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.