Topic: MtGox withdrawal delays [Gathering] - page 67. (Read 908607 times)

I didn't mean to indicate that the whois info came from the web sites.  I presented both 'about us' web pages for comparison.

There does not seem to be some sort of a hard and fast regulation that EU companies have to separate their domain registry from other parts of their business if that is what you are trying to indicate:

Registrant Name: Heinrich Wunram
Registrant Organization: Siemens AG
Registrant Street: Wittelsbacherplatz 2
Registrant City: Muenchen
Registrant State/Province: Bayern
Registrant Postal Code: 80333
Registrant Country: DE

Postal & Mail Contact
Siemens AG
Wittelsbacherplatz 2
80333 Munich
Germany

When a company is not trying to hide or obscure data, the above is about what I would expect.   When they are we typically see something more along the lines of what we see with Bitstamp.  Just sayin'.

I doubt that I am the only one in Bitcoinland who does some cursory checking of things like this, nor would I be surprised if Bitstamp lost some customers by not being a little more straight-up about their operations.

I dont understand why are you constantly providing disinformation or give misleading info as they have that data under their 'about us' page? Domain name registar is irrelevant. They have provided their address and company info, people have been visit them! Domain owner registar have nothing to do with a company, it could be that its registered to owner personal home address or old slovenian. I dont find it concerning, if you do, you are free to ask them why, maybe to explain to you what is a domain name and what is a company what has separate register regulated by laws.
And that is now finaly your only argument, really?

And you are mixing two different issues, ident theaft is one thing and mtgox situation another. I do not even relate those two situation!? Looks like you are trying to pursue your arguments however it suit you.
Like other poster said, you hammer honest exchange and spreaded in this short conversation a lot of false claims.
Have you ever been in eu, or know where is russia and where is bulgaria? Do you even know what european union is?
Why you assume to know how is here? I do not comment coinbase because i never used them nor i itend to. Why are you bashing bitstamp when you never used them its beyond me. And fist you claimed that they never announced the verification, then that is vouge facbook when its not, and then this privacy domain bs! What is next?
Link
https://www.bitstamp.net/about_us/   --->Give bitstamp company address, not what you have posted!

If you do not want to submit verification docs then dont, but do not provide false information and tag them as suspicious solely on unrelated and irellevant domain privacy registar info!

I actually appreciate the cultural observations (no snark.)  It is confusing though that EU folk would not be even more paranoid about the loss of their documents than we here in the U.S.  (Although most Americans don't seem as bothered by this is me and a few others to be fair.)

As for btce, I've got even less desire to give my ID theft kit to a bunch of Russians operating out of Bulgaria and Cyprus than I do to a bunch of Solvanians shelling out from the U.K.  That's about as far as I've researched btce.

Coinbase didn't ask me for anything much to my surprise.  They are definitely hooked in to 'mainstream' sources of private info.  It sucks for others that they have a competitive advantage here, but that's the way the world works I guess.  I should be less nonchalant about being herded, but I'm not going to send my passport to a bunch of non-accountable Europeans out of protest.

As much as I favor full privacy for people giving value to others for safekeeping, I favor full transparency for those taking the the value.  If this were more common there would be a lot less fraud and theft in Bitcoinistan.  Note the difference between the two blocks of information below.  This is the first part of the research I do on any Bitcoin related business when trying to decide if they are trustworthy.

------

https://coinbase.com/about

Registrant Name: Coinbase, Inc.
Registrant Organization:
Registrant Street: 548 Market St #23008
Registrant City: San Francisco
Registrant State/Province: CA
Registrant Postal Code: 94104
Registrant Country: US

------

https://www.bitstamp.net/about_us/

Registrant Name: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0128129599
Registrant Organization: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0128129599
Registrant Street: 96 Mowat Ave
Registrant City: Toronto
Registrant State/Province: ON
Registrant Postal Code: M6K 3M1
Registrant Country: CA

------

Anyone still got his money back recently? Still waiting for a withdrawal done by the end of January. Should I presume the money is lost?

Again, what info bitstamp did not provided? Its all there on their site,address and bank account, read about us. Whois domain data is here irelevant and you or anybody can email domain admin for your concerns.( they enabled privacy around oct/2013.)( i even think that domain is still registered at their slovenia address what is different then current uk address) Domain privacy is totaly different matter then company information!
Blockchain is not a exchange. And what you would say about btce? They are totaly unknown.
Regarding bitstamp majority of user praise their service and how fast they are regarding withdraw. And i doubt taht they took funds from users who declined verification( before sept 30.)they were able to withdraw it eventually, just denied of using bitstamp again.

Someone loss of couple of btc are big, for some are not. One thing is a risk of btc price and totaly different then mtgox situation.

I can understand some country like usa who have different culture regarding privacy. Here in eu we must have id with us when we go out and can not do shit without our identification. That is a problem when btc meet fiat and different culture, mentality and regulation apply.
Nowdays we can forget about universal global perfect exchange. Usa users should choose their what is registered in the u.s. and eu should use bitstamp or btce if they want. Most important is to be informed, to read forums and to be aware of number of complaints and other things what is considered as get out. Situation has changed from 2011. and will continue to change.

No.  They did not.  That is the only reason I am hammering on them.  I honestly think that what their methods involving the lock-down of BTC withdrawls was poorly handled and will certainly be looked back upon as a red-flag if they end up being crooks.

In fact Mt. Gox behaved with a surprising degree of honor back in 2011, or gave that appearance to a lot of reasonably observant people (except for those who the did actually burn.)  Karpeles could have walked away at that time a very wealthy guy and with a lot fewer enemies to deal with.  I had my suspicions that they were crooks back then, but eventually decided that I was mostly wrong.  Even today I am not totally convinced that Mt. Gox are crooks until more solid data is available.  I pulled my money out of Mt. Gox more because it was clear that they were on the USG's shit-list than that I suspected them of being crooks.

As for Bitstamp, I'm by no means sure that they are crooks either.  I would put the odds at somewhat over 50% however on the basis of their reticence to provide company details and the issues involving the BTC withdraw lockdown.  I'd be happy if time proves that they are clean and I mis-estimated.

The only two entities who I put some value at risk with at this time are Coinbase and Blockchain.info.  Even here I'm not totally confident that they are clean.  They just seem to me somewhat less likely to steal my BTC than most.

I also would be perfectly willing to use a known crooked vendor as long as I have some control over my risks.  I employed a 'hit-n-run' strategy as much as possible back when I was using an exchange (Tradehill-1) just in case they were crooks.  I'm pretty sure that Coinbase, for instance, provides me zero privacy protection.  To some that would constitute 'crooked'.  To me it is a calculated sacrifice which, thankfully, I can afford to make.

I left mtgox in June last year after it was obvious they were blatantly lying with their TwoWeeks^TM mantra, and were holding money hostage.

You knew this too and allowed $5k to get stuck on gox. Just because you like hammering gox you don't need to hammer bitstamp as well. Bitstamp have behaved honorably at all times.

Maybe they have, maybe they did not, you should consider spam emails , phishing etc. But finaly, they made announcement on thir site where it belong!
And user could have switched off notifications.
..and you still insist of bitstamp wrong doing? Go and find out yourself, forum thread are far from valid fact.

I seem to have missed it;  What was the excuse for not sending a simple e-mail again?

Again, new users from september 30. 2013. Can not withdraw/deposit unless verified. Its users fault of not being informed from service provider, and that fact even is stated on their policy. All users had enough time (almost a month) before announcement to wifhdraw their funds.
So first you trided to dismiss this claiming its facebook statement which is false, now you are saying this and now i dont understund where is bitstamp fault when they made announcement on time with all users had enough time to act and withdraw their funds.

If one uses an API one does not visit the homepage often.  Or if one simply does not use a service much.  I, for instance, had an account with a handful of BTC at Mt. Gox for years and probably went 6 months at times without logging in.  IIRC, ET claims they had his e-mail but didn't even send a note.  Are you denying this?  If not, are you justifying it?  If so, how?

Holding someone's money hostage is a big deal.  It should be user-approved item (with one of those 'I agree' checkboxes.)  If I were designing things I'd allow withdrawal of all of the funds that were in place when the new policy was put in place.  I would also dis-allow the API until a user checked the 'I agree' box, and that would have happened when the policy was first announced, or within 72 hours of that.

All I am saying is that from MY perspective it looks like Bitstamp either wanted people to not withdraw their BTC or they wanted to obtain the user's identity docs and they adjusted their business procedures to achieve that goal.  Someone who wants MY business better bend over backward to avoid displaying red flags.  Especially in Bitcoin-land.  I've not often gotten burnt screwing with Bitcoin and have made a lot of money doing it.  There is a reason for this.

Yeah, I too liked the camping idea.. What's the address?

Have i mentioned facebook?  
Announcement was on the bitstamp home page for almost a month before they actualy started doing it!
Again, why you do not finds facts first is beyond me.

Scroll to the 4th sep 2013. They gave almost a month notice-till 30. September 2013.
Most recent news are also on bitstamp hompage.

https://www.bitstamp.net/news/


Beside, that started 5 months ago and its users fault of not being informed. From 30.th september new user have enough notice and they do not have deposit/withdraw enabled until verified.

I've never put any value at risk with Bitstamp, so I'm mostly going with what Eldrtyrell relayed.  He, like myself, valued his identity scans highly and at least in my case it has nothing to do with criminal activity.  He had to find a backdoor in Bitstump's API in order to retrieve his funds.  I can probably dig up the thread if you don't know of it.

Again, some vague Facebook post does not constitute an announcement.  Many of us don't use Facebook at all...and for reasons which should be becoming clear to even the most poorly informed among us.

To be fair, bitstamp did announced last year that all users need to be verified in order to withdraw fiat/btc and gave almost a month prior they start to do it.
You should check the facts prior making accusations and false claims

Probably me.  I've eluded to it for some time (and part of it in error most likely.)  For that I apologize.

I continue to maintain that if an 'about us' does not contain human readable information about the principles, that is a problem.  Similarly a 'privacy enhanced' whois records.  When whois cannot be matched to information in the 'about us', I consider it a red flag.  That alone would be a legitimate reason to stay away from Bitstamp unless they are the only option (which is perfectly possible.)

But wait, there is more!


This!  To switch policies and hold BTC hostage for an identity theft kit is bad, especially if they continue to accept funding.  To do it without warning is worse.  To have some NSAbook post somehow constitute a 'fair warning' is worse yet because it indicates that they could have sent out e-mail and it was not a matter of being put under some sort of sudden pressure.

This is a clear expression of Bitstamp's business practices and their attitude toward their users.  It constitutes a VERY good reason to stay away from Bitstump unless it is utterly necessary.

I grew up with a single mom myself. I kind of sense that kind of unhealthy mother son bond in the way she describes him.

She sounds autistic, if she really meant what she said

Anne Karpeles, French media interviewed her about her sons troubles, she seems a little reality detached also. Fance is close to me so I actually considered that myself, before I felt sorry for her.

Moms address? getting plane ticket