71–80 of 86 posts
First of all, this is very neat. I just tried this with $15, but I'm receiving the error message "your account must be approved prior to trading". At the same time I received an email from AnchorUSD stating "We expect your USDx to post to your account by September 25, 2019". Does it really take 6 days for the funds to be available in my account, or am I misunderstanding?
What is an ACH? And when you say "Connect your bank account..." does that mean this only works in the USA? Would be nice if this was mentioned somewhere.
First of all, this is very neat. I just tried this with $15, but I'm receiving the error message "your account must be approved prior to trading". At the same time I received an email from AnchorUSD stating "We expect your USDx to post to your account by September 25, 2019". Does it really take 6 days for the funds to be available in my account, or am I misunderstanding?
I think we're working together in our support channel, but the email you received was in error - we're working to resolve.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have guards in place to protect against fraud by verifying your identity in a few different ways, but this is something we'll monitor and make improvements to over time. It's critical to the survival of the business that we have strong fraud detection methods. However, we also think that the experience of instant transfers is valuable, so on a risk-based approach we allow instant transfers using ACH for certain cu…
> However, we also think that the experience of instant transfers is valuable, so on a risk-based approach we allow instant transfers using ACH for certain customers and certain transaction sizes. You have a fundamental misunderstanding how ACHs work. There's no such thing as an ACH that is "completed". At +180 days the state is "It is probably going to be fine". At +365 days the state is "It is probably most likely…
aka, buy bitcoin instantly once you've deposited your USD into some partner bank account which you don't have access to but Sparkswap absolutely does. This isn't really new or interesting and has been shut down repeatedly before because most crypto companies can't handle the fraud mitgation, here's a clue, it's not cheap or easy and can't be automated at this small scale. Instant access to the coins has never really…
I want to say it means more like the on ramps to crypto are kind of fucked. Coinbase and other on ramp providers have terrible fees, its almost exclusively the primary reason I don't swap fiat into crypto currency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good question - we make money by selling Bitcoin for slightly higher than we buy it from a few sources. We aim to have very competitive prices (lower than many places you can buy Bitcoin today), but we don't have a set fee rate that we publish.
So if I understand correctly, the business model is to be the only seller in this exchange, with a profit margin justified by the convenience of instantly available Bitcoin funds. Would it not be possible for a competitor to undermine this business model by running an exchange (based on the same technology, perhaps the same implementation) where selling is more permissive?
> for the first time, you can have fast, convenient trading without custodial trust. Really? From your description it sounds like I would have to trust Sparkswap and some other unknown bank with my fiat. > In just the first half of 2019, almost $500M^3 was stolen from custodial exchanges. And why would you be immune to this? > product that solves a real problem What problem? To buy LN coins instead of Bitcoins?
[replying because I previously downvoted and another respondent didn't know why people were downvoting.] > Really? From your description it sounds like I would have to trust Sparkswap and some other unknown bank with my fiat. Fiat transactions have extremely high reversibility often for months after the fact, and law enforcement is actually responsive around fiat theft in a way they haven't been around cryptocurrency…
Anyway that's a lot of words to not answer my questions other than guessing their intent to eliminate large cryptocurrency balances (using LN means they do have to hold Bitcoins).
I used the term "LN coins" to signify that LN have fundamentally different properties than Bitcoin, whereas your wall of newspeak suggest LN and Bitcoins are the same. They are not.
LN operates by trading unconfirmed Bitcoin transactions, and holders are expected to challenge fraud not to loose their coins. Yes this mean you have to be always online (or you need someone else to be for you). Also you might not be able to pay someone, because there is no route with sufficient funds. There is something called the "inbound capacity problem"[1] which limits how much you can receive.
In fact LN developers are saying that LN is not ready and should not be used in production, simply because it's not ready. See for example a recent CVE which has been exploited in the wild.[2]
Implying, as you do, that using LN is as good as using Bitcoin is far worse misinformation than you misinterpreting my choice of words as if I said LN is another cryptocurrency. (Also funny how you react to that, as if all cryptocurrencies other than Bitcoin are scams, which is of course not the case).
[0]: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017...
[1]: https://blockonomi.com/lightning-network-inbound-capacity/
[2]: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/20...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> However, we also think that the experience of instant transfers is valuable, so on a risk-based approach we allow instant transfers using ACH for certain customers and certain transaction sizes. You have a fundamental misunderstanding how ACHs work. There's no such thing as an ACH that is "completed". At +180 days the state is "It is probably going to be fine". At +365 days the state is "It is probably most likely…
All legit exchanges (e.g. Coinbase and Gemini) have this problem but there's really no better way for consumers to transfer USD.