Quote from: Blitz on May 09, 2014, 10:36:55 AM

Quote from: dreamspark on May 09, 2014, 10:31:12 AM

Quote from: mmitech on May 09, 2014, 10:26:08 AM

Quote from: davout on May 09, 2014, 07:06:19 AM

Quote from: smooth on May 09, 2014, 12:41:06 AM

They are still going to charge much higher than the posted fees in some cases. The minimum is $5, that's great. But what about $5.01? The fee should be $0.01002 but instead you will be charged $0.02. Okay the breakage seems capped at double now, but that's still a lot.

Their base fee is .5%.
If you place a $5 order you should be charged $0.025, but instead you will be charged $0.03.

In other words, even with their "fix", you'd get charged 20% more than advertised.

I see folks cheering because their answer to the situation was fast...
It's as if the people here would be happy to be served a plate of steaming shit in a restaurant, instead of actual food, as long as the waiter's fast.

so lets close our accounts in Bitstamp and start using your shitty exchange right ? because you've got it all figured out....

It doesn't matter whether he has an exchange thats worse or better he's demonstrating that there is still an issue. Rather than attacking him why don't you raise some valid counter points?

Agree.

It is good to see that Bitstamp has done some improvement to reduce it though. Hopefully they will increase precision eventually.

Only partially agreed. Not all 'ad hominem' arguments are fallacies.

If a Visa exec writes about the dangers of Bitcoin, we'd at least suspect him to be biased. If the owner of a competing exchange vocally slams Bitstamp, it at least invites additional scrutiny.

I'll revisit this topic iff an actual user reports another large enough divergence between advertised and actually paid fees, say 2.2 instead of 2%, and more than just a dollar. Until then, I consider this a decent fix.