Topic: Rick Rolled by Coinbase, so I went to look at their local beautiful SF office... - page 2. (Read 10085 times)

Get in with that NYC law firm. Let the suits burn for their insolence

Ya your not getting the full picture and has very little to do with their gay meme 

Thanks though b!z

This. You lost money on Bitcoin and you want to blame an Internet meme out all things for it? Sorry if I'm not getting the full picture, but good luck OP.

whether is coinbase a great scam??

+1 sorry for your loss BayAreaCoins, but Coinbase didn't convince you to do shit.. best of luck though

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/coinbase-inc--national-securities-law-firm-investigates-licensure-of-coinbases-bitcoin-exchange-300028022.html

You can count on it + I will release their office information when I can.

I will for sure keep the community posted as much as my legal team allows me to.

<3  

You know me too well.

HUGE thank you to the Bitcoin community btw for understanding this is NOTHING against Bitcoin and 100% against being Rick Rolled by 100% bullshit news.  This doesn't just effect me... this effects everyone of us.  I was very happy to see silver and other orders continue to flow in today.

I'm honestly heart broken that Coinbase didn't actually secure the shit for Bitcoin.  It would have been a huge victory for all of us.

Sorry you lost coins on such a high risk leveraged trade.  While I am sympathetic, I think it is going to be hard to find a grounds to sue on. 

I do like the idea of trying to find their office.

Knowing you, I can't REALLY believe this will be your last post.    I hope you'll update us if your attorney finds a good angle, good luck to you!

Hilarious.  I guess all the banks and jewelry stores in the world should go into hiding.  We better throw in the liquor stores and even 7-11s too, I heard they get robbed as well.

We can be sure, of course, that no one on their staff bought bitcoins on Friday and sold them on Sunday evening.

Good luck to you as well.

This is my last post for now on this thread, but I will keep it unlocked for people to talk or for trolls to call me retarded or what ever .

Would you still be complaining if Bitcoin went to the moon anyway and you were up $220k? 
Didn't think so.....
Volatility based on a inaccurate news report counts as speculation I would imagine

You will have to prove  they intentionally deceived the news because the news I saw said regulated in 24/50 States and I believe that was on Sunday  and even then it's semantics  when they say we are regulated they didn't say "in every state"  AFAIK

Wow, OP, you are such a moron. Good luck with your lawsuit!


A silly teaser page pressured the market to buy? What?

You made a stupid investment decision based on market hype, and it backfired. Now you are just looking for an excuse to sue someone to try to get your money back. If I were to bet, you did not buy btc because Coinbase had the CA license. You just found out that they didn't after you lost your money.

Here are the facts:
1. Coinbase never claimed that they were licensed in CA. They claimed to be licensed and regulated and that they have 15 state licenses (https://www.coinbase.com/legal/licenses)
2. The press jumped to the conclusion that because they supported 24 states, they must have licenses in all states. They didn't bother to even fact check. See link above.
3. Coinbase put up a teaser website to their launch and in the source code they linked the "features" page to a rickroll video to screw around with people who are trying to be clever.
4. Price shot up to $300 after the WSJ saying that Coinbase will launch an exchange.
5. On Monday at 9am EST, they launched the exchange, and the price tumbled to $260. This is a classic buy the rumor and sell the news pattern.
6. On Tuesday, CA released a statement that Coinbase didn't actually have a license. They were correcting the media misinformation. They did not shut Coinbase exchange down as BTC exchange currently does not need a CA license.
7. The price tumbled before the CA news was released. So price had nothing to do with that piece of news.
8. You didn't even trade on the Coinbase exchange. This is based on your claim that Coinbase did not give you enough time to deposit money and your screen shot of losing money in a margin trade, which Coinbase does not have.

So you lost BTC speculating on a news wrongly reported by WSJ and others. And now you want to sue Coinbase, even though you didn't even trade on that exchange. Really? You will have more luck suing WSJ. And it's not like you lost money trading Coinbase stock. You lost money speculating on BTC, which Coinbase has no control over the price.

Here's an analogy:
1) A company announcing that they are opening a license and regulated gold/USD exchange
2) WSJ reported incorrectly that they have a license to do that in CA
3) You bought a ton of gold futures after hearing this rumor
4) You lost a lot of money after gold price crashed for reason unrelated to CA license
5) You now want to sue that company

Good luck!

The lie was the news that the State of California had to come out and correct.  

Dude no one took the video as investing advice (would have been better off!) nor did they did take their silly page, but Rick Rolling us on a regulated and licensed exchange in California & NY ect.... (their page did put pressure on the markets to buy and I'm sure their earnings for that night show it.)

I just got the balls to stand up about this shit. Not many other Bitcoiners want to touch this publicly because they feel like it will hurt their stash or even one dude took down a post he made here because he didn't want security threats for himself speculating where the Coinbase office actually was and I even got a nosey email from Coinbase that I posted above...  

A: Not going to get bullied
B: Not going to get "rick rolled"

The proper Coinbase sentence would be:

"We Rick Rolled the Bitcoin investors out of Millions of dollars + all the fees we earned that night by getting them to thinking we had actually gotten approved and regulated in California and New York."

I think it was meant as joke to anyone that was going looking into the sourcecode.  
(they would find nothing but be "rickrolled" with the rickroll video link)

It wasn't really meant as investing advice or anything to do with investing, nor was it made obvious to general public. (- Except for the guy who posted about it.)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rick+rolled&defid=2733819

Originally, to trick someone into watching the extremely catchy "Never Gonna Give You Up" music video by the genius Rick Astley with a fake link (usually with the promise of an exclusive video).

Now used in a more general sense, for any sort of deception or trick.
"I asked for the newest Halo trailer and all I got was the Rickroll video."

"I really hope that J.K. Rowling hasn't rick rolled us with all this Dumbledore business. I would be so disappointed."

"I just rick rolled that guy into singing Evanescence at the top of his lungs in the middle of a Walmart by promising him a reward of $20,000."

I believe the lunar count down was 10 hours too, but not for sure. :-|

Can you elaborate on the 10 hour Rick Roll video hidden in the source code? 

This is really bizarre...

Well hopefully they will end up giving you something. However the cause of the price increase really was speculation on the reporters side.

"The debut of the Coinbase exchange caused a spike in Bitcoin’s value, from around $250 apiece to more than $300."

Just pointing out that someone else besides me thinks that Coinbase cause some spike in the magical markets based on news that was a lie.

I don't intend on answering any Coinbase emails and I'll pass them all along to the proper legal people.

My income is fine, so don't y'all worry your pants off...

The time article did not mention regulations nor the state of CA. The CNBC article mentioned that the WSJ was reporting that the exchange would be averrable to customers in states they have regulatory approval. The WSJ article (warning: paywall) currently says:(bold by me) I really don't see where CNBC got their above assumption (unless it was from another article).

The WSJ article does have a correction/amplifications note at the bottom that says:(bold by me)

Best of luck with it BAC
This will be interesting to observe one way or the other