[sowbug]

> This happened to me as well a few weeks back. Smells a lot like a Ponzi scheme.

Readers, please enshrine this comment as the canonical example of the Cryptocurrency Corollary of Godwin's Law: "As an online discussion about cryptocurrency grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Ponzi approaches 1."

Coinbase's entire business is to irreversibly and permanently send you Bitcoin in exchange for you sending them funds that you have months to dispute and reverse. And this is with reasonable fees that put a check-cashing outfit to shame. Of course they're going to err on the side of caution. Based on zero information whatsoever, I'm going to assume you're telling the truth. But for every honest person like you, there are probably at least two who truly are trying to steal Bitcoin from Coinbase.

I don't like it any more than you do when businesses make mistakes. But jumping straight to "Ponzi scheme" is just silly.

[djsumdog]

If you have a statement on your site saying you will deposit x coins in y days, you should do that. If you don't for a lot of people, then something is wrong with your business and no, people should not trust you.

> in exchange for you sending them funds that you have months to dispute and reverse

and here we see the limits of crypto currency and the legitimate concerns people have with it.

[Sangermaine]

>Readers, please enshrine this comment as the canonical example of the Cryptocurrency Corollary of Godwin's Law: "As an online discussion about cryptocurrency grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Ponzi approaches 1."

Because the Corollary is true. At this point to believe otherwise marks you as a credulous dupe.

You were probably defending Mt Gox up to the day of its collapse. The Bitcoin True Believers are the easiest marks for these scams and cons because their ideology blinds them to reality.

[sowbug]

You're inserting ad hominem attacks in a thread that didn't have them or need them. Settle down.

[Mizza]

I don't think it's unreasonable to think that they might using the cash influx from newer users to cover cash outs for older users. Which I suppose is fine if they keep balanced books, but not if they're not delivering advertised service to the new users, which they aren't. They took my money, gave me nothing, then went absolutely silent.

[sowbug]

Yes, it is unreasonable. You could say that any business "might [be] using the cash influx from newer users to cover cash outs for older users." Seriously, don't hide behind the word "might." It's a lazy defense of an accusation that's based more on emotion than reason or facts.

I once ordered a computer from Dell. The sealed box arrived empty. I went through few weeks of increasingly enraged emails and phone calls. Should I have assumed Dell was a Ponzi scheme?