Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday February 18 2018, @03:48PM   Printer-friendly
from the off-base-transactions dept.

[Update] There have been new developments to this story:

According to Techcrunch:

Yesterday, we wrote that Coinbase customers were being charged multiple times for past transactions.

While some speculated that the erroneous withdraws were down to a Coinbase engineering issue, Coinbase issued a statement saying it wasn’t liable for the duplicate charges. The blame, instead, rested with Visa for the way it handled a migration of merchant categories for cryptocurrencies, Coinbase said.

While you can read my post yesterday for an in-depth description of what happened, the basic gist is that about a month of old transactions were refunded and recharged under a different merchant category. Many users saw the recharge come through before the refund processed, making it look like they were double charged. Honestly, the issue was likely exacerbated by existing payment rails — it’s normal for refunds to take multiple days to show up on credit and debit statements.

Here is the joint statement by Visa and Worldpay (Coinbase):

Over the last two days, some customers who used a credit or debit card at Coinbase may have seen duplicate transactions posted to their cardholder accounts.

This issue was not caused by Coinbase.

Worldpay and Coinbase have been working with Visa and Visa issuing banks to ensure that the duplicate transactions have been reversed and appropriate credits have been posted to cardholder accounts. All reversal transactions have now been issued, and should appear on customers’ credit card and debit card accounts within the next few days. We believe the majority of these reversals have already posted to accounts. If you continue to have problems with your credit or debit card account after this reversal period, including issues relating to card fees or charges, we encourage you to contact your card issuing bank.

We deeply regret any inconvenience this may have caused customers.

The original story follows below.

A growing number of Coinbase customers are complaining that the cryptocurrency exchange withdrew unauthorized money out of their accounts. In some cases, this drained their linked bank accounts below zero, resulting in overdraft charges.

In a typical anecdote posted on Reddit, one user said they purchased Bitcoin, Ether, and Litecoin for a total of $300 on February 9th. A few days later, the transactions repeated five times for a total of $1,500, even though the user had not made any more purchases. That was enough to clear out this user's bank account, they said, resulting in fees.

"My bank account went from very comfortable to negatives balance, not to mention extra $5 charges, and overdraft fees," the user wrote. "As a result my rent check bounced, and my bank went further into negative for a NSF charge for $25. My landlord is not a nice person and is on my CASE and I have nothing to offer him. I am FREAKING OUT."

Coinbase representatives have been responding to similar complaints on Reddit for about two weeks, but the volume of complaints seems to have spiked over the last 24 hours. Similar complaints have popped up on forums and Twitter.

Source: The Verge


Original Submission

Related Stories

Coinbase Acquires Earn.com 4 comments

Bitcoin exchange Coinbase buys Earn.com for a reported $100M and adds key executive

Digital currency exchange Coinbase is building on a recent hiring streak with a deal to buy Earn.com announced Monday. As part of the acquisition, the crypto company will bring on Earn's founder and CEO as its first-ever chief technology officer.

Before running Earn, which lets users send and receive digital currency for replying to emails and completing tasks, Srinivasan was a general partner at venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.

Srinivasan will act as "technological evangelist" for both the industry, and for Coinbase in his new role, the company said.

"Balaji has become one of the most respected technologists in the crypto field and is considered one of the technology industry's few true originalists," Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong said in a blog post Monday.

Coinbase did not disclose the terms of the deal but according to Recode, the offer was more than $100 million.

Earn.com sounds like a Mechanical Turk website that pays out virtual blockchain money to bubble boosters. From the website: "Get paid to learn about new crypto projects. Crypto startups use Earn.com to build their communities, get feedback on whitepapers, and airdrop tokens to qualified recipients."

Also at TechCrunch and Reuters.

Related: Coinbase Escalates Showdown on U.S. Tax Probe as Bitcoin Surges
Coinbase Ordered to Report 14,355 Users to the IRS
Coinbase is NOT Erratically Overcharging Some Users and Emptying Their Bank Accounts [Updated]


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Whoever on Sunday February 18 2018, @03:53PM (3 children)

    by Whoever (4524) on Sunday February 18 2018, @03:53PM (#639729) Journal

    This story is already out of date and wrong: it has already emerged that Coinbase are not the cause of the over charging.
    https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/16/visa-coinbase-not-at-fault/ [techcrunch.com]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 18 2018, @04:04PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 18 2018, @04:04PM (#639730)

      Ok, if you are so fast at the draw, why didn't you submit the counter story--perhaps the editors would have merged the two? https://soylentnews.org/submit.pl [soylentnews.org]

      Anyway, thanks for the link (but no thanks for the snark).

      • (Score: 1) by requerdanos on Sunday February 18 2018, @04:24PM

        by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 18 2018, @04:24PM (#639733) Journal

        Essentials excerpted from a joint statement issued by Visa and Worldpay, from that techcrunch update story [techcrunch.com]:

        Over the last two days, some customers who used a credit or debit card at Coinbase may have seen duplicate transactions posted to their cardholder accounts.

        This issue was not caused by Coinbase.

        All reversal transactions have now been issued, and should appear on customers’ credit card and debit card accounts within the next few days.

        We deeply regret any inconvenience this may have caused customers.

        Again, according to Visa, "This issue was not caused by Coinbase."

        May I say that Visa and Worldpay's deep regret do not in any make up for non-sufficient funds charges imposed on me by my bank in the event that their deeply regretful mistake costs me more money than I have in that account.

    • (Score: 2) by martyb on Sunday February 18 2018, @06:47PM

      by martyb (76) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 18 2018, @06:47PM (#639773) Journal

      Very much appreciate the correction! The story has been updated accordingly. Give it a few minutes to work its way through the cache.

      --
      Wit is intellect, dancing.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by SparkyGSX on Sunday February 18 2018, @04:41PM (19 children)

    by SparkyGSX (4041) on Sunday February 18 2018, @04:41PM (#639736)

    This guy apparently considers $1500 "very comfortable", gambles with $300, and is in trouble when the rest of it is inaccessible for a few days because of a mistake, implying he has no other reserve? Is this what passed for financial responsible behavior in the US?

    --
    If you do what you did, you'll get what you got
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by requerdanos on Sunday February 18 2018, @04:54PM (12 children)

      by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 18 2018, @04:54PM (#639739) Journal

      Is this what passed for financial responsible behavior in the US?

      It is not; standards here are similar to other wealthy nations.

      However, the substandard behavior isn't uncommon, and paycheck-to-paycheck folks in general seem unable to see any fault in that sort of logic. They seem to have rules like these:

      - Well, I can't afford to pay that $750 car repair bill. Oh, whatever can I afford? Hey! A $300 flat-screen TV! I can afford that because I have $525 which is more than $300 but less than $750.

      - I came up short? Let's look among my creditors and see whose fault that was!

      Reading between the lines, it's likely that both of these rules figured into our investor's situation. It's fascinating to see, in a watching-a-train-wreck sort of way.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 18 2018, @05:27PM (10 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 18 2018, @05:27PM (#639748)

        Wow, blame the victim huh? It is easy to come up with scenarios that make someone look like "they deserve it" but such is not always the case. Your shitty analysis doesn't even match the example used, but keep pounding that bullshit into the ground until the world falls apart. I hope one day you fall on hard times and get some unfair punishment for the mistake of someone else, and with any luck your brain recalls this thread and says "son of a bitch!" as you curl into a ball of self-pity and regret.

        • (Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Sunday February 18 2018, @05:36PM (6 children)

          by Aiwendil (531) on Sunday February 18 2018, @05:36PM (#639750) Journal

          Care to try to come with an analysis of how his example was wrong? or a counter-example? or maybe anything that could advance a discussion on the subject? I mean, since you obviously has an opposing view it would be interesting to read it.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 18 2018, @05:41PM (5 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 18 2018, @05:41PM (#639753)

            Not previous AC, but don't believe for one second that that is a common occurrence anywhere in the world. Somebody might put both of those things on their credit card, but if they need the car, they're not going to buy a TV in lieu of repairing the car.

            The idea that there are large numbers of people in poverty because they made foolish decisions is ridiculous. There just aren't enough high paying jobs out there right now for every responsible, hardworking person to get one. The result is that there's a large number of people making minimum wage, or in some cases less, even without doing anything wrong.

            Out of the hundreds of millions of people in the US, there probably is somebody out there that would buy the TV over getting the car fixed, but it's completely dishonest to suggest that it's in anyway justification for having people in extreme poverty while corporations and the wealthy have so much.

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by requerdanos on Sunday February 18 2018, @07:20PM (3 children)

              by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 18 2018, @07:20PM (#639777) Journal

              While a more neutral tone would serve to advance discussion, I have been at this long enough to know it's unlikely to happen, so, my AC friend, I respond to your faintly condescending tone with my own. Consider yourself invited to drop same, and I'll meet you in the middle.

              don't believe for one second that that is a common occurrence anywhere in the world.

              I wish that it did, but the reality is that your belief system doesn't enter into it. (Never will. Sorry.)

              Somebody might put both of those things on their credit card, but if they need the car, they're not going to buy a TV in lieu of repairing the car.

              You are thinking of the wrong group of people. The group in question doesn't have a credit card because their compulsive spending has caused their credit ratings to drop below what's necessary to get or keep a credit card. Most of the folks in this situation that I come across don't even have a bank account, much less credit.

              The idea that there are large numbers of people in poverty because they made foolish decisions is ridiculous.

              Yes, it is, and shame on you for having that idea.

              Many people, however, make foolish decisions once in poverty. Everyone handles stress and hardship differently, and it's not uncommon for that sort of thing to be a negative experience.

              People who make foolish decisions once in poverty tend, however, to stay in poverty. It's a vicious cycle.

              I have worked for and volunteered for several charity organizations benefiting the poor and the homeless in North and South Carolina. This is a pattern I see again and again. It's not invariant, but it's the norm among clientele I have seen.

              Perhaps rather than this being a societal trend, these folks suddenly become this way because I observe them. That is possible. I will allow the reader to draw his own conclusions as to probability.

              Out of the hundreds of millions of people in the US, there probably is somebody out there that would buy the TV over getting the car fixed,

              More than you think, it seems. I have seen logic like "I can ride to work with Larry, but I can't watch the game on Larry's backside." This is a fictionalized, but not fictional, account. The TV in question was a 50" model. Rather than repair the car, they sold it to buy drugs. I do not think your knowledge of the various strata of culture in the United States is as broad as you might believe.

              it's completely dishonest to suggest that it's in anyway justification for having people in extreme poverty while corporations and the wealthy have so much.

              Yes, that's completely dishonest. Again, shame on you. Your odd ideas, that you and no one else has brought into this discussion, can in no way justify such an income gap.

              • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 18 2018, @08:01PM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 18 2018, @08:01PM (#639791)

                Neutral tone? Go fuck yourself dick.

                Done compromising and pretending like your attitude is based on anything other than prejudice. Your statements are ignorant of reality, or at best trying to apply edge cases as general truth.

                Die in a fire :)

                • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Sunday February 18 2018, @09:32PM (1 child)

                  by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 18 2018, @09:32PM (#639818) Journal

                  While a more neutral tone would serve to advance discussion, I have been at this long enough to know it's unlikely to happen...

                  Neutral tone?... Die in a fire

                  Yeah, sorry, I knew better, but hope springs eternal.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 19 2018, @04:43AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 19 2018, @04:43AM (#639963)

                    Lol don't kid yourself, you were looking for reasonable discussion the way a brain looks for a Randian monologue.

                    You started the conversation with prejudiced bullshit that doesn't even pass the sniff test. The guy didn't empty his account, played around with a small bit of his savings on something many consider investment / speculation instead of luxury goods. Own up to your shit and I'll treat you with the corresponding respect.

            • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 18 2018, @11:00PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 18 2018, @11:00PM (#639837)

              What that bullshit about buying a $300 flatscreen TV is about is that they're saying that "those people" shouldn't have a flatscreen TV. Not now. Not if they save up. Not ever. They're not even allowed to buy one second hand or at a garage sale (which GP will tell us they wouldn't think of anyway because they're morally inferior, so if they have a flatscreen TV, they could not have gotten it for $30, it could not be a hand-me-down, it must have been bought NEW and ONLY NEW and never on sale but ONLY FULL PRICE). Ever. Well, maybe if they put in 20 years of work and finally get $10,000 in savings, then they can have a flatscreen TV.

              But if they get sick from working 60 hours per week at two jobs for 20 years to save $10,000? Then it's fuck you! WTF were you thinking buying a flatscreen TV?! You irresponsible shithead!

              The other trick is: where would one find a CRT any more? Flatscreen is not luxury any more.

              Oh well. Hope GP doesn't live in a major city. The riots are coming.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday February 18 2018, @08:12PM (2 children)

          by frojack (1554) on Sunday February 18 2018, @08:12PM (#639795) Journal

          Wow, blame the victim huh?

          Somehow I knew someone would come up with that line sooner or later.

          If you've got 1500 in the bank, including the rent, what the hell are you doing speculating on cryptocurrency, and allowing direct draws on your bank account?

          You know, sometimes the victim is at fault for taking risks that most people would avoid. Just because something bad happens, and someone rushes in and declares you a victim, does not absolve you from all blame.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday February 18 2018, @08:27PM

            by sjames (2882) on Sunday February 18 2018, @08:27PM (#639800) Journal

            To enlarge on something I posted previously, for all we know he has half a million tied up in various investments and by comfortable, he means that the $1500 would have comfortably handled his day to day transactions for the rest of the month until a portion of his next payday replenished it.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 19 2018, @04:47AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 19 2018, @04:47AM (#639964)

            1/5 of a small savings on something everyone seems to consider investment is not crazy. More BS victim blaming because he used his bank account? True to form frojack, may god have mercy on your soul.

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday February 19 2018, @05:09AM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday February 19 2018, @05:09AM (#639975) Homepage
        google ``us median savings'' and get results like:

        How much Americans have in their savings accounts - CNBC.com
        13 Sep 2017 ... According to a 2017 GOBankingRates survey, more than half of Americans (57 percent) have less than $1,000 in their savings accounts. While that's an improvement from last year, when 69 percent of Americans reported ...
        www.cnbc.com/2017/09/13/how-much-am...

        So the 1500 guy is well above average according to that finding. Of course, the median is skewed by a huge umber having zero savings at all, and the mean is skewed by the rich, but if you want to talk about "the average american", then the median is what you should be using.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday February 18 2018, @05:38PM (2 children)

      by sjames (2882) on Sunday February 18 2018, @05:38PM (#639752) Journal

      Often, yes. And the banks make it worse. Consider, charge comes in for more than is in the account, so the bank puts the account holder in a debt he didn't agree to be in by paying out a bit more than he has (and charges him $5 for the "privilege"). Then, when he "owes" the bank more than they're comfortable with, they charge him an extra $25 for the apparently arduous task of having their computer say no with no human intervention.

      Of course, by a comfortable $1500, he might mean in fully liquid funds for day to day transactions. He may have other money in other places, possibly with the customary "substantial penalty for early withdrawal".

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 18 2018, @06:33PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 18 2018, @06:33PM (#639768)

        Back in the 90s it cost the bank about $3 to handle an overdraft, but they'd charge as much as $20 for the service. These days both numbers are a bit higher, but for the most part, banks have fees as a significant source of revenue.

        No wonder that so many people don't use banks or only save the minimum in them. You've got exorbitant fees and extremely low interest to the point where a single overdraft can result in paying the bank back more than they're paying out for the "privilege" of having a bank.

        • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday February 18 2018, @08:20PM

          by sjames (2882) on Sunday February 18 2018, @08:20PM (#639797) Journal

          The $3 is probably fair enough when they deal with an actual check written on paper simply because the paper has to be stamped, moved about and entered into the system. But for a totally electronic transaction, I doubt it costs even a penny.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday February 18 2018, @05:51PM

      by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Sunday February 18 2018, @05:51PM (#639755) Homepage Journal

      So many times, $1,500 is the Minimum Balance. Not many people know this, a lot of our banks have a Minimum Balance for checking accounts. Your account goes below that, the bank gets a fee. This guy, maybe he paid $5. Sometimes it's $10. You go below zero, there's an overdraft fee, that one's much bigger. The bank is now LENDING you money. With ASTRONOMICAL interest. You call it not "responsible," you call it not "comfortable." Our wonderful banks call it GOOD BUSINESS, they call it VERY PROFITABLE. They call that their FAVORITE CUSTOMER.

      And cyber cash, this guy put some money into cyber cash. You call it "gambling," maybe you wanted him to leave his money in a checking account. And maybe you're right, maybe he would have been so much better off if he didn't pay those fees. If he didn't go below the Minimum Balance. But he doesn't make money by leaving it in a checking account. The interest, very little interest there. A lot of times it's zero percent. And my terrific Federal Reserve is still doing inflation. You know inflation, right? I don't drink coffee. But I think with $1,500 you can get the biggest coffee at Starbucks, you can get a trenta. You put that $1,500 in a checking account for a few years, it's still $1,500. They call it $1,500. But you go to get coffee and you can't get a trenta with that anymore. Maybe you can only get a tall -- and you won't get a "Merry Christmas" with that. They call it a tall, I call it VERY SMALL, it's like the coffee you get for a baby, don't get your baby started on coffee, it's highly addictive. Inflation, right?

      Did you see, somebody who put $1 in Bitcoin in 2010 and held it, that Bitcoin was worth $4 million in December 2017. MERRY CHRISTMAS!!! rt.com/business/411713-bitcoin-value-now-and-then [rt.com]

      Somebody who put $1 in his checking account in 2010 and kept it there, that's worth how much? You work that one out.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 18 2018, @08:51PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 18 2018, @08:51PM (#639807)

      Do you ever criticize yourself?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 19 2018, @06:02PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 19 2018, @06:02PM (#640172)

      Not sure how much of the sub-prime mortgage crisis stuff you followed, but Americans have been time and again pushed into taking on more debt than sensible through predatory lending practices based on dizzying intricacies of questionable investment practices. While this isn't so much a symptom of taking on more debt, it is a symptom of not treating zero as zero, but instead some arbitrary balance amount that can be given little more than a second thought.

      Basically, no, it's not considered financially responsible. But yes, it has grown more common, even if we saw a bit of a reprieve around the 2008 crash.

      On-Topic Movie Recommendation: "The Big Short"(2015)

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by requerdanos on Sunday February 18 2018, @04:58PM (6 children)

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 18 2018, @04:58PM (#639741) Journal

    Editors and Admins, a request:

    As of this writing, the headline is "Coinbase is Erratically Overcharging Some Users and Emptying Their Bank Accounts"

    However, Coinbase is in fact not doing that, a salient fact that one does not discover unless one dives into the story, so the spread of this misinformation may only be significantly mitigated by alteration of the headline.

    Is that a doable thing? Perhaps insert "[not]" or even "[Update: Not]" between the words "Erratically" and "Overcharging"?

    Please and thank you,

    R.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by requerdanos on Sunday February 18 2018, @04:59PM (2 children)

      by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 18 2018, @04:59PM (#639742) Journal

      In fact, now that I think about it, it would be even better if you considered the request as I probably meant it (between "is" and "erratically" rather than between two words where it would make little sense).

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 18 2018, @05:26PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 18 2018, @05:26PM (#639747)

        If they are not erratically overcharging them, they are probably doing it systematically? Is that really better?

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Bot on Sunday February 18 2018, @10:10PM (2 children)

      by Bot (3902) on Sunday February 18 2018, @10:10PM (#639829) Journal

      Look at it from a journalistic POV.

      - "VISA fucks with its customers"
      - yawn
      - "but it's unintended"
      - zzzzz.. oh really? zzzzz....

      - "Coinbase fucks with its custom..."
      - hey is it that newfangled blockchain thingy? let's see

      --
      Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday February 19 2018, @05:25AM (1 child)

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday February 19 2018, @05:25AM (#639979) Homepage
        Well, yes, the take away from this is:
        a) the old payment systems are broken, perhaps by design;
        b) the new ones aren't any better - bitcoin is now practically useless as a means of payment.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 19 2018, @06:09PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 19 2018, @06:09PM (#640174)

          The blockchain payment technologies are absolutely a WIP. Bitcoin's been working with various scaling systems (Lightning being the most in the news lately), and other systems that go about things differently are being experimented with. Ripple, for instance, seems to have few if any issues of scaling, to the extent that American Express and Santander make regular use of it. That said, there are other drawbacks (for some, anyway), considering it's not really a decentralized, masses-oriented project.

          Anyone who was thinking this cryptocurrency thing has run its course likely has another thing coming; the systems we're seeing today are barely out of alpha. As to whether or not they ever actually achieve their goals...well, we may need to let Darwin decide.

          As for what works for inves^h^h^h^h^hspeculators, that may be an entirely different matter to address.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 18 2018, @10:06PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 18 2018, @10:06PM (#639826)

    centralized institution accidentally (yeah sure) instills FUD in centralized institution acting as blockchain broker, average clueless people become more wary of all three, society improves as a result.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 18 2018, @11:05PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 18 2018, @11:05PM (#639840)

    This article is a whole lot of words for a whole lot of nothing.

(1)