Topic: Bitstamp is the next MtGox... (Read 2039 times)

It might be a bug.
(i.e. a tracking device.)

but you have to do AML/KYC procedures at the payment systems (OKPay, Perfectmoney)...

in the online gambling world several gaming providers do it very similar to BTC-E and don´t ask you for documents if you
deposit using one of these payment services (they rely on OkPay, Perfectmoney, Skrill, Neteller to comply
with money laundering guidelines).

Therefore I don´t think the BTC-E way of doing things is as weird as some of you seem to think.

Some of you are right by saying that when Bitcoin will approach it's true potential and will break record highs at above $1000 you should just move your bitcoin's off of any exchange and store them in cold storage or on your own wallet. However, until that day comes we can be sure that BTC-e will not pull anything since they have been around for quite some time and have seen high btc prices.

They won't bother you with AML/KYC if you use one of the payment systems (middlemen), afaik they'll only ask for it if you want to make direct wire transfers.

AML/KYC regulations are insanely draconian.

Try to interact with any kind of business in the financial sector that is even slightly "innovative", and soon you will run into exactly the same barriers. This problem is not isolated to Bitstamp or even just Bitcoin businesses.

Last year I tried to invest a paltry 300 GBP into a biotech startup via a crowdfunding initiative. My investment was blocked by the crowdfunding company because of "not passing AML/KYC checks"  Not delayed or hindered by identity checks, but outright prohibited.  The reason given was that I am suspicious because am a resident of The Netherlands and have the audacity to invest in the UK!   These are two highly developed EU countries; surely the ability to invest across them is something you would take for granted?  A that point, I felt more like I was living in Venezuela than the EU.

Similar experience with Transferwise. Tried to send a relatively small amount from UK to Eurozone. Again, my transaction was frozen with no advance warning and they refused  to release my money it unless I send them sensitive info like passport scans etc. Again they cited AML/KYC compliance.  Funnily enough, when transferring a much larger amount directly from UK bank to Eurozone bank (and paying a ripoff exchange rate) no questions were asked.  

Based on these experiences and others, I am actually surprised that Bitstamp isn't being more restrictive with its customers than they are being right now.

As for btc-e, I find it incredible that they have managed to get away without doing AML/KYC checks in this kind of regulatory climate.   The only way that I can explain it is that there is something shady going on there.  

Why the fuck are you using images to post?

I agree they have an excellent track record. Just be aware that when Bitcoin starts approaching it's true value potential, all bets will be off.

Do you have any solid proof for this? Every alternate day, I am seeing a new thread posted against BTC-E, at the behest of the other exchanges. I am not going to believe anything unless proof is presented.

Absolutely.

Well-said.

For me BTC-e is a trustworthy exchange. While they lack support, their platform is more secure than most of their competitors'. They are in business for quite a long time without a serious incident that wasn't resolved.

I clearly prefer an anonymous exchange from eastern Europe where bitcoin remains fully fungible over some northern american one, which invades my privacy to follow braindead KYC/AML-laws without even notifying me that they are such bootlickers before sending them money.

KYC/AML-laws are here to take away your freedom by establishing a general suspicion against innocent citizens. You should boycott every entity and isolate every single person that endorses them!

That was relatively easy as 4600 BTC was not much 2 years ago. But, if the go through the same now... the result may be different.

Well Mark was not anonymous, but he lost it and there is nothing much you could do against him. If you are so much concerned about the transparency and if you are too afraid to deal with russians then the best website for you should be localbitcoins.com

And I think that there is no need of creating a panic about bitstamp becoming the next Gox because each of the exchange is privately owned and each of them can do something like gox, but I think Gox was an exception as it was highly mismanaged. I think that the exchanges should now start giving out private keys of the address in which its users will store their bitcoins, it would lead to the increase in trust within the customers.

This is false; They were hacked in the early days (almost 2 years ago now?) and lost about 4600 BTC.

BTC-e covered this from their own profits, and no members lost any funds.

Does not it make things slow for them, given the kind of volume they need to handle ?

They never lost any BTC, and nor there were any successful hacks. BTC-E manually processes all the BTC withdrawals over BTC10 or so, and even the most renowned hackers have been unable to steal the coins from them.

@sumana & @byt411

Be Careful

TradeFortress is using images and you are quoting it. You never know what this images will contain one year down the line. Avoid quoting him.

+1! I'm far more worried about "regulated" exchanges than ones which uphold the anonymity philosophy behind Bitcoin.

Any centralized exchange should only be used for conversions, not as a place to hold your funds.

I suggest you don't listen to him, he's a scammer that sold his account to a big fat troll.

how much btc they lost with that hacking

I wouldn't. BTC-E has been around for almost two years now. As an exchange, they are much older than the Bitstamp or Kraken. So far, there hasn't been a single robbery or hack within the exchange. I wouldn't worry much about the transparency of BTC-E, as long as the customers are able to maintain their anonymity and the coins are secure.

I'm not sure what do u mean by transparent here ? But anonymity is not a problem for Bitcoin businesses. MK was very public and non-anonymous, though it did not stop the failure of Gox. Now, as Brock Pierce, the public character taking up the pieces, it'll fall again... of course after making millions for him.

In Bitcoin world, give more focus to trustless service over transparent ones and BTC-e is fine with that.

I would worry about btc-e more than bitstamp. Unlike bitstamp, btc-e is in Russia, ran by anonymous guys. They're lacking transparency.

Bitstamp is going to become the next MtGox, they are starting to crack down on KYC procedures and are going to start holding bitcoin funds aswell, not only FIAT. Now instead of MtGox telling you that your funds got "hacked" Bitstamp will be telling you that your funds got "frozen".

Read the full story http://www.btcfeed.net/news/bitstamp-is-the-next-mtgox-and-why-its-a-threat-to-bitcoin/