I've been reading up on easy ways to move money around online and after looking into Bitcoins it seemed like this would be a perfect way for players to get their money quickly. I've been reading the lock forums lately to see how Lock is trying to improve their site and, as a lock player, it has seemed like they aren't acting in their or the players' best interest. I obviously lack the business experience that they do so it is possible that I am missing something, but as a online poker player I know that the three most important things to me are fast cashouts (that are not capped at 2k-3k), good software, and soft games. Lock definitely has soft games, the software is okay (good enough, could use some tweaking and some work to fix the lag), but the cashouts are horrible and only getting worse, which has caused the value of money on Lock to drop to 0.50-0.60 cents on the dollar. It seems to me that with the current state of online poker all it would take for Lock to dominate the U.S market is faster cashouts and maybe some better advertisement. I know that this would mean that more money would be taken off the site, but it would also mean that more people would be depositing instead of using player transfers, and it would give regulars a reason to play more. I know that whenever I'm online I am starting up new tables (usually grind for glory tables) of 1/2 and 2/4. After a few hours I've opened 6-8 new tables of 6 and 9 max that probably wouldn't have been there since most recreational players don't like to sit first. This seems like a lot of revenue to be missing out on just because one reg isn't playing. I'd bet that there are lots of players like me that barely play because they have no access to their funds when they would be putting in 8+ hours a day starting up new tables and generating rake if they did.

TLDR: Why can't Bitcoins be used as a cashout option? I've been trying to find a reason (other than lock having no money because they spent player funds) and haven't been able to. Anyone know something I am missing?

Also, on a side note, why use Michael Mizrachi, Annette Obrestad, and Chris Moorman as the faces of your company? Yes, they are good poker players, but I don't see how they can be good for the image of a successful poker site. Wouldn't it be better to have someone with a good personality or good looks if you are going to lie and say "The world's top online players play at Lock Poker"?

When Lock goes down, it will be Annette Obrestad 2nd sponsor going broke in 2 years.

People send messages on twitter to them and ask where the hell money is?

If they were to start doing bitcoin cash outs people would expect to have their money in hours rather than months. When youre running a scam and have no money to pay out thats a bad thing.

Funds are not segregated.

The funds are gone.

Theoretically speaking, bitcoins would shave what, 30 minutes off the cashout timeframe compared to WU?

Sites use 3rd party processors and batch processing to avoid legal liabilities imposed by UIGEA. I suspect that if they did offer bitcoin cashouts, timeframes would be similar to the WU cashouts.

Why is that? They wouldn't need any processors. They could buy the coins and ship them to the player's wallet anonymously within minutes.

They could do the same with WU, but for legal reasons choose not to.

Also, the anonymity with bitcoins creates another problem, accountability.

Be it check or WU, if it doesn't go through, I can show that, and Lock can confirm it. With bitcoins, if the processor, or the very rare hacker, steals it, there is no course for reconciliation. That would require a huge level of faith in Lock by the player, and I don't see that currently.

bitcoins fluctuate
bitcoins have their own cashout/reload problems
bitcoin sites constantly hacked
bitcoin scams are rife

They can't send WU anonymously, and they risk getting blacklisted by WU.

WU leaves a paper trail. Bitcoin doesn't. I could send you a million dollars in bitcoins and nobody would know about it.

This happens already. Processors routinely steal player funds.

You already are placing trust in Lock to actually send you the WU or check.

They could just say "Hey, I sent it. I don't know what happened." just as they could with bitcoins.

You can send and receive with WU anonymously. Yes, there are tracking #'s, but I believe that is a good thing, personally.

Something like 2% of bitcoins have been successfully hacked and stolen. They do in fact, go through a processor, and that is usually where they are hacked.

Say you cash-out $10K, and Lock says "Well, tough luck, we sent it, you must be in that 2%." Do you believe them? Do you accept that?

If I send you a bitcoin, what processor does it go through?

Transfers are peer-to-peer, and are done instantly with no middleman.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Also, Bitcoins make way too much for a solvent-USA serving site to use, which is why Lock will never do it.

Your wallet and mine are processors, although you are correct that if we both had computers capable of storing and constantly updating the entire block chain, they could be skipped. That is an unlikely scenario.

And then of course, if I wanted to turn that bitcoin into actual cash, I would need an exchange or processor, but that's not really relevant to the discussion of Lock using them.

At any rate, I personally see potential problems with bitcoin cashouts. Accountability being the largest. And I still don't see that big of a difference between anonymous WU timeframes and bitcoins timeframes. Sites will use 3rd party processors, and still cashout in batches, because it insulates them from a legal standpoint, and that will still result in delays, although they may be faster.

I've stated my opinion. I'm going to drop out of this discussion now, before a horde of bitcoin fanatics show up to flame me. They are very popular with the internet kids right now. Some believe they will change the world.

There's no difference between that and when neteller got shut down after party poker sent me a cash out on there.

Also, the money they'd save from having to use third party processors vs. the times there are scams would save them TONS of money. (aka processors currently take a big % compared to the small % of scams that would occur under bitcoins)

This has been covered at length in other threads, bitcoin could EASILY be used with virtually no issues. Buy/send after the market closes to ensure accurate USD>BTC conversion, player sends screenshot of account and BTC address also in text form so there is absolutely no mistake about sending to the correct address, send screenshot of transaction and current market price to verify sending/accuracy (could even do a .0001 BTC sending test first for added safety), limit it to smaller amounts if they feel this is neccesary. Every possible problem brought up so far is certainly possible, but SO unlikely.

the market is open 24/7/365

RAW_PWNAGE

I love it when people who obviously don't know what they are talking about decide to do it anyway.

True. Usually to the upside

Really? Have you ever used bitcoins? I suppose if you're used to waiting months on end for cashouts then getting your money within 30 minutes may seem a little strange.

Is this something you heard or do you have any real examples? If you're worried about it you can always keep your own wallet.

If you're dumb enough to be on the receiving end of one of these "scams" then you probably deserve to lose your money anyway.

Agreed with all of the above. BitCoins is a pretty solid system overall. That being said, as Shane did say before, i do also agree it all appears very shady on the surface. You're simply not dealing with a real currency, which makes it somewhat questionable to use at all for the big audience i'm sure. Don't get me wrong: i'd use it, and i think it's a good system, but i'm simply not sure everyone thinks that way.

As said before, though, it's a good idea to keep it private and only let those use it who explicitly want it.

I mean, getting a western union from someone in manilla or whatever, that doesn't seem shady? It also costs a ton more.

But the main point about Bitcoins, is that if the issue is processors, this could eliminate that issue (or to non believers, that excuse), save on fees and get some % of your players paid within 48 hours.

I don't think any processing solution is going to cover 100% of players, just like no single game type on a poker room is going to please 100% of players. But bitcoins seem like a pretty easy thing to implement for a double digit % of your players and probably a heavy amount of the player money being cashed out.

Being associated with bad things makes no sense. That whole "Walmart and other big companies can more easily handle being associated with bitcoins" is the opposite of correct logic. By that logic Walmart should have an online casino, not Lock. Walmart should cashout poker players via western union, not Lock (and other US sites).

Plus with the recent (encouraging) government action on bitcoins, it looks much safer to use them without fear of some sort of attack on the currency.

bitcoin cashouts would be the nuts and as previously mentioned in the thread, this does not have to be rolled out to the public.