Anyone know who owns the bitcoin.com domain? When was it first registered?
looks like it was first registered 12 years ago, and has gone through a few hands:
http://www.hosterstats.com/historicaldns.php?domain=bitcoin.com
Topic: Dwolla's Response to TradeHill | Lies and Defamation? - page 2. (Read 6317 times)
looks like it was first registered 12 years ago, and has gone through a few hands:
http://www.hosterstats.com/historicaldns.php?domain=bitcoin.com
#2 According to the article, Tradehill sold off Bitcoin.com. For $1M. Which is part of what they're suing Dwolla for. What???
My understanding from what I've read and reading between the lines is that Tradehill got control of the Bitcoin.com domain for a $1million equity stake in Tradehill (don't know what % stake that was or what Tradehill was valued at) and control of the Bitcoin.com domain was contingent on using it to run an exchange. When the exchange business ended the control of the domain had to go back to the original owerners.
Anyone know who owns the bitcoin.com domain? When was it first registered?
From what I can read about this story, Dwolla has joined the pack they claimed they would "disrupt": banksters
how do you disrupt the banksters while having a cozy relationship with the fed?
From what I can read about this story, Dwolla has joined the pack they claimed they would "disrupt": banksters
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. 
From what I can read about this story, Dwolla has joined the pack they claimed they would "disrupt": banksters
Quote
Rather than doing the honest thing, covering the losses and changing the business so it could move forward, they instead just passed the costs of their mistake onto their customers and began spreading lies (we always said we would charge back ...) and smears (when a merchant is a constant source of fraud ...) to cover their tracks.
That pretty much sums it up I'd say. For shame.Quote
why was mt gox seemingly unaffected by this?
Maybe they're behind it. They were trying to sink Bitcoinica earlier with account limitation and all, Dwolla is a tiny start-up, who's to say MtGox didn't get in touch and made a little side deal to crush competition? Not like they've ever done anything to actually foster competition in their existence so far. 
Dwolla has always had a peculiar business model with loss-leader pricing that doesn't scale. Sensing a future acquisition, they are going for market share and mind share more than profits. I predict that they save legal fees and settle it for $300k.
I stopped using Dwolla after Paxum ran away.
What happened at Tradehill was a shame and a circlejerk of dickishness from a bunch of parties and ignorance for others, but if Mt. Gox is still playing nice, Dwolla can't be comfortably evicted from the Bitcoin network, nor does it want to be, as indicated by it keeping an open conn with Gox. So, if we can assume that Tradehill wasn't an act of malice for the lulz, why can't we just wait until Dwolla settles under the table for a bundle of undisclosed funds, salvages the new startup smell and put this thing behind us. They are still the best way to get bitcoin from a checking account, and until or unless someone comes up with something better made for passing Bitcoin, they are a valid part of the system, we are not forced to use them, and we shouldn't go off on a bloodfrenzy because they done goofed, right?
Correct.
What happened at Tradehill was a shame and a circlejerk of dickishness from a bunch of parties and ignorance for others, but if Mt. Gox is still playing nice, Dwolla can't be comfortably evicted from the Bitcoin network, nor does it want to be, as indicated by it keeping an open conn with Gox. So, if we can assume that Tradehill wasn't an act of malice for the lulz, why can't we just wait until Dwolla settles under the table for a bundle of undisclosed funds, salvages the new startup smell and put this thing behind us. They are still the best way to get bitcoin from a checking account, and until or unless someone comes up with something better made for passing Bitcoin, they are a valid part of the system, we are not forced to use them, and we shouldn't go off on a bloodfrenzy because they done goofed, right?
Because if TH suffered $100k in losses and MtGox did 7x the volume, well, do the math... so either MtGox worked something out with Dwolla that TH didn't have the muscle to work out, or they ate it and they aren't revealing how much they lost because on the whole Dwolla is still a profitable and necessary source of inbound currency.
Or the fraud was largely the result of one coordinated group and they preferred TradeHill for some reason. Perhaps they just tried TradeHill first, it worked, and they had no reason to try anything else. Perhaps TradeHill processed things faster. Or perhaps Mt. Gox had faster/better cash outs, so they wanted their money in TradeHill so they could buy Bitcoins to cash out at Mt. Gox.Quote
#2 According to the article, Tradehill sold off Bitcoin.com. For $1M. Which is part of what they're suing Dwolla for. What???
Where are you seeing this? I was under the impression they bought bitcoin.com (and a few other domains) for $1 million. 
...
Let's use the Wayback Machine to see Dwolla's TOS on July 3rd, 2011
http://web.archive.org/web/20100730001213/http://www.dwolla.org/help/terms-of-use/
...
Let's use the Wayback Machine to see Dwolla's TOS on July 3rd, 2011
http://web.archive.org/web/20100730001213/http://www.dwolla.org/help/terms-of-use/
...
Now my question is this. How many members of the bitcoin community are going to save a copy of the above archived TOS onto their own computers around the world just in case Dwolla manages to pressure archive.org to remove said archive?
I did it before even seeing your post lol
PDF on my desktop. 
Two questions.
#1, This:
#2 According to the article, Tradehill sold off Bitcoin.com. For $1M. Which is part of what they're suing Dwolla for. What???
#1, This:
why was mt gox seemingly unaffected by this?
Because if TH suffered $100k in losses and MtGox did 7x the volume, well, do the math... so either MtGox worked something out with Dwolla that TH didn't have the muscle to work out, or they ate it and they aren't revealing how much they lost because on the whole Dwolla is still a profitable and necessary source of inbound currency. Not that I blame them, they probably saved all of us and saved Bitcoin from total devastation by keeping the lid on it back in August and quietly absorbing the damage... and in that case MtGox are the real heroes here.#2 According to the article, Tradehill sold off Bitcoin.com. For $1M. Which is part of what they're suing Dwolla for. What???
the amount for damages requested in the suit don't correlate with the losses that can be attributed to dwolla though. dwolla can change their policy at any time. maybe dwolla should be on the hook for the reversals and the funds they still have held (total under $100k) but blowing that total into a two million lawsuit reeks.
The legal system can't work that way. Dwolla should have eaten those losses. If the lawsuit just makes Dwolla pay the amounts they should have paid anyway, then all the harm they caused is unaddressed. There is no reason Dwolla should not be responsible for the consequential damages their fraud caused. And given that was seems to be an intentional and considered fraud, there should be punitive damages as well.Quote
it is like if a retail business launches to sell this widget that it can buy at a discount from a certain supplier and then that supplier stops carrying that widget. it isn't the supplier that is responsible if the retailer then incurs losses and eventually goes out of business as the result.
No, that's true. But if a thief steals the money they would have used to buy the widget and they lose profits as a result, the thief should be liable for those losses as well.Quote
plus, we saw what happened at paxum. this gives banks and competitors even more reason to keep their distance from bitcoin. this isn't france. we are not guaranteed a bank account. if a bank suspects a customer will be a risk for litigation, they'll opt for not establishing or severing any banking relationship with that customer.
Yes, and had Dwolla simply severed its relationship with TradeHill, the situation would have been completely different. They certainly had every right to do that. Sadly, that's not the choice Dwolla made. But they have to live with the consequences of the choice they did make.
why was mt gox seemingly unaffected by this?
I said it before and I'll say it again, Dwolla simply forgot to consider how they would cover fraud losses. At 25 cents a transaction, you can't pay for them yourself. So you have to pass them on to your customers. There is no other way. The problem is, Dwolla specifically said they wouldn't do that. Then when the losses piled up, they realized their business plan was fundamentally fatally flawed. Rather than doing the honest thing, covering the losses and changing the business so it could move forward, they instead just passed the costs of their mistake onto their customers and began spreading lies (we always said we would charge back ...) and smears (when a merchant is a constant source of fraud ...) to cover their tracks.
The issue is what they did to TradeHill, and they have to pay.
the amount for damages requested in the suit don't correlate with the losses that can be attributed to dwolla though. dwolla can change their policy at any time. maybe dwolla should be on the hook for the reversals and the funds they still have held (total under $100k) but blowing that total into a two million lawsuit reeks.
it is like if a retail business launches to sell this widget that it can buy at a discount from a certain supplier and then that supplier stops carrying that widget. it isn't the supplier that is responsible if the retailer then incurs losses and eventually goes out of business as the result.
plus, we saw what happened at paxum. this gives banks and competitors even more reason to keep their distance from bitcoin. this isn't france. we are not guaranteed a bank account. if a bank suspects a customer will be a risk for litigation, they'll opt for not establishing or severing any banking relationship with that customer.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.387567
"We got in June a total of $6,824,168.53 of funds moving around (16640 transactions in both deposits and withdraws) over Dwolla, equivalent of $227,472.28 per day, or $1,592,305.99 per week. Should be noted that the site was closed on June 20th, so in reality amount per day/week is higher."
"We got in June a total of $6,824,168.53 of funds moving around (16640 transactions in both deposits and withdraws) over Dwolla, equivalent of $227,472.28 per day, or $1,592,305.99 per week. Should be noted that the site was closed on June 20th, so in reality amount per day/week is higher."
We made these people.
Can you guys believe what you are seeing?
Can you guys believe what you are seeing?
Jump to: