Topic: CoinURL disallowing withdrawals (split from Beware of scammers!) - page 3. (Read 5430 times)

This info is not confidential, you just set the flag to hide it from other users (not the operator). I have not signed any NDA agreements with you or any other ways promised to keep this data in secret. Read ToS again!

It'd be a good reason to add more prominent warnings; on the "Deposit" page, for example.

It further strengthens my point about people not actually reading the terms. Irrelevant? Nice catch!

I'm forced to spend the rest of my balance on the service, I can accept that. Why don't you think I should warn others of this clause?

I never said any of those things. I said that they "might" be.

There is no such thing as "perfect" information, so that's an educated guess. If I was wrong, I apologize.

I take it you stand by this ("factual"?) claim, then: "therms [sic] that you prima facie accepted by sending in your deposit."

Do you really think that illegal and dishonest, or legal and honest, are synonymous? This is shady. If your favorite bitcoin exchange changed their terms to reflect them now owning your entire portfolio, that'd be dishonest, but may very well have been perfectly legal.

I agree, other than posting private information about my ad campaigns, and his shady terms of service, he's been great. He even asked me why I was requesting the withdrawal, that's how much he looks after my best interests!

Even theymos agrees that coindragon's behavior may not have been perfectly legitimate, so I'd say a public warning is most definitely warranted.

Of course not, however it was the gracious expression of that free will that I suggested the conversation be moved to a more appropriate venue for further exploration of your issues. It seems pedantic here, and risks clogging up a high level general thread with repetitive ad hominem specifics.

Acting in good faith is not a compelling argument to reverse clearly stated policy. Coincidentally, none of the soul sellers you cite actually mentioned anything to do with your issue, which further diminishes your argument by veering off into irrelevance, yet again.

I did not offer any judgement on the legality of dragon's stance, just a comment on how your claim has no grounding. You accepted the terms, at whichever point in the action you choose to consider the point of no return, and you should live by the terms that you accepted. Terms which you state yourself repeatedly, are legal, proper and in your full awareness. Just that you don't like them and want them changed to suit your desire. And while your claim that IANAL is catchy, it is equally off-topic- you don't know what my actual circumstances are, have no knowledge of my education or standing with the Bar, or an appreciation for where I drew my inspriation for my clear and direct, factual, statement of opinion about your actions in this matter.

How is it dishonest to offer the tools to use the site in the manner in which you agreed to use it? How can it be "perfectly legal" and "by the book" yet dishonest at the same time? You contradict yourself. It is not dishonest to offer a service, it is not dishonest to create rules for the service, nor is it dishonest to expect paying customers to abide those rules after they agree to them. My broker's website has a big "Withdraw" button on it too, but that does not create any type of valid argument for me to demand that they refund me for the poor decisions I've chosen to make.

I'm sure that is a relief to dragon, and a good choice to keep you out of jail. Posting on this board is a completely appropriate venue for airing your concerns, beating the dead horse to its nineteenth death with the same oblique argument is unnecessary, and inappropriate.

I did not comment on dragon's behavior, I commented on yours. Actually I think he has been more than polite with you and incredibly tolerant of your abusive and public approach. And, quite frankly, I don't think he is being dishonest is honoring the letter of the terms that you and he entered into.

Angry children throwing tantrums rarely appreciate anything said to them that contrasts with their rigid self-centered dogma. I never expected anything less from you given the tone of your approach to this matter.

Couldn't you at least have had the common decency to take it away from this thread as Loup asked you to ever so politely?
Also, your arguments are invalid. Your extremely questionable judgement has me worried as well.

Nobody's forcing you to read this. You're "acting of your own free will."

I'm sorry, I act in good faith when accepting terms of service, and I'm not the only one.

Sure, it might be completely legal, and by the book, but that doesn't prevent it from being dishonest and unethical. Also, YANAL. I didn't accept the terms by depositing, but by checking the checkbox during registration.

I'd say I do. Everything is structured to make it look like you can deposit and withdraw at will, from both a semantic- as well as user experience standpoint.
See this screenshot:


As I said, it might be perfectly legal, and I'm sure it is, but it's dishonest. My claim is that it is dishonest.

Sure, I'm not going to go to his home and point a gun to his head, but it's worth posting here in order to prevent others from entangling in this mess.

If you don't find coindragon's behavior dishonest, that's cool.

If you ever choose to use his service, you'll know. I didn't.

Thanks, but I don't trust your judgement.

Just thinking out loud here, but seeing as how this disagreement already has its very own thread, and really does nothing for this thread, for the community at large, or really anything at all except waste bandwidth... could we end the discussion in this thread about wanting to change TOS's and the merits of reading contracts before sending in funds, and return to our regularly scheduled programing about airing dirty laundry on ALL scammers, not just the personal pet peeves of one disgruntled consumer?

And since mcorlett has graciously welcomed opinions- here's mine: changing the subject to your carefully loaded question, is irrelevant. You were not channeling buluboy when you sent your money to dragon, you were acting of your own free will. You chose to send the funds you did, with the intentions only you knew. Sadly for you, the terms of the site that accepted your payment were direct and clear that you don't get to change your mind and get your deposit back. Whether his stated reason for this is acceptable to you or not, it was stated in therms that you prima facie accepted by sending in your deposit. Continuing to ask the same irrelevant question does not change the standing of your claim, you don't have one. If dragon had chosen to offer a refund that would have peachy swell of him, but he has no obligation to do so. Throwing a pity party in public does not change the simple fact that you are in the wrong, and your argumentative and condescending tirade does nothing to change that fact.

Drop it, or move it away from here. You have had enough attention on this matter.

Again, fake clicks may come, but they are not counted.

According to the ToS you are allowed to restrict access for this data to the other users, not to the service operator. Under normal conditions I would never reveal this info, but you forced me to do this by false accusations of fraudulent clicks!

I would say that users coming from proxies or otherwise blacklisted IP's are fraudulent.

I intentionally set this information as private on your service. Thank you for revealing it to the world.

These clicks are not fraudulent, just CoinURL has large part of it's traffic from Eastern Europe.

You set have set geo targeting to Switzerland, Denmark, United Kingdom, Norway and Sweden. I have seen logs and can tell you that your ad was shown to ALL users who came from these countries (because no one more have selected these countries and your ad has 100% priority here).

I always try to stay calm ( hint : need to increase the medication dosage next time ) but if giantdragon does not get scammer then I really am the idiot of the forum

Perhaps I should lie about accidentally sending too much next time(?)

I deposited more with the intention to use the rest if I was exceptionally pleased. There was a "Deposit" button, and a "Withdraw" button. I clicked "Deposit"; there was no information about not being able to withdraw on that page, so I deposited a little bit more than necessary, just in case I was exceptionally pleased. I can't say I am. I'm seeing a whole bunch of visits from fraudulent IP's in Russia, Ukraine, etc.

bulanula: Please keep the discussion civil and refrain from personal attacks.

Yes I do, although there is a difference between an actual sending error, and you just not liking service and wanting your balance out.

Yes.

Yeah. Loving the hypocrisy right here man.

giantdragon does not give refunds yet he is not labelled as scammer.

I don't give them either yet I am labelled a scammer.

smart1985 ( complainant ) was donator.

In dragon's case was the complainant a donator ? I bet my ass he wasn't or giantdragon would have the scam in 5 minutes or less.

I also refuse to refund anything related to BTC. I tried to meet the service obligation and gave him 10 months ( what the guy paid for ).

If I get labelled as a scammer when customer does not accept my "no refunds" policy then why shouldn't giantdragon be treated the same ?

Oh right, everyone hates me !

Thank you for your opinion. Do you think that smart1985 had a basis for a claim in bulanula's case?

Sorry, but I must agree with giantdragon on this one. Perhaps a reasonable resolution would be for the refund to happen just this once, and warnings about deposits be placed more prominently on the website. Although you really don't have a basis for a claim here in the first place.

I don't think that's the problem. He appears to be fairly knowledgeable about Bitcoin and programming in general. Rather, for him it's a matter of principle:

What bulanula did was to promise to return the superfluous amount and then go back on his promise.
giantdragon seems to want to avoid a nightmare where he gets DOSed with your kind of requests if he makes an exception for you in addition to some shady ToS and his assumption the everybody reads the FAQs.

The cases are not directly comparable; bulanula's is highly scammy (broken promise) where giantdragon's is normal business practice with a certain level of communication failure. If that was a problem, almost any website owner who sells anything on that site would qualify as scammer.

Personally, I think that you probably should try to explain your suggested solution again via PM, and probably how to send back funds from a certain address - I doubt everybody knows how to do that...

Great. What I'm asking for is for giantdragon to be treated the same way as bulanula. Either give him the tag, or remove bulanula's.

In any case, I think everyone can agree that this is dishonest behavior and that coindragon and his services should be avoided at all costs.

Not saying I agree with what happened. In fact there should probably be multiple options for tagging individuals or at least a sticky that describes the situation or maybe point to the appropriate thread. (I am not offering to take on that task )

I'd don't think he meant it literally, it was a joke