http://news.guide-bulgaria.com/News.aspx?9269=10%_tax_on_all_bank_transactions_to_offshore_zones
Regardless of whether it's their "fault", from our perspective it's still a fee they charge that another exchange won't.
Topic: Bitcoin7 a new exchange - page 2. (Read 20834 times)
EU Bank Transfer FIBank (EU) EUR bank transfer to EU bank 12-22 EUR
Which is insane for an EU2EU transfer and means that I am not trading there.
Or did I miss something?
Which is insane for an EU2EU transfer and means that I am not trading there.
Or did I miss something?
Indeed, that seems really overpriced.
And that's why I contacted them, together with some other question.
Here's their explanation to the high EU bank transfer fee:
Quote
"The fees are so big because there is a 10 EUR SWIFT tax. Other than that the taxes are - to 500 EUR - 2 EUR tax, from 500 up - 0.12% from the sum (minimum 12 EUR)"
Can anybody confirm that there's such a tax in Bulgaria ?
If it's the case, then it's not Bitcoin7's fault. Then they should consider cooperating with a different bank ... EU <-> EU bank transfers in € are mostly free (if the provided IBAN & BIC/SWIFT codes of the destination account are correct).
As far as I can tell, the EU cashouts are free of charge, and this makes B7 more interesting than the other exchanges, where a cashout to SEPA zone is insanely pricey.
Where do you see that?This page: https://bitcoin7.com/index.php?show=withdraw_funds
states: EU Bank Transfer FIBank (EU) EUR bank transfer to EU bank 12-22 EUR
Which is insane for an EU2EU transfer and means that I am not trading there.
Or did I miss something?
made a transaction on this site yesterday, deposited 25 eur with direct bank transfer & it showed up instant, 3% fee is a bit high but acceptable.
Very pleased with this exchanger so far.
Very pleased with this exchanger so far.
As far as I can tell, the EU cashouts are free of charge, and this makes B7 more interesting than the other exchanges, where a cashout to SEPA zone is insanely pricey.
As we couldn't identify on time if the payment was correct or not we had to reverse these transactions in order to defend the seller of the BTC.
Hang on, I'm not sure that I understand this correctly. You credited an account with a certain amount of $ based on a report from one of your payment processors. You then cleared the $ for a purchase order of BTC on your exchange, and this order was filled. You then reversed this transaction because you realised that the payment processor hadn't actually cleared the funds.
My problem with this is that it's your responsibility to ensure that funds you allow onto the exchange are cleared, not the end user's. If you let the funds on to the exchange then you're responsible for them. You should not have reversed the transactions. You should have covered the $ yourselves if the deposit turned out to be fraudulent. I would see this responsibility as one of the core features of an exchange, otherwise it's just a glorified bulletin board.
Am I wrong here?
+1
+1
As we couldn't identify on time if the payment was correct or not we had to reverse these transactions in order to defend the seller of the BTC.
Hang on, I'm not sure that I understand this correctly. You credited an account with a certain amount of $ based on a report from one of your payment processors. You then cleared the $ for a purchase order of BTC on your exchange, and this order was filled. You then reversed this transaction because you realised that the payment processor hadn't actually cleared the funds.
My problem with this is that it's your responsibility to ensure that funds you allow onto the exchange are cleared, not the end user's. If you let the funds on to the exchange then you're responsible for them. You should not have reversed the transactions. You should have covered the $ yourselves if the deposit turned out to be fraudulent. I would see this responsibility as one of the core features of an exchange, otherwise it's just a glorified bulletin board.
Am I wrong here?
+1
As we couldn't identify on time if the payment was correct or not we had to reverse these transactions in order to defend the seller of the BTC.
Hang on, I'm not sure that I understand this correctly. You credited an account with a certain amount of $ based on a report from one of your payment processors. You then cleared the $ for a purchase order of BTC on your exchange, and this order was filled. You then reversed this transaction because you realised that the payment processor hadn't actually cleared the funds.
My problem with this is that it's your responsibility to ensure that funds you allow onto the exchange are cleared, not the end user's. If you let the funds on to the exchange then you're responsible for them. You should not have reversed the transactions. You should have covered the $ yourselves if the deposit turned out to be fraudulent. I would see this responsibility as one of the core features of an exchange, otherwise it's just a glorified bulletin board.
Am I wrong here?
I've just signed up... nice interface, and sensible transaction prices
Pot calling the kettle black ?
What exactly are you classing as "computer science" ?
I see nothing that is true computer science. Information technology, yes, but not computer science.
You sir are right, it is not computer science, just information technology.What exactly are you classing as "computer science" ?
I see nothing that is true computer science. Information technology, yes, but not computer science.
I hope, sir, you've understood my message in spite of my inadequate vocabulary.
I don't even get a clue how much it will cost to get my money back:
EURO wire transfer: 12-22 EUR (!)
Not only it is an excessive amount, but giving only a range of price seems very odd to me.
I also dislike their incompetence in computer science (as if what happened to Mt Gox wasn't enough!).
Even if it's a major problem, their lack of expertise in computer science is not blamable. They can always hire a good IT team if they want to. But what I really hate here, is their way to communicate with people and to deal with different issues. An apparent lack of transparency and authenticity. Instead of recognizing their incompetence and get their shit together, they just pretend to be smarter than they actually are. I would never trust someone who behaves this way.
EURO wire transfer: 12-22 EUR (!)
Not only it is an excessive amount, but giving only a range of price seems very odd to me.
I also dislike their incompetence in computer science (as if what happened to Mt Gox wasn't enough!).
Even if it's a major problem, their lack of expertise in computer science is not blamable. They can always hire a good IT team if they want to. But what I really hate here, is their way to communicate with people and to deal with different issues. An apparent lack of transparency and authenticity. Instead of recognizing their incompetence and get their shit together, they just pretend to be smarter than they actually are. I would never trust someone who behaves this way.
Pot calling the kettle black ?
What exactly are you classing as "computer science" ?
I see nothing that is true computer science. Information technology, yes, but not computer science.
I don't even get a clue how much it will cost to get my money back:
EURO wire transfer: 12-22 EUR (!)
Not only it is an excessive amount, but giving only a range of price seems very odd to me.
I also dislike their incompetence in computer science (as if what happened to Mt Gox wasn't enough!).
Even if it's a major problem, their lack of expertise in computer science is not blamable. They can always hire a good IT team if they want to. But what I really hate here, is their way to communicate with people and to deal with different issues. An apparent lack of transparency and authenticity. Instead of recognizing their incompetence and get their shit together, they just pretend to be smarter than they actually are. I would never trust someone who behaves this way.
EURO wire transfer: 12-22 EUR (!)
Not only it is an excessive amount, but giving only a range of price seems very odd to me.
I also dislike their incompetence in computer science (as if what happened to Mt Gox wasn't enough!).
Even if it's a major problem, their lack of expertise in computer science is not blamable. They can always hire a good IT team if they want to. But what I really hate here, is their way to communicate with people and to deal with different issues. An apparent lack of transparency and authenticity. Instead of recognizing their incompetence and get their shit together, they just pretend to be smarter than they actually are. I would never trust someone who behaves this way.
Bitcoin7 has been perfect.
My first transaction was of 1.8btc to test.
The second was 6.7btc. Both were sold at <$15 and <15 minutes.
Great stuff, I will be using this site again.
My first transaction was of 1.8btc to test.
The second was 6.7btc. Both were sold at <$15 and <15 minutes.
Great stuff, I will be using this site again.
At the moment, Bitcoin7 is really working for me. They're clearly the fastest of all the exchanges when it comes to transfers. If they have security loopholes, I haven't been affected by them.
I also transferred money into the account, purchased some coins, and got the promotional bonus credited to my account. No issues here.
successfully transfered a few euros via SEPA. Bought a few coins. The guys seem totally legit to me.
Bought a few coins - no problems. Instant Dwolla transfer too.
Well, in defense for Bitcoin 7, in the original mail to me they did apologize:
However, I have to admit that "The problem is that we can catch the illegal users as soon as they use the fake fund they added" sounds a bit odd to me. I would expect the other way around. Cath them before they use the fake fund.
But I assume/hope that's what they wanted to say. I don't want to be they guy who finds all the hackers :-p
Quote
First of all I would like to apologize to you for this inconvenience. The problem is, that the buyer of your BTCs did not add EUROS properly to his account, so he was not able to pay for your BTCs. That is why we reversed the deal.
I'm really sorry for the inconvenience that this may have cost you, but there are many people who try to hack the systems of the BTC-exchange website. The problem is that we can catch the illegal users as soon as they use the fake fund they added. Our Dev team is hard at work trying to fix this problem.
I hope that this occurrence will not stop you from using our website and once again - we apologize!
I'm really sorry for the inconvenience that this may have cost you, but there are many people who try to hack the systems of the BTC-exchange website. The problem is that we can catch the illegal users as soon as they use the fake fund they added. Our Dev team is hard at work trying to fix this problem.
I hope that this occurrence will not stop you from using our website and once again - we apologize!
However, I have to admit that "The problem is that we can catch the illegal users as soon as they use the fake fund they added" sounds a bit odd to me. I would expect the other way around. Cath them before they use the fake fund.
But I assume/hope that's what they wanted to say. I don't want to be they guy who finds all the hackers :-p
Well, in defense for Bitcoin 7, in the original mail to me they did apologize:
However, I have to admit that "The problem is that we can catch the illegal users as soon as they use the fake fund they added" sounds a bit odd to me. I would expect the other way around. Cath them before they use the fake fund.
But I assume/hope that's what they wanted to say. I don't want to be they guy who finds all the hackers :-p
Quote
First of all I would like to apologize to you for this inconvenience. The problem is, that the buyer of your BTCs did not add EUROS properly to his account, so he was not able to pay for your BTCs. That is why we reversed the deal.
I'm really sorry for the inconvenience that this may have cost you, but there are many people who try to hack the systems of the BTC-exchange website. The problem is that we can catch the illegal users as soon as they use the fake fund they added. Our Dev team is hard at work trying to fix this problem.
I hope that this occurrence will not stop you from using our website and once again - we apologize!
I'm really sorry for the inconvenience that this may have cost you, but there are many people who try to hack the systems of the BTC-exchange website. The problem is that we can catch the illegal users as soon as they use the fake fund they added. Our Dev team is hard at work trying to fix this problem.
I hope that this occurrence will not stop you from using our website and once again - we apologize!
However, I have to admit that "The problem is that we can catch the illegal users as soon as they use the fake fund they added" sounds a bit odd to me. I would expect the other way around. Cath them before they use the fake fund.
But I assume/hope that's what they wanted to say. I don't want to be they guy who finds all the hackers :-p
The system is automatic and upon receiving on funds they appear in the recipient's account.
However, as I said, we missed a payment method which appeared as instant to our system, but was marked as pending in the payment provider's system. This also triggered the manual check and led to the taken actions.
Maybe you should add payment methods progressively and take enough time to thoroughly test them instead of rolling trades back after the fact. Just saying.However, as I said, we missed a payment method which appeared as instant to our system, but was marked as pending in the payment provider's system. This also triggered the manual check and led to the taken actions.
I'll give you a little piece of advice, I don't mean to lecture to you or stuff but your official statement missed two things : "We apologize" and "it's fixed now". Here's how I would have communicated about that : "We made a little a mistake while implementing this payment gateway, we didn't properly check that the payment was final before crediting the user account. This is now fixed. We apologize to our users for the inconvenience and will do our best to not make the same mistake again. We didn't have a choice but to rollback the trades that came after this bug because
Your communication so far makes it look like you threw something together pretty fast in order to get your share of the bitcoin exchange market without taking enough time to thoroughly test the software. Being generally dismissive (towards users, and security flaws reporters) doesn't really help either.
My point basically boils down to : change the way you communicate and you will reap lots of benefits in term of positive user feedback and general perception.
Jump to: