Quote from: DiHunter on April 01, 2019, 06:56:51 PM

Earlier we saw the statement from you that the affected users most likely committed a crime, having specified inaccurate data in a profile. And that gives the right to the exchange to freeze their funds under the pretext of mandatory KYC-check.
The absence of any procedural actions on the part of the exchange to legalize its decision to freeze users' funds and make a statement about the criminal actions of the user legitimate, apparently regarded as the norm: let second-rate exchanges, like Binance, take care of providing official documents on the beginning of the investigation, without which they can freeze the funds for no more than 3 days. Tradesatoshi is in another league.

Binance actually has a troubling ownership. It's legal status (or lack of), location of offices in unknown and volume traded potentially (centralized volume) could result in another QuadrigaCX or MTGox style disaster of Mt Gox proportion.

https://www.theblockcrypto.com/2018/11/16/fast-footwork-binance-has-danced-around-regulations-and-even-moved-itself-to-run-its-exchange-the-way-it-wants/

Tradesatoshi is only small and insignificant in size. Some of the coins they list are only listed on their exchange. So while it may be inconvenient for some users it wouldn't result in a big market impact.

Their size also make it unlikely that they could afford to take on a a regulatory body if they determined that they did not meet their AML obligations.

In 2017 Bittrex introduced mandatory KYC resulting in the freezing of many accounts. Some still remain frozen due to being located in embargoed countries.

Quote from: DiHunter on March 26, 2019, 11:28:34 PM

How to find out whether the user's data are right or wrong? Is the wish to find it out by starting a KYC-check is enough ground to make a decision that funds are illegal and to withhold the funds?

How do you think, what procedural steps have been taken by the exchange to have a reason to call each particular case "criminal" and to block users funds?

By your logic, can Tradesatoshi consider itself both investigation authority and judicial authority? They started mandatory KYC-checks without reasons and blocked users funds without any evidence for uncertain time, simply because they themselves started the KYC-checks. Seems, they don't need any of those authorities to decide what is legal and what is not.

Usually with financial institutions if false information is provided the authorities have to be notified. The authorities determine what happens to the funds.

I don't know whether this happens or whether Tradesatoshi follows a legal path. What does stand out is what appears to be illegal activity by the examples that were mentioned in this thread.

Quote from: DiHunter on March 26, 2019, 11:28:34 PM

For example, Binance blocks accounts suspected of committing a crime for 3 days. In the absence of official documents on the beginning of the investigation after these 3 days, the blocking is removed.
By the way, many exchanges do not request user data at all until verification is required - only login and password. Binance, which is mentioned above, is one of them. Because there is no sense to ask for such data until KYC.

Like I said earlier. Binance has troubling ownership and jurisdiction. While I appreciate that they appear to have good systems, good customer service and good code - there appears to be no legislative oversight. Sometimes things that appear to be perfect are a Bernie Madoff style ponzie.

Bitfinex / US Tether and Binance both have the ability to cause massive damage to crypto.
https://www.coindesk.com/fake-volume-on-crypto-exchanges-isnt-the-half-of-it

Quote from: DiHunter on March 26, 2019, 11:28:34 PM

You are making more and more general statements, which have no relationship or very distant to the situation.

My reply was directed at what nutildah had just said and I included his quote in my reply.

It covered point by point what he had said. You may not like what I say but time will prove whether it was correct or not.

Exchanges are centralized. Centralized exchanges working in legitimate jurisdictions require KYC (usually if a value threshold is met) . If an exchange doesn't require KYC or does not enforce AML they will be short-lived or in a dubious jurisdiction.

Real decentralized exchanges don't exist yet. They need some serious thought and technology. Until real DEXs exist the SEC and it's international counterparts will litigate and scare exchanges into invoking KYC and AML.

I don't agree that enforcing KYC and AML that is forced onto exchanges by various Govenments amounts to "being a scam".

A money launderer, hacker, someone using false identity or someone from an embargoed country rarely admits that they are such.

Anyone is such category is specifically warned not to use their services in the TOS that I saw - including the right to ask for more information and verification. How do you propose that an exchange ensures that such users don't use their services and don't just set up another fake account if there is no consequence ?