oda.krell
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007



View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
May 23, 2014, 09:02:31 PM



No, see, you're lawyering now. Not even that, you're twisting words.

We all know what "withdrawal problems" mean in the context of Bitcoin exchanges: the inability to serve withdrawal requests of customers.

And that's exactly what is not going on over at Bitstamp. What is going on is that, at some point during the past year, (a) they decided they want to establish a more intrusive KYC procedure for large withdrawals, and (b) that they don't want to make a big public announcement about it.

I support their right to do (a), but would have preferred if they would have avoided doing it rather backhandedly, i.e. I don't support (b). But by now everyone who follows the Bitstamp thread knows about it, so it's, if you want to call it, an open secret: if you want to deal in large(ish) sums on Bitstamp, prepare for the additional KYC questionnaire.

Sorry but I'm not twisting words, you can't change the definition of a problem. We obviously disagree so its pointless debating semantics. I think its clear that a withdrawal problem is anything that makes withdrawing either currency problematic, which this does.

I too, support their right to do (a) but think that when you do (a) without (b) be prepared for a backlash from customers who either;

1) Are just generally pretty pissed of with (b)
2) Physically cannot sign their most used address.
3) Wouldn't be prepared to offer that information (which is a personal choice) but didn't have the chance to not use the exchange due to (b) and now their fiat is effectively hostage.
4) Think that a lot of the questions in (a) are far too intrusive. Which I think they are no other financial institution in the same category asks those sorts of questions.  Even my bank doesn't know some of the information they are asking for.
 

If its the law to be this intrusive (which its not) then cite it in the request and I will follow it. Until then they are just another exchange that is all too happy to hold your assets hostage.

Agreed to some of your points.

1) Yes. Absolutely. You have every right to be pissed off, to stop using them, and even publically say so. What I would prefer however you do is to not use ambiguous wording, that insinuate we have another gox situation at hand here. By all available evidence, that is /not/ the case. Agreed?

2) Complete agreement. But did you actually go through the procedure? I got the impression that, if in doubt, they let it slide (and accept the answer "I have provided all that I reasonably can on this point, but cannot provide any further proof".) That was my experience, but if someone actually has a withdrawal rejected because he couldn't sign from a Bitcoin source that doesn't allow signing -- well, I'd like to hear about that, I would also consider that extremely problematic.

3) see 2) above. My impression is they don't hold anything hostage. They probe quite a bit, but in the end, if you play along more or less, they accept your answers.

4) See my reply to Blitz: they are intrusive because they're scared senseless of having their little money printing machine they got going closed down one day to another because some overeager British or German or US court subpoenas them, and when they can't answer in style, the full wrath of AML procedures are invoked on them.