This guy really bugs me.
Everything he is saying about transaction fees is kind of true, but his solution is for his company to become the middleman instead of traditional banking system?
And the idea that his company grew by major bitcion business and then not acknowledging it, and then trying to shove all that shit under the rug and never talk about it is super greasy evil business at its disturbingest.
Topic: TradeHill - Why we no longer accept Dwolla and an open letter to Ben Milne (Read 37522 times)
August 14, 2012, 12:51:05 PM
August 13, 2012, 04:44:39 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnHkHL9ICSo
Milne talks about everything but bitcoin, the technology rendering his criminal startup obsolete.
Milne talks about everything but bitcoin, the technology rendering his criminal startup obsolete.
August 23, 2011, 02:41:56 PM
Its honestly a round-about way to use dwolla to fund the account. You end up paying alot more in fees. MT. Gox still accepts Dwolla directly, and it still only costs a flat rate of $.25 to fund my Mt. Gox account.
Sorry guys, but I dont think I will be using Bitinstant as a third party. It just adds to many hands into the mix of trying to get money into my exchange. IF theres anything we have learned from bitcoin, is that you should take all start-ups with a grain of salt, especially when it comes to ACH.
Sorry guys, but I dont think I will be using Bitinstant as a third party. It just adds to many hands into the mix of trying to get money into my exchange. IF theres anything we have learned from bitcoin, is that you should take all start-ups with a grain of salt, especially when it comes to ACH.
August 23, 2011, 02:36:47 PM
Any updates on the Tradehill/Dwolla situation? I'd like to try TradeHill but I have no interest in using Paxum.
We will be making a few announcements about funding methods in a few hours that will allow you to easily deposit funds.
Stay tuned.
Jered
!!! Awesome =D
You can now fund your TradeHill accounts using Dwolla, LR and MtGox codes https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/new-deposit-methods-for-tradehill-via-bitinstant-partnership-38914
August 23, 2011, 02:30:12 PM
Any updates on the Tradehill/Dwolla situation? I'd like to try TradeHill but I have no interest in using Paxum.
We will be making a few announcements about funding methods in a few hours that will allow you to easily deposit funds.
Stay tuned.
Jered
!!! Awesome =D
August 23, 2011, 10:56:45 AM
Any updates on the Tradehill/Dwolla situation? I'd like to try TradeHill but I have no interest in using Paxum.
We will be making a few announcements about funding methods in a few hours that will allow you to easily deposit funds.
Stay tuned.
Jered
August 23, 2011, 10:25:04 AM
Any updates on the Tradehill/Dwolla situation? I'd like to try TradeHill but I have no interest in using Paxum.
July 31, 2011, 01:59:40 AM
Now suppose Mallory manages to get her hand on Alice's cash (either by stealing her purse or breaking into her house by installing malicious software on Alice's house alarm system) and sends Alice's cash to a big company called ABCDEFG, then exchanges it for illegal currency (for it's easily-laundered) called bitcoins. What a tragedy... This is why the next phase of fiat money fiasco will be a transformation to coupons with owner's birth certificate serial numbers engraved. This will (eventually) solve the money laundering problem.
Alternatively, Alice could only keep a small, safe amount of money in cash at once and store the rest of her money in an organisation that's capable of securing it more effectively and lets her withdraw it as she needs it. We might call this hypothetical organisation a "bank".Fortunately, time is coming when only low life illiterates will use banks. The rest of people will learn to do banking without banks from their home computers or mobiles. They will only keep small, safe amount of cash at once (called wallet. dat) and the rest of their money in a separate wallet.dat file copies that is more effectively secured than any bank can do. We might call this hypothetical personal "bank" without paying any banking fees or taxes.
July 30, 2011, 07:33:02 PM
Exactly my thoughts.
Yeah. If I had noticed that you had already said exactly the same thing, I wouldn't have posted it.As soon as the current issues between TradeHill and Dwolla are resolved, assuming Dwolla is willing to resolve them, TradeHill could resume using Dwolla for outbound transfers. But that would require Dwolla to reimburse TradeHill for all prior reversed transactions.
Yeah, what he said ;>
July 30, 2011, 06:52:08 PM
Exactly my thoughts.
Yeah. If I had noticed that you had already said exactly the same thing, I wouldn't have posted it.As soon as the current issues between TradeHill and Dwolla are resolved, assuming Dwolla is willing to resolve them, TradeHill could resume using Dwolla for outbound transfers. But that would require Dwolla to reimburse TradeHill for all prior reversed transactions.
July 30, 2011, 05:48:03 PM
All of this is completely avoidable.
Chalk it up to inexperience and poor management.
Chalk it up to inexperience and poor management.
hero member
Activity: 836
Merit: 1007
"How do you eat an elephant? One bit at a time..."
July 30, 2011, 05:44:47 PM
Quote
Promote locally, sell locally. What do you suggest tradehill do? They are trying their best.
Yes, develop your local network of trading partners so you can lessen your reliance on the exchanges which will likely be brought under "know your customer" regulations sooner rather than later.
July 30, 2011, 05:36:33 PM
Well i had some time to look over paxum and the verdict is not good.
It increases the costs dramatically compared to dwolla. I am also a miner. If i want BTC.. i mine them.
I do not load funds to an exchange. It is USD I want right now and the goal is to keep costs down.
Time to create a mtgox account. Thankfully BTC dropped in price due to what I think is the dwolla incident
so therefore getting my money out of TH will result in a small profit most likely.
Plus.. paxum's website gives me the willies. It just does not feel right to me. Reminds me of spam email links
to websites selling viagra.
c'est la vie
It increases the costs dramatically compared to dwolla. I am also a miner. If i want BTC.. i mine them.
I do not load funds to an exchange. It is USD I want right now and the goal is to keep costs down.
Time to create a mtgox account. Thankfully BTC dropped in price due to what I think is the dwolla incident
so therefore getting my money out of TH will result in a small profit most likely.
Plus.. paxum's website gives me the willies. It just does not feel right to me. Reminds me of spam email links
to websites selling viagra.
c'est la vie
Yup, looks like I'll be transferring my coin from TradeHill to Gox as well.
July 30, 2011, 04:58:30 PM
With the way I suggested, Tradehill would only use Dwolla to send money to its end users. This eliminates the risk of an end user doing what I described above since its not an option for funding your Tradehill account via Dwolla. It is impossible for an end user to fraud tradehill by getting money sent to them by Tradehill.
That can't happen until all the issues between TradeHill and Dwolla are resolved and Dwolla agrees to cover all losses from transactions before now.Otherwise, TradeHill could send your $1,000 to Dwolla, go to send that money to you only to have Dwolla say, "Sorry, TradeHill, you can't send money to CubedRoot because you have a negative balance." Tradehill responses, "What? We had a zero balance and then sent in $1,000." Dwolla replies, "Yeah, you had a zero balance, but then two transactions from two months ago were reversed. You now have a negative $1,500 balance.".
Exactly my thoughts.
July 30, 2011, 04:40:22 PM
With the way I suggested, Tradehill would only use Dwolla to send money to its end users. This eliminates the risk of an end user doing what I described above since its not an option for funding your Tradehill account via Dwolla. It is impossible for an end user to fraud tradehill by getting money sent to them by Tradehill.
That can't happen until all the issues between TradeHill and Dwolla are resolved and Dwolla agrees to cover all losses from transactions before now.Otherwise, TradeHill could send your $1,000 to Dwolla, go to send that money to you only to have Dwolla say, "Sorry, TradeHill, you can't send money to CubedRoot because you have a negative balance." Tradehill responses, "What? We had a zero balance and then sent in $1,000." Dwolla replies, "Yeah, you had a zero balance, but then two transactions from two months ago were reversed. You now have a negative $1,500 balance.".
July 30, 2011, 03:56:33 PM
Well i had some time to look over paxum and the verdict is not good.
It increases the costs dramatically compared to dwolla. I am also a miner. If i want BTC.. i mine them.
I do not load funds to an exchange. It is USD I want right now and the goal is to keep costs down.
Time to create a mtgox account. Thankfully BTC dropped in price due to what I think is the dwolla incident
so therefore getting my money out of TH will result in a small profit most likely.
Plus.. paxum's website gives me the willies. It just does not feel right to me. Reminds me of spam email links
to websites selling viagra.
c'est la vie
It increases the costs dramatically compared to dwolla. I am also a miner. If i want BTC.. i mine them.
I do not load funds to an exchange. It is USD I want right now and the goal is to keep costs down.
Time to create a mtgox account. Thankfully BTC dropped in price due to what I think is the dwolla incident
so therefore getting my money out of TH will result in a small profit most likely.
Plus.. paxum's website gives me the willies. It just does not feel right to me. Reminds me of spam email links
to websites selling viagra.
c'est la vie
July 30, 2011, 02:48:23 PM
Wouldn't that mean tradehill would still need to keep an account with them with money in it? What if Dwolla would decide to reverse more transactions and take more money from tradehill? I'm not sure how it works just asking a question.
It does sound like Dwolla can suck whatever money out of Tradehills account they like and use it in any way they see fit, so it is hard to fault Tradehill for having trouble transferring funds through Dwolla. One suspects that Dwolla has edited their books enough by now that Tradehill has a negative balance and if they tried to put money in to cash someone out, it would not work anyway.
Tradehill seems to have clammed up so I suppose they are finally in talks and we'll all have to just throw conjectures around for the fun of it.
For my part I have drawn my Tradehill account down just in case they 'see the light' vis-a-vis the 'proper' way to do business these days. Namely, that the business partners remain solvent, the investors stay whole, and the end users take it in the hind end. But I do retain some exposure on the strength of my success with Tradehill so far and Jered's communications on this forum. As alway, no more than I can afford to lose and chuckle in the process of doing so. Mostly it's way low bets in the case of a liquidity event which seems possible to me in this stage of Bitcoin's evolution.
July 30, 2011, 02:46:49 PM
Well if I was tradehill I wouldn't keep one cent in Dwolla.
Honestly, I don't blame them. But without Dwolla or a change in their ACH Fees, I won't keep one cent or one BTC on TradeHill.
July 30, 2011, 02:34:47 PM
Now, after your announcement that you will no longer use Dwolla for withdrawals, I am forced to stop using Tradehill as my exchange. I will have to move back to Mt. Gox. I absolutely refuse to use Paxum as a service due to their intrusive background information requirements.
Is there a reason why you chose to stop using Dwolla for account withdrawals? Its impossible for the end user (like me) to fraud Tradehill out of money when I am simply making a withdrawal. Plus, Dwolla is still ALOT cheaper to withdraw funds, its $.25 compared to Paxums $1.00.
Is there a reason why you chose to stop using Dwolla for account withdrawals? Its impossible for the end user (like me) to fraud Tradehill out of money when I am simply making a withdrawal. Plus, Dwolla is still ALOT cheaper to withdraw funds, its $.25 compared to Paxums $1.00.
I'm with CubedRoot on this one. I have USD stuck on TradeHill that I'll have to to trade back to BTC just to get it out and resell on MtGox, paying commissions again to both. I understand preventing inbound transfers, but by getting rid of outbound you screwed quite a few of us.
Keep in mind also, that now, to get your USD from Tradehill all the way back to your bank it will now cost you $6.00!!!!! Using Dwolla this same set of transfers would have only cost you $.50.
I think its rather frustrating that Tradehill wont simply keep using Dwolla for Withdrawals since there is absolutley 0 risk in them getting frauded on withdrawals.
Wouldn't that mean tradehill would still need to keep an account with them with money in it? What if Dwolla would decide to reverse more transactions and take more money from tradehill? I'm not sure how it works just asking a question.
With the way I suggested, Tradehill would only use Dwolla to send money to its end users. This eliminates the risk of an end user doing what I described above since its not an option for funding your Tradehill account via Dwolla. It is impossible for an end user to fraud tradehill by getting money sent to them by Tradehill.
Well if I was tradehill I wouldn't keep one cent in Dwolla.
July 30, 2011, 02:32:05 PM
Now suppose Mallory manages to get her hand on Alice's cash (either by stealing her purse or breaking into her house by installing malicious software on Alice's house alarm system) and sends Alice's cash to a big company called ABCDEFG, then exchanges it for illegal currency (for it's easily-laundered) called bitcoins. What a tragedy... This is why the next phase of fiat money fiasco will be a transformation to coupons with owner's birth certificate serial numbers engraved. This will (eventually) solve the money laundering problem.
Alternatively, Alice could only keep a small, safe amount of money in cash at once and store the rest of her money in an organisation that's capable of securing it more effectively and lets her withdraw it as she needs it. We might call this hypothetical organisation a "bank". Jump to: