove ownership of them.
I could go on for a while but I count on your higher than average intellect to grasp this concept right away.
Technically bitcoins are created by miners and never move from the place in the blockchain where they were placed, or precisely the block where they showed up originally. People only move around digitally signed ownership contracts over bitcoins, not the physical possession over a tangible object. Think bigger, don't be dense. You are entitled to use your bitcoins if you can properly sign the property transfer with your private keys. Bitcoins don't suddenly cease to exists if you are incapable to prove ownership of them.
I could go on for a while but I count on your higher than average intellect to grasp this concept right away.
You've got nothing.
June 01, 2013, 09:51:33 AM
MPOE-PR you are free to take whatever direction suits your interests best, and trolling in this thread will do not help you pass your extensive knowledge over the issue to the masses either.
Technically bitcoins are created by miners and never move from the place in the blockchain where they were placed, or precisely the block where they showed up originally. People only move around digitally signed ownership contracts over bitcoins, not the physical possession over a tangible object. Think bigger, don't be dense. You are entitled to use your bitcoins if you can properly sign the property transfer with your private keys. Bitcoins don't suddenly cease to exists if you are incapable to prove ownership of them.
I could go on for a while but I count on your higher than average intellect to grasp this concept right away.
Technically bitcoins are created by miners and never move from the place in the blockchain where they were placed, or precisely the block where they showed up originally. People only move around digitally signed ownership contracts over bitcoins, not the physical possession over a tangible object. Think bigger, don't be dense. You are entitled to use your bitcoins if you can properly sign the property transfer with your private keys. Bitcoins don't suddenly cease to exists if you are incapable to prove ownership of them.
I could go on for a while but I count on your higher than average intellect to grasp this concept right away.
June 01, 2013, 08:44:29 AM
a) highly doubt that TBH, at least for the last 18 months.
But is this based on anything at all or nothing whatsoever? Is it more of a "I don't believe black swans exist in Australia, in spite of me never having been there, on the grounds that all the swans I ever saw here in England were white and none even slightly gray", or is it more of a "I heard reports of black swans, but I've investigated the various places and could find none"?
b) it doesn't matter at all what I believe. it just matters how it is handled and regulated. handling and regulating it as a commodity/property would be one of the more stupid options.
You are basically arguing that "handling" whatever that means and regulation are going to follow the smart path or avoid the stupid options? Through what thought process exactly do you come to this conclusion? It's not supported historically, or by any sort of mechanism I can think of.
Other than that, regulation is irrelevant in this discussion. We are talking about what Bitcoins are. If for instance some government comes forth with regulation requiring water to be viewed as an alcohol this won't at all change the fact that water is an oxide. It will maintain the properties of oxides (such as inflammability) and not acquire the properties of alcohols.
More narrowly, in the discussion of title, which is a term of art, nobody has any title to any Bitcoin. The working of titles does not change with regulation.
June 01, 2013, 05:42:37 AM
irrelevant since the SEC can control many/most (the biggest and most important) veins INTO and OUTOF the BTC.
This is the naive PoV specific to those captive on the web. Most BTC/fiat trade happened OTC, at all points historically. Since MtGox' recent collapse the OTC preeminence has accentuated significantly.
i do not for a minute subscribe to this "digital property" bull.
Why do you think that matters at all? It is what it is, not what you subscribe to it being.
a) highly doubt that TBH, at least for the last 18 months.
b) it doesn't matter at all what I believe. it just matters how it is handled and regulated. handling and regulating it as a commodity/property would be one of the more stupid options.
June 01, 2013, 04:58:05 AM
irrelevant since the SEC can control many/most (the biggest and most important) veins INTO and OUTOF the BTC.
This is the naive PoV specific to those captive on the web. Most BTC/fiat trade happened OTC, at all points historically. Since MtGox' recent collapse the OTC preeminence has accentuated significantly.
i do not for a minute subscribe to this "digital property" bull.
Why do you think that matters at all? It is what it is, not what you subscribe to it being.
May 31, 2013, 09:32:39 AM
They can't confiscate funds in the customer's private wallet.
This is exactly what I'm saying. If you offer your customers services that help them transact from one private wallet to another without being capable of confiscating their funds if you're ordered to, then you don't comply with current regulation. You'll be tagged money launderer. May 31, 2013, 04:09:44 AM
You're assuming someone is trying to run a bitcoin bank versus an exchange.
Bank or exchange it doesn't matter. Under the current regulatory framework they are parts of one chain and operate in the same fashion. If you are not able to confiscate the funds on a customer account you are not compliant. Period. May 30, 2013, 03:31:35 PM
You can look at it like the difference from real estate, house or land deeds, and chattels which are your possession too but can be moved with ease.
In all the countries I've lived so far transactions in real estate, house or land deeds, and chattels are NOT tax exempt! You have to pay both federal and local taxes. So, back to square 1.Sit back and relax, you have the answer in your post. NOT tax exempt, but you don't pay VAT
Pure nonsense. Nobody has any title to any Bitcoin.
Quote
Because of these reasons it can not be said that anyone holds any title in either law or equity to any Bitcoin. Since there is no first owner of the Bitcoin that could then pass title as part of a contract, all purported Bitcoin "purchases" are contracts for no consideration and as such legally without merit.
The reasons why Bitcoin securities can't be regulated by the SEC.
irrelevant since the SEC can control many/most (the biggest and most important) veins INTO and OUTOF the BTC.
Jump to: