Quote from: Blitz on May 23, 2014, 10:36:57 PM

Quote from: oda.krell on May 23, 2014, 10:30:50 PM

Quote from: Blitz on May 23, 2014, 10:25:44 PM

This has nothing to do with insolvency oda, take your strawmans elsewhere. Telling people they're verified and letting them trade/deposit just fine, not mentioning any sort of anal probes about source of Bitcoins in TOS, and then having it come as a surprise when withdrawing is inacceptable. No real broker will do this.

Go through the last 3 or 4 pages of this thread. Count how often someone asks "does this mean I should be worried about my deposits"? (by my count, around 4 or 5 times).

I will stop building strawmen when you guys stop using the rhetoric reserved for a "danger! get your money out!" situation, where in reality you should be using your "that's against my principles, and all that btc stands for" rhetoric.

"You guys" doesn't include me (and many others either), I never made that argument. And this has nothing to do with principles but lawfulness. Again, no real broker will ever create a situation where you have money on exchange and are suddenly surprised by some anal probe all the while thinking you were verified and have your money trapped. I can't wait for the day that we don't have to deal with these amateur operations anymore.

Quote from: oda.krell on May 23, 2014, 10:33:31 PM

Quote from: dreamspark on May 23, 2014, 10:28:17 PM

Sorry but most in here are not saying that they are insolvent. What they are saying is that the intrusiveness goes above and beyond reason and is sprung on you with out any guidelines or clarification, thats not impotent rage. People are allowed to feel how they like about that, both in terms of the requirements themselves and what happens to the data, and discuss it too.

And that quote is out of context of the conversation which was about being asked for proof. He was saying that they don't ask for proof despite evidence to the contrary including a user who posted after that.

I'm aware of the context.

And as I said before: I (and all the other cases I've hear of, except for one now I guess) appeared to get out of those questions just fine without providing ridiculously complicated proofs.

I have been following this in the past and I had the same impression as you prior to today's reddit post. That is why I am surprised. Perhaps they have changed things? How recent is the last case you heard of where they did not ask for proof?

Today. Myself :D