Quote from: seoincorporation on June 08, 2018, 01:49:11 PM

Quote from: figmentofmyass on June 07, 2018, 11:21:01 PM

it's not extortion because there's no demand for money, property, services. it's a breach of terms/contract issue.

This is really interesting, thanks.
I don't know if personal information can be seen as a property (of course not) but, isn't it?

ah, i see what you're saying. i was focusing on the "poloniex refusing to pay creditors according to their agreed upon terms" angle, which i see as a breach of contract, not a matter of extortion (civil or criminal).

that's an interesting take, at a time where personal data has such an obvious dollar value now.

Quote from: seoincorporation on June 08, 2018, 01:49:11 PM

Of course, I agree with the point of poloniex just taking care of its own back, for they can be accused of many stuff. But, in every contract, when policies change, one of the implied parts should have the freedom to disagree and stop the commercial relationship at that very moment.
The property, in this case, is your money, which you no longer are able to use due to the change in their policies. Maybe this is not an extortion, but what is it then?

i believe that poloniex willfully violated its terms---they breached contract, which is a civil tort worth your deposited money + possibly additional damages. they have refused to pay creditors in spite of good faith compliance with their terms. if they make the argument that they were overwhelmed by customer verification queues or other such nonsense, i would counter that they were grossly negligent in complying with their own stated terms.

like i said, i believe that waiver of your right to sue would be laughed out of court.

the irony here though, is that you would need to identify yourself (to poloniex and the courts) in order to sue poloniex. if the ultimate issue is shielding your identity, you can't get resolution from the courts at all IMO.

Quote from: seoincorporation on June 08, 2018, 01:49:11 PM

Just wondering, I don't totally understand how if a contract changes in its policies you are not able to say no and withdraw your funds, as well as stop all the relationship.
I feel that question has not been answered yet.

i think it's a breach of contract. it's something you can sue over (with the above catch-22).

not a lawyer by trade so take what i say with a grain of salt.......