omarforgotpwd 6 years ago

What terrible press for Coinbase. I'd be furious at Visa if I was working there. A suspicious person might even suspect sabotage?

  • thathappened 6 years ago

    A network engineer would just sigh and get to working with the partner or 3rd party to confirm this isn't a network related issue.

  • iovrthoughtthis 6 years ago

    Hanlons razor.

    It was probably just stupidity.

    • hinkley 6 years ago

      Outside of the theater of war, laziness is at least as likely as stupidity.

      • duxup 6 years ago

        I'm proof of that!

    • sevenfive 6 years ago

      Yes, everyone here has heard of Hanlon's razor.

      • codefined 6 years ago

        This comment assumes you're being sarcastic. "Halon's Razor" as a concept is pretty popular, it's not that out of the ordinary to expect for you to know (especially if your peruse this site). Add to this with the fact that you're on a computer, you can select the text, right click --> search on <engine> in probably under 3 seconds to find out what it is means that it's fair just to type the phrase and not have to add on the adage that it represents.

        • sevenfive 6 years ago

          It's just a 100% empty comment. Literally every time something like this comes up, someone has to pipe up, "Hanlon's razor!" without any reference to actual details of the situation. Like, you are not smarter for knowing the phrase "Hanlon's razor," Hanlon's razor is not some deep piece of wisdom about the world, its literally just a catchphrase that takes 0 brainpower to repeat.

          Sorry, kind of a pet peeve of mine.

      • cakemuncher 6 years ago

        I haven't. This is my first time actually. It's pretty cool, didn't know about it.

        Thanks OP.

    • bitL 6 years ago

      Hanlon's/Occam's/etc. razors are just heuristics.

      • travmatt 6 years ago

        And accusations of sabotage without proof of any sort is baseless conjecture.

        • bitL 6 years ago

          Heinlein's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice."

          More on common razor heuristics:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razor_%28philosophy%29

          https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_razor

          • zaroth 6 years ago

            A better way to state it, IMO;

            Stupidity should be assumed. Malice demands evidence.

            But it comes down to intent. Impute intent only when indicated. Which when you think about it is only fair. It’s self-evident Visa fucked up, but a claim it was malicious must be substantiated or it’s just trolling.

            • tinokid 6 years ago

              Really? It's "self-evident" Visa fucked up? Yeah...I'll be waiting for the statement to that effect on visa.com

              And then I saw this comment: "Thats weird. I have a mastercard and was charged twice. So how is it Visas fault."

            • bitL 6 years ago

              “The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanation of complex facts. We are apt to fall into the error of thinking that the facts are simple because simplicity is the goal of our quest. The guiding motto in the life of every natural philosopher should be “Seek simplicity and distrust it.”

              – Alfred North Whitehead

            • bitL 6 years ago

              I am not saying somebody at VISA did it intentionally, I just don't understand why am I supposed to assume they didn't given whatever popular logical razor that can't be a tautology on its own.

              • zaroth 6 years ago

                Because supposing malicious intent without any evidence to support the conclusion is uncharitable at best, and libelous at worst.

                It’s a philosophy which many people find beneficial, to try to shape your thinking in a way that you set a higher bar before believing something negative was done intentionally rather than unintentionally.

                The inverse (converse?) is also be true — when lacking conclusive evidence either way, assuming positive things are done intentionally and not unintentionally.

                Another way to think about it is; what’s the cost of being wrong? It’s as simple as giving the benefit of the doubt.

                • bitL 6 years ago

                  > uncharitable at best

                  I am fine with that. I am not going to assume "good intentions" by default, but case by case as I see fit. Even if my biases get in the way (like with any untrained human). If there is a non-zero probability of somebody intentionally causing something, i.e. it cannot be counter-factually refuted, then it has to be handled as one possible explanation, however unlikely it is.

                  Haven't you ever seen how people cook the books for businesses to appear flawless? Ohh, that small mistake? Just an error, don't look too much into that! Let's have a drink and here is your ticket to a strip club to entertain you! Have fun!

                  • ZephyrP 6 years ago

                    > i.e it cannot be counter-factually refuted, then it has to be handled as one possible explanation, however unlikely it is.

                    ergo, we must accuse all others of whichever crimes are not literally logical impossibilities.

                    • bitL 6 years ago

                      Nope, just keep it in your list of probable reasons. Like when you do particle filters, you have your most probable states but nevertheless keep probabilities that you are wrong and you are in fact in any of the other possible states.

        • sevenfive 6 years ago

          This is why I hate Hanlon's razor. It's a totally generic catchphrase that people on HN just keep repeating. It's not an argument.

      • ComputerGuru 6 years ago

        As opposed to a working theory of malfeasance and corruption which is what?

        • bitL 6 years ago

          I am simply pointing out that throwing around some popular heuristics isn't something a rational person should default to, and that these have their limits as well. What's wrong with that? If I were to run a criminal syndicate, I would take the least probable explanations and make them core of my enterprise due to blindness caused by popularity of applying razors everywhere.

          "Assume positive intent" is not going to help you when your money is gone.

      • rvern 6 years ago
        • bitL 6 years ago

          From wikipedia:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor:

          "In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic guide in the development of theoretical models, rather than as a rigorous arbiter between candidate models."

          Looking at Universal Induction:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_induc...

          Isn't Universal Induction non-computable? What logics does it work in and which ones are beyond its reach? Is it applied purely to countable set of all programs or could it extend to real-world as well? One would expect it holds in precisely structured logics like first-order predicate logic, so that's not a surprise.

Animats 6 years ago

Where's the statement directly from Visa or Worldpay? All we have is a blog entry in Coinbase's blog. "Joint statements" that only come from the beneficiary of the statement are always suspicious. Visa has both a press release site and a number of blogs. None seem to mention Coinbase.

  • emh68 6 years ago

    If you look at what actually happened, it’s pretty obvious that it was Visa... they were trying to retroactively change how they applied cash advance fees for the past month, and something went wrong.

iamleppert 6 years ago

Maybe people jumped to conclusions in blaming Coinbase because of all the horror stories about them? It seems like every other day someone is posting up a blog post or story about them locking an account or disappearing transactions, inconsistent ledgers, and months without adequate resolution. It seems in many cases people have been forced to publicly shame them in order to get help.

This one maybe wasn’t there fault but they certainly have a checkered past.

swang 6 years ago

Have the solved the issue of people never seeing their money they've sent via wire transfer?

  • ivoflipse 6 years ago

    Report the issue with CFPB (https://www.consumerfinance.gov). I waited for ~3 months with barely any info from Coinbase's side. After reporting it, the issue got resolved in a timely fashion.

    • stefano 6 years ago

      I find it hilarious that people "investing" in decentralization have to turn to a central authority to be protected.

      • DennisP 6 years ago

        Only when they're stuck dealing with centralized entities.

        • stefano 6 years ago

          Isn't it a failure of a decentralized system the fact that most, if not all, persons using it end up depending on a centralized system?

          • zeroxfe 6 years ago

            > Isn't it a failure of a decentralized system the fact that most, if not all, persons using it end up depending on a centralized system?

            The centralized system you refer to here is the status quo (banks, fiat currencies, etc.)

            For all practical purposes, you can't bootstrap a new decentralized monetary system without depending on an existing one -- value needs to be transferrable between the two entities until most of the world has migrated.

            This isn't a failure of decentralized systems -- it's just the cost of any large-scale transformation with huge powerful incumbents.

            • Domenic_S 6 years ago

              > This isn't a failure of decentralized systems -- it's just the cost of any large-scale transformation with huge powerful incumbents.

              This is equivocation bordering on intentional dishonesty. GP is saying that without engaging the incumbents, the decentralized system would have absorbed his money and given him nothing in return. That is in no possible way a win for decentralization.

              Crypto proponents assert that the world is better without centralized currency/money systems. Yet when push comes to shove, people have been forced to engage with the centralized systems in order to force the people behind the decentralized systems to do the right thing.

              • DennisP 6 years ago

                > without engaging the incumbents, the decentralized system would have absorbed his money and given him nothing

                I don't see how that follows, given that the failure was at VISA, a centralized system, in its interaction with Coinbase, another centralized system. The decentralized cryptocurrencies continue to work as designed.

                • spookthesunset 6 years ago

                  > The decentralized cryptocurrencies continue to work as designed.

                  Well then they aren't very well designed, are they... I mean, if they don't interface with the real world in a workable way, who's at fault?

          • bhaak 6 years ago

            Sure. But depending on how your opinion on cryptocurrencies is, you could either say it's proof that it's not working or that it's not working yet.

            These problems occur because you still have to deal with "legacy" currencies. If everything would be conducted in cryptocurrencies, you wouldn't have any of those.

            Although I'm not convinced that this is a likely future. I'd rather expect banks to offer cryptocurrency accounts with conversions. Ironically, another centralized solution but at least a regulated one.

            • beefield 6 years ago

              > I'd rather expect banks to offer cryptocurrency accounts

              Yes. And then I expect that someone figures out that it is not actually necessary to transfer my crypto to my coffee vendor for cup of coffee, but as we both trust the bank, we just tell the bank to move some crypto from my account to the coffee vendor's account.

              Then, I expect that someone figures out that it would be cheaper (well, actually bank would be willing to pay to borrow my crypto) to keep my crypto in bank if I let the bank to lend that forward for interest.

              Finally, I expect that someone figures out that the raison d'etre of crypto, fixed monetary supply just broke down, as now banks can "create" "cryptocurrency" at will.

          • oculusthrift 6 years ago

            yes and that’s why there are 4 or 5 distinct decentralized exchange projects in development. The second a good one appears people will swarm to it.

          • nimchimpsky 6 years ago

            Failing, or growing. You decide.

      • kss238 6 years ago

        It's only because they are having an issue with centralized money. Where else but the regulatory agencies to go when you have an issue with fiat? There wouldn't be a problem like this when dealing in Bitcoin.

        • matt4077 6 years ago

          Yes. Problems with wire transfers are clearly a conspiracy by the Federal Reserve (a private company!!!1), meant to enslave us all in debt and beaurocracy.

          • kss238 6 years ago

            How did you get that at all from what I wrote? All I'm saying is when you have a problem with bank transfers you have to go through a centralized authority.

      • kylell 6 years ago

        the central authority is the gatekeeper in this cause, things happening at the border have nothing to do with either concepts.

      • jotm 6 years ago

        There's always going to be a central authority. Have people forgot the past few thousand years of human history?

        • notyourday 6 years ago

          This is a brave new world of sea shell currencies with crypto sprinkled on a top. In this world no one learns from the past - instead they keep re-inventing wheels and making them more or less square.

      • ddorian43 6 years ago

        Gotta decentralize CFPB too.

        • jotm 6 years ago

          Decentralize everything, a few years down the line, an established authority that everyone trusts will emerge. It will be the center.

          • ddorian43 6 years ago

            Benelovent centralization..

      • yorby 6 years ago

        once you money is converted from fiat, you don't have to deal with that kind of trouble anymore....

    • pkage 6 years ago

      Unfortunately that probably won't work for much longer, as the current administration is planning to slash the CFPB budget.

    • gambiting 6 years ago

      And if you don't live in US, then what?

    • 8note 6 years ago

      supposing that within the next few years, Trump disbands the CFPB, what's the next option?

  • bhouston 6 years ago

    Why does it seem that all exchanges have issues getting money out to hard currency? Is that a real issue everywhere or do we just see the complains, and most normal cryptocurrency investors people do not have issues?

    • burningion 6 years ago

      I went to a few talks by the Coinbase team last year, and they talked a bit about why hard currency transfers can take so long.

      Basically, all ACH transfers work via a FTP system. Your bank uploads a transactions file at the end of the day. That transaction file is then sent to a server that then connects to a central bank.

      The next day, that central bank does an FTP transfer to the other bank's system, balancing out the transfer.

      This process can take 3-5 business days.

      But, once the money has been "transferred", it can still be rolled back for up to 90 days after the transaction has happened. This makes it really difficult to say when you've "received" the money for real.

      It gets extra scary when the money on one side can't be rolled back at all (ie the cryptocurrency).

      I'm sure at the scale Coinbase is working at, they're running into terrifying numbers, and want to stay as covered as possible. The customers don't really understand the time scales of traditional banking, and here we are.

      The interface between the two makes for some "interesting" edge cases.

      • segmondy 6 years ago

        Good info but ACH rejects can be up to 180 days

        • burningion 6 years ago

          Thanks! Can't edit my comment anymore.

      • tinokid 6 years ago

        For ten years I've been able to place a ACH transfer at one bank by 6 pm and have it available in my other bank by 8 am the following morning. It has never taken "3-5 business days". Anyone claiming there are large inherent delays in that setup is full of baloney.

        Yes there are some dispute/reversal windows that I have never had experience with, but if you are just transferring money between your own accounts this should not be a serious issue.

        • jsjohnst 6 years ago

          > For ten years I've been able to place a ACH transfer at one bank by 6 pm and have it available in my other bank by 8 am the following morning. It has never taken "3-5 business days".

          You are mistaking ACH for wire transfer (or are not aware of the good faith credit your bank provides). There’s three main ways to send money between accounts:

          - wire transfer with immediate delivery

          - wire transfer with next day delivery (likely what you are mistakenly thinking is ACH)

          - ACH which takes the previously mentioned several days (for making sure there isn’t a return for reasons other than stolen account). ACH is essentially “writing a check, sans paper”.

          The first two are essentially direct bank-bank transfers. The latter goes through a clearing house as described and has a clumsy (in modern terms) process with lots of unneeded delays.

          Banks will many times credit the money to your account much faster, but they do that for two reasons.

          - they have an existing relationship with you and know your risk profile

          - they sometimes also send an electronic request to the other bank confirming fund availability. Not all banks support this, but when they do, generally banks will overlook some extra risk from the previous bullet (as in, you don’t have available funds to claw back).

          Happy to provide much more technical details if you insist, but Google could trivially do that for you.

          > Anyone claiming there are large inherent delays in that setup is full of baloney.

          No need to be derogatory towards others stating facts to you.

          • paulie_a 6 years ago

            Typically if you have a larger delay with ACH, your credit is less than optimal in the business side of things.

            I work with merchants and most are overnight as long as it hits the appropriate timeframe, some do experience 3-5 days delay, typically 3 though.

          • tinokid 6 years ago

            No, I am not mistaking ACH for wire transfer, or any kind of "credit" system. If your bank is taking longer it's because your bank sucks.

            But yes please provide those "technical details" whenever you have a chance.

            https://www.frbservices.org/assets/financial-services/ach/09...

            • ad_hominem 6 years ago

              "... the ACH system never provides positive confirmation that an ACH debit has gone through successfully. The only response an ACH originator may get is one notifying them of a return. Because of this 'no news is good news' policy, it is wise for originators of ACH debits to wait for 3 additional business days of 'no news' to ship their product to the customer. Though the ACH system is described as a next-day settlement system, in practice, it is not because of this."[1]

              So your bank is being optimistic and giving you a credit, assuming that no return will happen. A pessimistic or cautious bank would really have to wait several business days to ensure no returns happen before crediting your account.

              [1]: https://engineering.gusto.com/how-ach-works-a-developer-pers...

              • tinokid 6 years ago

                No! They are not being "optimistic," they are just following Regulation CC.

                Ask anyone on the street when they can get the money from their paycheck direct deposit. Unless they just opened their account, they are not waiting days.

                • jsjohnst 6 years ago

                  > Ask anyone on the street when they can get the money from their paycheck direct deposit.

                  That’s because payroll isn’t sent the day of your payday. Go ask the person who handles payroll at the company you work for, they don’t submit it the day of payday (or even usually the day before). It’s normally submitted several days in advance.

                  • bhouston 6 years ago

                    In Canada, I have run payroll and it takes one day. It is vis direct deposit.

                  • tinokid 6 years ago

                    Again...no, it is not. You are confusing different things here. Even if they just learned about it the night before, your bank cannot withhold your direct deposit without breaking the law. Unless there is some special situation like a new account or they suspect fraud.

                    • jsjohnst 6 years ago

                      > Again...no, it is not. You are confusing different things here.

                      Not to get in a pissing match, but you are the one confusing unrelated things. There’s a reason I’m getting upvoted and you are being downvoted.

                      1) for credits, the RDFI doesn’t place holds on the funds (except in very unusual circumstances). So your apology here is flawed.

                      2) read the link provided by @ad_hominem, it very clearly and eloquently explains the time lines involved, by a company doing payroll. Better yet, read the whole series of posts they wrote. (Part 1/2 are linked at the top of the article).

                      In general, try to understand that your personal experiences might not reflect the “way things work”. There are folks on HN who have generally “been there, done that, have battle scars to prove it” (like me in this specific case) for many topics and you’d be wise to keep an open mind rather than keep fighting against them when they are trying to help you understand.

                      • tinokid 6 years ago

                        No...the claim that ACH takes "3-5 business days", "several days", or whatever, is just flat out wrong. I can do ACH (not wire transfer, not "credit") between my totally unrelated bank accounts--whether those be at big banks or tiny little credit unions--with a total delay to myself, the end user, of about 14 hours and change. And that isn't new, it has been the case for well over a decade.

                        And using ACH delays as an excuse for why people can't get money out of Bitcoin quickly-- the original context of this thread-- is completely disingenuous.

                        • jsjohnst 6 years ago

                          Your personal experience doesn’t mean it’s a fact. As I’ve stated multiple times and you keep ignoring, ideal case, it can take under 12hrs (almost all of my ACH transactions are that window too). That does not mean there aren’t significant amount of exceptions!

                          • tinokid 6 years ago

                            >As I’ve stated multiple times and you keep ignoring, ideal case, it can take under 12hrs

                            I must have missed where you said that. You said I was likely mistaking ACH for wire transfer because mine were happening that fast.

                            The point stands that "inherent delays" in the ACH system are negligible, on the order of hours.

                            I reacted strongly to the person claiming otherwise because it was presented as an excuse for people not having access to their money quickly. If people are being told they can't get their money because of "ACH delays", "check is in the mail", "clogged tubes", or whatever, they should not be afraid to call BS!

                            • jsjohnst 6 years ago

                              > The point stands that "inherent delays" in the ACH system are negligible, on the order of hours.

                              Which has been repeatedly called out as wrong with proof in this thread, but you won’t listen. Have an enjoyable life!

                  • notyourday 6 years ago

                    Reg CC trumps developer perspective.

                    Bank can revert ACH in case of a book keeping error (there was no ACH).

                    It can revert ACH in case of a fraud (someone at the bank committed fraud). ACH was not originated by the customer.

                    It can revert ACH in if it gets a court order.

                    It cannot revert ACH because Sally did "oops".

                    Source: SVP of compliance of a very large bank sitting next to me.

                    • jsjohnst 6 years ago

                      The person sitting next to you is over simplifying things then. There are far more reasons that an ACH can be reverted.

                      > It cannot revert ACH because Sally did "oops".

                      Quite a few of the defined ACH return codes[0] seem to be loosely in the “oops” you said wasn’t possible.

                      [0] https://gusto.com/ach_return_codes

                      • notyourday 6 years ago

                        That would be possible as

                        a) first response b) bank-to-bank journaling based on the bank to bank agreement.

                        But dont look at me - just try doing it and see how successful you would be.

                        • jsjohnst 6 years ago

                          I’ve issued stop payments on ACH transactions multiple times with success, so yes, it’s definitely possible to cause an ACH return.

                          • notyourday 6 years ago

                            Have you noticed that by doing that you have indemnified your bank?

                            • jsjohnst 6 years ago

                              Sure, but that doesn’t change my point. What about closed accounts, invalid account numbers, or NSF? All three of those cause ACH rejects/reverts without any indemnity, yet weren’t in your list.

                              • notyourday 6 years ago

                                Those show up nearly immediately.

                • ad_hominem 6 years ago

                  Not sure why you got downvoted, I think you're right there. I misspoke when assuming that banks had much leeway in holding those funds (I'm not very familiar with banking regulations).

                  However I still think it's accurate to not think of the funds as fully clearing for several days given the nature of the protocol, and that regulation simply forces the banks to be "optimistic" in giving a next-business-day credit.

                  • jsjohnst 6 years ago

                    He’s being downvoted because he’s wrong and rather than replying directly to the points made, he tangents off on one small detail and still misses the narrative.

                    Per Title 12 → Chapter II → Subchapter A → Part 229 → Subpart B → §229.10b(1), in general a bank shall make funds received for deposit in an account by an electronic payment available for withdrawal not later than the business day after the banking day on which the bank received the electronic payment. [0]

                    So reading that there are several observations.

                    - first, they say in general, emphasis theirs, and don’t define exceptions explicitly.

                    - next business day, so that means they are perfectly allowed to be two days delay for a payment initiated by Wednesday night, or up to five days for one initiated Thursday night (Thursday send, Friday received but held, Monday being next business day). If Monday is a bank holiday, then it could even be six days!

                    - in (2)(i) they further go on to state Payment in actually and finally collected funds. There are a number of reasons that could be delayed.

                    Ultimately, saying an ACH should always be by next morning is just flat wrong and no amount of experience with your own personal transactions negates that.

                    https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=b82e479da1df29eaa4...

        • matwood 6 years ago

          > For ten years I've been able to place a ACH transfer at one bank by 6 pm and have it available in my other bank by 8 am the following morning. It has never taken "3-5 business days". Anyone claiming there are large inherent delays in that setup is full of baloney.

          I believe in this case your bank 'trusts' you. With banks that I have an existing relationship with I can move money overnight. When I open an account at a new bank it takes days for the money to be available for use. Presumably the new bank does not trust me yet, and thus makes me wait for all of the confirmations to occur.

        • segmondy 6 years ago

          Typically takes a day but you forgot that there are very small banks. How long it takes to show up in your account has nothing to do with how fast the Feds transferred it to the receiving bank but how automated and fast the receiving bank deposits it in your account. There are also times when it takes longer, weekends and bank holidays can extend that time

        • astura 6 years ago

          https://ptmoney.com/why-do-online-bank-transfers-take-so-fre...

          The WSJ linked is paywalled but the quotes are

          “…these large transfers move in steps. Banks have slowed down the process further to reduce the chance of fraud… [the bank] sends transactions in batches during the day to an automated clearinghouse, which sorts them and moves them to the receiving bank in a matter of two to four hours… In many cases, the receiving bank gets the transfer the same day."

          So delays are inserted on purpose. Certain banks don't introduce these delays, or have minimum delays, you'll know it when you're using one. USAA and Fidelity are two I've used that don't delay ACH transfers, those have always cleared ACH transfers next day. I even get my paycheck a day early when deposited into one of those accounts.

          The other option is your bank keeps a tab of "transfers that are trusted."

          • jsjohnst 6 years ago

            > USAA and Fidelity are two I've used that don't delay ACH transfers, those have always cleared ACH transfers next day.

            This is because they are crediting you the money before they actually have it confirmed. See my reply below to GP, they are doing this because they are more risk tolerant and/or you are a less risky customer.

    • stefano 6 years ago

      My guess is that there is very little real liquidity in the market, and most of the value is just paper gains that can't be fully realised, i.e. a single person can fully liquidate to dollars, but if everyone does it, many people will end up holding the bag.

      When someone tries to cash out, exchanges might need for someone to put some money back in to avoid a liquidity crisis.

      I believe this is especially true for tether-based exchanges, which Coinbase is not.

      Then again, this is just my guess and I can't provide anything to back it up. Maybe it's just due to a buggy cowboy-driven codebase and awful customer service. Time will tell. If it's a liquidity issue, exchanges will eventually go belly up, if it's a codebase/customer service problem, they might get to a point where it's actually fixed and things just work.

      • freejulian 6 years ago

        I know several people, including myself, who have cashed out 6 figure sums. Never any problem. Just need to use a reputable exchange like Gemini.

    • Moter8 6 years ago

      Haven't had any significant delays (as in, deposits or withdrawals taking more than 4 bank days) in the SEPA zone with Coinbase/GDAX and Kraken.

      These delays seem to be caused by the slow US (or international wire?) system.

aussie12345 6 years ago

Is there somewhere a link to a Visa statement? The one referenced seems from the Coinbase blog. I couldn't find any information from Visa, besides the one public post they made saying they aren't at fault. Its quite the tragedy for some people apparently.

  • ghusbands 6 years ago

    The article clearly states: "The following is a joint statement from Visa and Worldpay, which is Coinbase’s payment processor partner. While Coinbase initially distributed the statement on its own blog, we’ve also received the statement directly from Visa." In that statement: "This issue was not caused by Coinbase."

    • aussie12345 6 years ago

      Will until a statement comes out from Visa it wasn't them. I'd expect a joined statement be published on visa and wordplay as well - not solely on Coinbase. It least coinbase should push for that, otherwise to me it's a pretty weak post.

      • ghusbands 6 years ago

        A statement did come from Visa to the news agencies; they clearly don't feel the need to add anything. As I quoted, "we’ve also received the statement directly from Visa"

  • Ninn 6 years ago

    The techcrunch articles states that they have confirmed the statement with Visa. Please consider reading it?

    • aussie12345 6 years ago

      Why can't they reference a source?

      • kss238 6 years ago

        If you were Visa would you really want to put out an obviously negative statement like this anymore than you have to?

      • Trundle 6 years ago

        They did reference a source. Visa.

      • richardwhiuk 6 years ago

        Probably cause Visa and Worldplay don't really want to issue the statement

  • emh68 6 years ago

    If Visa weren’t at fault they would put out a statement about it and then probably sue. Why are there so many posts asking this same question? Feels concerted

nukeop 6 years ago

Visa confirmed this... on Coinbase's blog. Why didn't they post it on their own website?

  • runeks 6 years ago

    Because it’s really bad press.

nukeop 6 years ago

Visa has vested interest in cryptocurrencies never getting anywhere. They have a motive to make them seem like a dangerous investment. I'm not saying that a purposeful action happened here, but it is a possibility.

criddell 6 years ago

Does anybody know what happened with the people on Reddit trying to organize and armed group to head to Coinbase to confront the CEO?

  • Bitcoin_McPonzi 6 years ago

    I would hope that Coinbase would contact the FBI about this, and that the FBI would take it seriously.

  • jxub 6 years ago

    Sounds like good material for a movie.

    • criddell 6 years ago

      What genre would it be?

      • jxub 6 years ago

        I don't know that yet, but we should jump on the crypto bandwagon and make an ICO for it.

  • closeparen 6 years ago

    I’ve long wondered how Coinbase can be resistant to an armed robbery of the office with staff present. Seems like a pretty interesting security engineering challenge.

  • pmorici 6 years ago

    Wouldn't surprise me if it was an organized (paid) troll campaign trying to stir up anti Coinbase sentiment. Small block fanatics have had it out for Coinbase ever since they published a blog post advocating for raising the block size. Ever since any hit of a problem they go out of their way to blow the issue out of proportion.

    • ryanlol 6 years ago

      Perhaps the excessively angry reactions are just a natural response to the very poor customer support that these companies offer?

      Often it feels like overreacting is the only way to extract a response from SV companies. Reminds me of the upwork story a few days back.

      • ShabbosGoy 6 years ago

        I think we can all agree there’s a huge difference between overreacting and plotting to arm yourself and storm Coinbase’s headquarters to “talk” to the CEO.

        • ryanlol 6 years ago

          I think this only holds true if you assume the “plotters” were serious about their intentions.

          Otherwise they were just silly people venting on internet forums. That certainly seems like a fairly standard form of overreaction.

          Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending this behaviour. I’m just more interested in if there’s something that SV firms are doing that’s exacerbating it.

          • paulgb 6 years ago

            The problem with the broadcasting intentions on the internet is that even if you're not serious about your intentions, you could influence other people. Look at the guy who went into Comet Pizza with a gun, for example.

    • criddell 6 years ago

      If anything, I think it makes me feel sympathy to Coinbase and the people that work there.

  • runeks 6 years ago

    Hopefully they’ve been jailed.

  • matt4077 6 years ago

    They couldn’t find an adult to drive them.

    • tonetheman 6 years ago

      This. This is the best comment I have seen in a long time.

maximexx 6 years ago

And this is one of the major points of cryptocurrency as a replacement for the current payment systems. In the end we don't want Banks, Visa, Coinbase, etc.. because they F* with our money.

  • sp332 6 years ago

    That's right. If you can pay and get paid with cryptocurrencies, you don't have to use an exchange.

    • bby 6 years ago

      I would never want the volatility.

  • ebbv 6 years ago

    Are you for real? There’s major headlines about screw ups with crypto codebases and exchanges constantly.

    • AgentME 6 years ago

      The headlines are practically always either about centralized bank-like exchanges that hold crypto on behalf of others losing it, or about people losing money they put into a badly-written Ethereum contract. The number of situations that people lost properly-handled cryptocurrency (they didn't send it to the wrong address, they had a backup, and they used a hardware wallet or malware-free computer) with a mainstream client have been practically non-existent.

      • ebbv 6 years ago

        You realize the user hostile nature of basically all crypto currencies is not a feature right?

        • AgentME 6 years ago

          "You should have a backup and double-check the address you send to" is a user-hostile high bar? I mean, maybe for non-technical people, but I'm not exactly recommending bitcoin or any cryptocurrency to them. Something can have its uses without having to be everything to everyone.

          • ebbv 6 years ago

            The comment I was replying to was saying we need to replace banks with crypto. The user hostility is one reason why that's nowhere near happening.

    • eberkund 6 years ago

      What a fallacy of equivocation, cryptocurrency codebases and the exchanges they trade on are not the same thing. It would be like saying: marijuana and the cartels and killing any people every year!

      • ebbv 6 years ago

        I didn't equivocate them, I listed them both individually. Didn't seem like a hard sentence to parse to me?

    • notgoingaway 6 years ago

      I think you misread the comment you're replying to.