23 ms·

Yeah, that's how I feel about this. It's not coinbase's responsibility to act as a host to all cryptocurrencies. The article states, > An activist group, whic

Yeah, that's how I feel about this. It's not coinbase's responsibility to act as a host to all cryptocurrencies. The article states, > An activist group, which claims Coinbase's decision is akin to a brokerage withholding new shares from its investors, ... which is not at all what it's like. Coinbase isn't the only source to buy/sell BCC. I think it's ridiculous that a company could be sued because they don't offer a new service.

holtalanm 9y ago
That is not the issue at all. The issue is that Coinbase is _withholding_ the BCC from its customers. Technically, Coinbase has been awarded the BCC for all of the wallets they are in control of, but are refusing to distribute it. It really is akin to a brokerage refusing to award shares to customers due to a company split/stock split.
- bdamm 9y ago
  It seems clear that Coinbase must have a major fundamental financial problem.
  - ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
    How does that follow?
    - bdamm 9y ago
      If Coinbase is actually holding BTC for every claimed BTC of their customers, then it's trivial to calculate how many BCH the customer held at the time of the fork and create a way to claim them or transfer them. It could be a one-time option, if Coinbase doesn't want to deal with BCH. Unless they aren't holding as much BTC as their customers think they are. In which case, it gets complicated.
- badloginagain 9y ago
  They clearly stated, well in advance, through multiple channels, their intention not to support BCC. They specifically told people to take their BTC off CoinBase if they wanted BCC. I don't think they could have been any clearer.
  - splintercell 9y ago
    >well in advance As a customer, the first notification of this was sent to me was around ten day before the fork, I don't think that would be considered as 'well in advance'.
  - voidz 9y ago
    Doesn't matter. The fork occurred, so they can either give the duplicated amounts to their customers or keep them to themselves and who knows, sell all of the BCC somewhere else for all we know. To me, the latter just seems to be unrightful profit for coinbase.
- SilasX 9y ago
  Does it depend on whether Coinbase is a fiduciary? Gemini, for example, represents that they are[1], but I find no such claim by Coinbase. Edit: A fiduciary would (AIUI) not be allowed to keep shares from a spinoff, which this seems like. But I'm no expert. [1] https://gemini24.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/204734485-Is-Gemini-licensed-and-regulated- https://gemini24.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/204734485-Is-...
anthonybsd 9y ago
>which is not at all what it's like. Coinbase isn't the only source to buy/sell BCC. I think it's ridiculous that a company could be sued because they don't offer a new service. As it happens, it's slightly more complicated than what you make it out to be. It's not a question of them simply not offering to support the new service. You see, when you hold your bitcoins inside Coinbase they have a private address of your wallet which they don't disclose to you. You can of course withdraw the bitcoins at any time (we'll get back to this later) and transfer them into a wallet of your choice. Now when the fork happens you, as the owner of the private key to your wallet now own the same amount of bitcoins on both blockchains. Both, as it appears have market value. However, because coinbase is the sole entity possessing private keys in this case and because they have announced that they won't support BCC they are effectively pocketing the entire market value of the BCC bitcoins that their customers have entrusted them with, which is likely to be in millions of dollars. When they announced that they wouldn't support BCC a lot of people rushed to withdraw their money from Coinbase into other wallets. However, a lot of people were unable to do so due to a variety of reasons and Coinbase is notorious for having atrocious customer service in matters like this. Hence the outrage.
- tytso 9y ago
  When you hold your bitcoins inside Coinbase, they aren't part of "your" wallet. Coinbase works like a bank. When you deposit $100, they don't mark those bills as being yours. Instead they are commingled with everyone else and the bank gives you a promise that when you ask for your $100, you'll get your $100 back. Not that if you gave them a $100 bill, you'll get back that exact same bill. Coinbase works exactly the same way. This means that you can transfer Bitcoins between two Coinbase accounts (a) instantly, and (b) without incurring any transaction fees --- because such a transfer doesn't actually go through the blockchain. BTW, Coinbase and other similar companies claim to be a full reserve bank, but unless there's an audit, there is no way to tell from external observation that they aren't playing a Mt. Gox game of being a fractional reserve bank without bothering to tell their customers. So how does this relate to BCC/BCH? Since each Bitcoin customer doesn't have their BTC in a separate wallet, in order for Coinbase to support BCH, or any other random fork of Bitcoin that might take place in the future, they would have to track when your BTC was credited to your account, and then create a separate BCH account to track the BCH. Then if you ask to withdraw your BCH in USD, just as you are entitled to do with BTC held in a Coinbase account, Coinbase would have to find an exchange that supports BCH, and sell some number of BCH on your behalf. Coinbase has elected not to do this, and gave all of their customers ample notice that if they wanted to participate in the BCH experiment, they would have to ask Coinbase to transfer their BTC into their own private wallet. (I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure the fact that they did give notice is going to be something that will be mentioned as part of their defense if and when a lawsuit is actually filed.) When I withdrew all of my BTC from Coinbase last week, the transaction which Coinbase executed to transfer "my" BTC into my own wallet had "change" that went back to a Coinbase private key. That's another clear indication that "my" BTC were not held in a separate wallet, but rather commingled with other Coinbase customers' accounts.
lawn 9y ago
> Coinbase isn't the only source to buy/sell BCC. That's not what this is about. They want to withdraw their BCC which duplicated from their BTC. > I think it's ridiculous that a company could be sued because they don't offer a new service. I think it's ridiculous if a company, very similar to a bank, couldn't be sued when they effectively haircut their customers of 20% profit of their coins.
- ebcode 9y ago
  I think we're finding out that the coins that Coinbase's customers believe they hold don't actually belong to those customers. It looks like they belong to Coinbase, who is deciding what to do with them. You gotta read the fine print.

holtalanm 9y ago

That is not the issue at all. The issue is that Coinbase is _withholding_ the BCC from its customers. Technically, Coinbase has been awarded the BCC for all of the wallets they are in control of, but are refusing to distribute it. It really is akin to a brokerage refusing to award shares to customers due to a company split/stock split.

bdamm 9y ago
It seems clear that Coinbase must have a major fundamental financial problem.
- ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
  How does that follow?
  - bdamm 9y ago
    If Coinbase is actually holding BTC for every claimed BTC of their customers, then it's trivial to calculate how many BCH the customer held at the time of the fork and create a way to claim them or transfer them. It could be a one-time option, if Coinbase doesn't want to deal with BCH. Unless they aren't holding as much BTC as their customers think they are. In which case, it gets complicated.
badloginagain 9y ago
They clearly stated, well in advance, through multiple channels, their intention not to support BCC. They specifically told people to take their BTC off CoinBase if they wanted BCC. I don't think they could have been any clearer.
- splintercell 9y ago
  >well in advance As a customer, the first notification of this was sent to me was around ten day before the fork, I don't think that would be considered as 'well in advance'.
- voidz 9y ago
  Doesn't matter. The fork occurred, so they can either give the duplicated amounts to their customers or keep them to themselves and who knows, sell all of the BCC somewhere else for all we know. To me, the latter just seems to be unrightful profit for coinbase.
SilasX 9y ago
Does it depend on whether Coinbase is a fiduciary? Gemini, for example, represents that they are[1], but I find no such claim by Coinbase. Edit: A fiduciary would (AIUI) not be allowed to keep shares from a spinoff, which this seems like. But I'm no expert. [1] https://gemini24.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/204734485-Is-Gemini-licensed-and-regulated- https://gemini24.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/204734485-Is-...

anthonybsd 9y ago

>which is not at all what it's like. Coinbase isn't the only source to buy/sell BCC. I think it's ridiculous that a company could be sued because they don't offer a new service. As it happens, it's slightly more complicated than what you make it out to be. It's not a question of them simply not offering to support the new service. You see, when you hold your bitcoins inside Coinbase they have a private address of your wallet which they don't disclose to you. You can of course withdraw the bitcoins at any time (we'll get back to this later) and transfer them into a wallet of your choice. Now when the fork happens you, as the owner of the private key to your wallet now own the same amount of bitcoins on both blockchains. Both, as it appears have market value. However, because coinbase is the sole entity possessing private keys in this case and because they have announced that they won't support BCC they are effectively pocketing the entire market value of the BCC bitcoins that their customers have entrusted them with, which is likely to be in millions of dollars. When they announced that they wouldn't support BCC a lot of people rushed to withdraw their money from Coinbase into other wallets. However, a lot of people were unable to do so due to a variety of reasons and Coinbase is notorious for having atrocious customer service in matters like this. Hence the outrage.

tytso 9y ago
When you hold your bitcoins inside Coinbase, they aren't part of "your" wallet. Coinbase works like a bank. When you deposit $100, they don't mark those bills as being yours. Instead they are commingled with everyone else and the bank gives you a promise that when you ask for your $100, you'll get your $100 back. Not that if you gave them a $100 bill, you'll get back that exact same bill. Coinbase works exactly the same way. This means that you can transfer Bitcoins between two Coinbase accounts (a) instantly, and (b) without incurring any transaction fees --- because such a transfer doesn't actually go through the blockchain. BTW, Coinbase and other similar companies claim to be a full reserve bank, but unless there's an audit, there is no way to tell from external observation that they aren't playing a Mt. Gox game of being a fractional reserve bank without bothering to tell their customers. So how does this relate to BCC/BCH? Since each Bitcoin customer doesn't have their BTC in a separate wallet, in order for Coinbase to support BCH, or any other random fork of Bitcoin that might take place in the future, they would have to track when your BTC was credited to your account, and then create a separate BCH account to track the BCH. Then if you ask to withdraw your BCH in USD, just as you are entitled to do with BTC held in a Coinbase account, Coinbase would have to find an exchange that supports BCH, and sell some number of BCH on your behalf. Coinbase has elected not to do this, and gave all of their customers ample notice that if they wanted to participate in the BCH experiment, they would have to ask Coinbase to transfer their BTC into their own private wallet. (I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure the fact that they did give notice is going to be something that will be mentioned as part of their defense if and when a lawsuit is actually filed.) When I withdrew all of my BTC from Coinbase last week, the transaction which Coinbase executed to transfer "my" BTC into my own wallet had "change" that went back to a Coinbase private key. That's another clear indication that "my" BTC were not held in a separate wallet, but rather commingled with other Coinbase customers' accounts.

lawn 9y ago

> Coinbase isn't the only source to buy/sell BCC. That's not what this is about. They want to withdraw their BCC which duplicated from their BTC. > I think it's ridiculous that a company could be sued because they don't offer a new service. I think it's ridiculous if a company, very similar to a bank, couldn't be sued when they effectively haircut their customers of 20% profit of their coins.

ebcode 9y ago
I think we're finding out that the coins that Coinbase's customers believe they hold don't actually belong to those customers. It looks like they belong to Coinbase, who is deciding what to do with them. You gotta read the fine print.