Even AT&T doesn't try to retroactively apply terms. If there was an amount owed prior to term changes the amount doesn't magically disappear. What happens is that as of the changed term date you apply the new terms.
The sly business way to reduce the impact of this is to insert an arbitration clause and specifically prohibit class actions (thanks US Supreme Court 5-4 vote /sarcasm).
Topic: CoinURL disallowing withdrawals (split from Beware of scammers!) (Read 5430 times)
What is your proof that I owe them anything under those terms?
The fact that the implied terms are that you do owe them, and the explicit terms never said that you didn't owe them. Quote
7. Site Terms of Use Modifications
BitcoinAdvertisers.com may revise these terms of use for its web site at any time without notice. By using this web site you are agreeing to be bound by the then current version of these Terms and Conditions of Use.
BitcoinAdvertisers.com may revise these terms of use for its web site at any time without notice. By using this web site you are agreeing to be bound by the then current version of these Terms and Conditions of Use.
And guess what? We don't track deposits by bitcoind accounts and automatic pay outs can be suspended at any time even under the terms for 2 weeks ago when the original complaint was raised. Is there anything else I can do to satisfy the Inquisition?
Quote
7. Site Terms of Use Modifications
BitcoinAdvertisers.com may revise these terms of use for its web site at any time without notice. By using this web site you are agreeing to be bound by the then current version of these Terms and Conditions of Use.
BitcoinAdvertisers.com may revise these terms of use for its web site at any time without notice. By using this web site you are agreeing to be bound by the then current version of these Terms and Conditions of Use.
And guess what? That means they are still covered under the old Terms. Pay them, or enjoy your scammer tag once I'm given control of this investigation.
Personally, I think this situation is entirely different then bulanuva's situation. Giantdrragon is reasonable in this situation as 1) it is stated in the TOS and 2) he is not withholding your 1.3~ btc with the intention to not return it. He merely wants to comply entirely with the laws of his country, and I agree that refunding you directly would result in much more people taking advantage of this example.
Just my 2 cents.
Just my 2 cents.
This sure sounds familiar!
Then you have not even read it. There is really nothing else to do it, either quote the TOS here with evidence you can get to the correct page or stop trolling.
Personally, I think this situation is entirely different then bulanuva's situation. Giantdrragon is reasonable in this situation as 1) it is stated in the TOS and 2) he is not withholding your 1.3~ btc with the intention to not return it. He merely wants to comply entirely with the laws of his country, and I agree that refunding you directly would result in much more people taking advantage of this example.
Just my 2 cents.
Just my 2 cents.
This sure sounds familiar!
Then you have not even read it. There is really nothing else to do it, either quote the TOS here with evidence you can get to the correct page or stop trolling.
Not very wise to accuse a mod of trolling
Personally, I think this situation is entirely different then bulanuva's situation. Giantdrragon is reasonable in this situation as 1) it is stated in the TOS and 2) he is not withholding your 1.3~ btc with the intention to not return it. He merely wants to comply entirely with the laws of his country, and I agree that refunding you directly would result in much more people taking advantage of this example.
Just my 2 cents.
Just my 2 cents.
This sure sounds familiar!
Personally, I think this situation is entirely different then bulanuva's situation. Giantdrragon is reasonable in this situation as 1) it is stated in the TOS and 2) he is not withholding your 1.3~ btc with the intention to not return it. He merely wants to comply entirely with the laws of his country, and I agree that refunding you directly would result in much more people taking advantage of this example.
Just my 2 cents.
Just my 2 cents.
Did you get your refund ?
Forget about the scammer tag just never use his services again !
Simples !
I don't understand, why some people want to add a scamer tag to the CoinURL!?Forget about the scammer tag just never use his services again !
Simples !
I have not ever missed a payment. Also I do NOT refuse advertisers for refunds, just intend to comply with AML rules of my country.
Do you think it would be better that all customers' funds lost in case of server equipment forfeiture, because someone have used my service to launder Bitcoins from Silk Road? The stability of service uptime and guarantee for publishers about payments for their links has the highest priority for me!
P.S. Is it really so difficult to send exact number of Bitcoins that you want to spend for advertising?
Did you get your refund ?
Forget about the scammer tag just never use his services again !
Simples !
Forget about the scammer tag just never use his services again !
Simples !
My goal right now is just to bring attention to its absurdity. Since I'm forced to spend the rest of my balance on advertising
You are not forced to do so! Provide necessary documents as required by law and your withdrawal will be completed.Applying AML rules to a purely BC transaction is terrible, imo.
I am planning to expand CoinURL out of Bitcoin and start working with real payment processors, who don't tolerate any loopholes that may be used for laundering. Therefore I want to create an image of my service as purely legal and minimize risks for customers about funds freeze.Look at StrikeSapphire. They are Bitcoin casino, but strictly obey U.S. gambling laws that prohibit domestic players.
P.S. If you want to start a business some bigger than another pyramid or VPN anonymizer for Bitcoin your definitely must obey legislation of your country, IMHO!
Applying AML rules to a purely BC transaction is terrible, imo.
I don't think this has very much to do with actual regulation, but more about giving the owner a seemingly legitimate reason to decline withdrawals.My goal right now is just to bring attention to its absurdity. Since I'm forced to spend the rest of my balance on advertising, I'm probably just going to point it to this thread. That'll be fun. (I have a strange feeling that it'll get rejected.)
Not sure why there isn't more community pushback on trying to apply AML rules to Bitcoin. One of the main reasons behind Bitcoin is to be an unrestricted digital exchange method, correct? It's understandable for exchanges that directly convert BC to currency, since they take on that obligation by dealing with currency. But currency exchanges should only be a small part of the BC system as it grows if it is to achieve it's initial goals.
Applying AML rules to a purely BC transaction is terrible, imo.
Note: Bulanula's mistake was not sticking to the "no refunds" line in a repetitive manner. IMO, if he stuck to that without getting goaded into making diatribes then he would have been in the same situation as CoinURL (Not technically a scammer, just someone to not do business with).
Applying AML rules to a purely BC transaction is terrible, imo.
Note: Bulanula's mistake was not sticking to the "no refunds" line in a repetitive manner. IMO, if he stuck to that without getting goaded into making diatribes then he would have been in the same situation as CoinURL (Not technically a scammer, just someone to not do business with).
Just to be clear, because I find this quite interesting, you're arguing that CoinURL is a financial institution?
I think anybody knows that legal status of almost all Bitcoin services is not yet defined...But serious start-ups, who want to expand their business above Bitcoin and start accepting real currency will always obey laws of country where they reside.
P.S. I want to offer the highest quality of service for CoinURL customers and I intend to minimize the probability of legal action to zero. Situation where authorities can seize equipment and forfeit all funds with suspection to laundering, that will result in loss of ALL clients' funds is absolutely unacceptable for me!
My opinion is that giantdragon's no-refund policy is perfectly reasonable, and he doesn't deserve a scammer tag. This is different than bulanula's case because:
- mcorlett can't prove that he sent the BTC by accident.
- This trade wasn't done on the forum, so it feels "out of my jurisdiction".
- giantdragon had a stated no-refund policy.
- giantdragon is not saying ridiculous scammy things like bulanula is.
- There was never a contract for a specific amount.- mcorlett can't prove that he sent the BTC by accident.
- This trade wasn't done on the forum, so it feels "out of my jurisdiction".
- giantdragon had a stated no-refund policy.
- giantdragon is not saying ridiculous scammy things like bulanula is.
- There is no good-faith evidence that mcorlett sent more than was intended.
I disagree with the whole "out of our jurisdiction" bit, since anyone who has an account here is most certainly "under our jurisdiction". That being said, because of the above, I agree with theymos about not applying the scammer tag.
Edit: You keep editing your posts, it's difficult to keep up.
I found exactly that you have asked, therefore updated my post.
Edit: You keep editing your posts, it's difficult to keep up.
Just to be clear, because I find this quite interesting, you're arguing that CoinURL is a financial institution?
Just to be clear, because I find this quite interesting, you're arguing that CoinURL is a financial institution?
Still waiting for an answer to that first question... If you're not on that list, you're not subject to the law.
I think that I have already clearly answered.Approximate translation:
Quote
Article 1-(7):
Financial institutions in scope of this law:
...
h) electronic money organizations
Financial institutions in scope of this law:
...
h) electronic money organizations
Still waiting for an answer to that first question... If you're not on that list, you're not subject to the law.
You're not an exchange, and Bitcoin is not a formally recognized currency in Latvia. It's nothing more than a cryptographically signed message.
Webmoney also is not recognized currency, but can be classified as financial instrument, as well as Bitcoin, therefore businesses accepting them must obey AML legislation.P.S. Soon I am planning to enable other payment methods along with Bitcoin. My reputation as law-abiding business is very important in this situation! As you know, payment processors does not tolerate even attempts of laundering and froze accounts with all funds after any suspicions.
15k EUR minimum threshold is for transactions with physical property (real estate, gold, antiques etc).
Financial instruments (paragraph 4-(b)) does not have it.
For example, there is no official way to anonymously withdraw Webmoney in Latvia. Of course, we have some "gray" traders who will help, but they take all risks on self and charge extra commissions.
You can see rules of major Webmoney exchanger in Riga, wmz.lv (available in Latvian and Russian), they can refuse withdrawals until you provide docs.
IMHO, You can think Bitcoin is out of regulation, but serious people who want to expand their business and start accepting real currencies and credit cards will comply the laws!
You're not an exchange, and Bitcoin is not a formally recognized currency in Latvia. It's nothing more than a cryptographically signed message.Financial instruments (paragraph 4-(b)) does not have it.
For example, there is no official way to anonymously withdraw Webmoney in Latvia. Of course, we have some "gray" traders who will help, but they take all risks on self and charge extra commissions.
You can see rules of major Webmoney exchanger in Riga, wmz.lv (available in Latvian and Russian), they can refuse withdrawals until you provide docs.
IMHO, You can think Bitcoin is out of regulation, but serious people who want to expand their business and start accepting real currencies and credit cards will comply the laws!
Also, I noticed you dodged my first question; please answer it.
Jump to: