Quote from: oda.krell on May 23, 2014, 10:58:16 PM

Quote from: dreamspark on May 23, 2014, 10:41:33 PM

Anecdote != data.

So my annecdotal case != data.

Your annecdotal case(s) == data.

Sure. Sounds fair. /s

I repeat my main points one more time, then I'm going to duck out of this discussion:

1) It's anal KYC procedure, NOT a solvency related withdrawal problem like in gox' case. Let's make sure to let the newbies that read along here know that difference.

2) The biggest problem I see so far is that Bitstamp didn't announce this change in procedure BEFOREHAND. I agree with Blitz that this is shitty behavior.

3) What could in principle be an actual problem of gox-ian proportions if they would require proof that users can't reasonably provide. So far, after having read mentions of the KYC procedure around 40 times (my ballpark guess) in the past months, I have /today/ heard the first time of unnecessary proof being required (in the reddit thread). That's 1 out of 40 cases (from my own perspective) and it doesn't exactly make me jump to the conclusion that Bitstamp asks for this regularly now.

Well I'm discussing the topic either way not saying they are definitely not asking for proof which is the whole issue.

1)how many times does someone have to say we're not saying they're insolvent for you to stop putting up that straw man when replying to someone who's said they're not saying they're insolvent several times.

2)Agree, isn't this one of the things I've been saying.

3)So you can't see the other guy in this thread and the guy in the Stamp thread. Its cool though, ignore them. Even if its not regular should it not concern people that at any point you could be asked to provide proof that you, for whatever reasons they may be , don't want to provide, after the being verified and making the trade and initiating a withdrawal request.

Thats fine I don't think there's much benefit in continuing but understand why people are concerned instead of just calling it impotent rage.