Correct me im wrong, but in order for Lock to payout in bitcoin, they would have to enter the market and purchase them first. So even if they only hold them long enough to make a payout, they would still face exposure to a market collapse in that time frame.

Im just still trying to understand this system, so if i have it wrong im sure it will be pointed out.

You can purchase bitcoins in a matter of minutes, and send them instantly once you get them.

The chances of the coins going from $47 to $0 in the few minutes they have them is miniscule.

Furthermore, all they have to do is say "we bought you $1000 worth of bitcoins at xx:xx time at xx date. Here's your coins." It will be easy to verify the price.

If the coins happen to be worth zero five minutes later, then it's on the player, not Lock.

What's really risky is giving hundreds of thousands to criminal payment processors, who routinely just run off with the cash because they know you can't do **** about it. And if they don't jack you, they charge you ridiculous fees to process for Americans.

Bitcoin is orders of magnitude less risky than that.

Lock says they have everybody's cash, but it's too risky to send it out without the DoJ seizing the funds. Bitcoin is about the best solution they could ever find. Processing fees of less than 1%, sent peer to peer with no government oversight or intermediaries, completely anonymous.

For the site to pay in Bitcoin it would probably have to keep part of its capital in inventory in Bitcoin. Relative to major fiat currencies like USD and Euro Bitcoin has a very high Beta. Managing this currency risk would add a large layer of complexity to the business.

Why would they have to hold coins?

They could do cashouts individually. Buy the coins off an exchange and send them. The fees are so low this wouldn't be a problem. Depending on where you buy from, this whole process could be done in as little as 15 minutes, and the player would have his coins.

I would imagine, at least in the beginning, that there wouldn't be a huge demand for this. People are pretty skeptical.

ITS NOT hard to do.
The real problem is Lock actually needs $$$ to buy the BTC in the 1st place to pay out.

Debit card cashout option plz.

cash out option please

Which is ironic because lock's first run with cake came to an end when lock got caught having their customers lie to cake and say that they needed to move to lock for their mac client when in actuality it was for the 50% rakeback they were offering.

One morning everyone woke up and their balances were transferred back to cake, Lock left for merge not long after.

God forbid your illegal online casino gets associated with the darker world of BTC. How could BTC be any darker than shady underground payment providers who still process illegal US casinos.

If you're battling for legitimacy why hasn't lock applied for an iGaming license in Nevada?

Where I actually normally would agree w/you on what you're saying about red flags with large transactions through Moneybrokers, I think at a certain point one has to recognize a slightly larger reality about how law enforcement on the American national level works. For instance, "policy" might dictate looking the other way; however, the different jurisdictions with in the DOJ is usually headed by a politician with bigger ambitions who has broad discretion on how to enforce current actual legislation. Where right now most would like to ignore going after online poker sites for good reason, if the rankus reaches certain levels they really have no choice; and I think most would agree, sooner or later a large number of players have a tendency to overreact and act rashly...like starting a barage of complaints, especially if they feel their money's already gone and know they have no real fear of any legal backlash anyway. Further, there's not an American here that doesn't realize that Big Brother is CONSTANTLY monitoring dawg gone all internet things they can get access to...including this forum. Ya'all already have the red flag raised with a target on your back that these guys probably don't even wanna take aim at. But eventually, they might feel there's no choice; especially if it get's them elected to whatever office they might really be after. Remember, to them ya'all just foreigners they can try to serve up in defense of "the poor 'ole idiot constituent that was unjustly & illegally" taken advantage of. He won't have any backlash of public opinion.

This isn't a "farfetched" possibility. After all, ya'all trying to protect a lot of us "idiot" through fairplay, right? Believe it or not, I'm not flaming you. Just trying to point out that ya'all are actually pulling a major Oedipus Rex on this one and I actually enjoy playing on Lock most of the time & would like for you guys to stay a viable option for me is all. Just figure out how to get the money out. Send someone to Walmart daily and start buying money paks for goodness sakes if nothing else. Surely those purchases aren't gonna raise "red flags" anywhere and I doubt all these guys fed up waiting for their money will have any real problem deducting $4.95 from every thousand they cash out when they get their money the next day. Bottom line, this problem can be made to go away in the short term fairly easily with a little effort from ya'alls side and give some easier, more relaxed time for you guys to find a better long term solution.


http://corporate.walmart.com/our-sto...art-costa-rica

Just requested to cash out a grand thru Lock. Wish me Luck!

Shane's responses to the bitcoin solution are very telling.

He did make a pretty good point when he said "<cricket> <cricket>"

BITCOIN CASH OUT PLEASE

If you can't figure it out, I am 10000000% serious I will process BTC payments for you..

Without being an expert on bitcoins, I say +1 to Lock giving serious consideration to using them, even if just in a limited capacity. It's not enough to dismiss this option by looking at the risks in a vacuum. They need to be compared to the drawbacks of the status quo. Checks can bounce or take a long time to clear or be rejected by certain financial institutions. WU can blacklist you. Then there is the substantial opportunity cost of waiting months for a cashout, plus the uncertainty of not knowing when the cashout will arrive. Bitcoins may not be the utopian solution that some are hoping but are they really that bad that they aren't even a marginal improvement?

Just wanted to add that its not something we arent looking at in any way, its always on the radar. We have even had a few Bitcoin processors contact us already but nothing has come of it yet.

You do not need a bitcoin processor. The whole point of bitcoins is to do away with processors.

How would anything come of it if you "don't want to be painted with that brush"?

+1 to idea of bitcoin withdrawals on Lock. Even if Lock did get an outside processor for the bitcoin payments the fees can't be any worse than the 0.5 to 0.6 people are selling their funds at now and I think a lot of players would be ok with whatever risks there are if it means getting CIH/MIB within a week.

what is bitcoin?

I think Lock is overestimating how many people would actually choose Bitcoin as a cashout method. Most people don't even know what bitcoins are. And of those that do, only a small percentage of them will be winning players AND someone on board with the idea.

All this talk of looking for "bitcoin processors" is nonsense, one Lock employee could handle all bitcoin cashouts.

Bitcoin is a relatively new, open-source virtual currency. Each "coin" is similar to a bit, with 33 characters. It is unique in that it is not backed or produced by any nation. I'm sure someone will pipe in with a more technical explanation, but basically it was cleverly designed to have all transactions updated every 10 minutes across the entire BTC network. This prevents someone from just copying the "coin". It is supposed to be hacker-proof, although there have been several recent successful hacks, along with a few other instances of bitcoin crimes. Bitcoins can be transferred nearly anonymously, and in their earlier days were notorious for being used to internationally traffic drugs, slaves, etc. They have broken away from that stigma and are now being used by many reputable, legal institutions.

I do think that while bitcoins would be a great option to offer players, Lock would still want to use a 3rd party processor for all the same liability reasons they do now. And you are correct, many people would not want to use them, myself included. While they are becoming more mainstream, they may still prove to be a trend or fad. Without any institutional backing, they have the potential to become worthless in the span of 10 minutes. What happens when someone introduces a newer, better bitcoin?

Just my opinion.

Applause....now THAT was a very good post! I thank you as trying to get info on this stuff from people using it is like pulling teeth; which in itself is a put off to a willingness to try it myself. I didn't know that "10 minutes" network update thing and had thought "this seems like it could fall apart on any given week" kind of risk thing already; but it literally could be completely safe, completely a fad or completely buying a thousand lottery tickets "10 minutes" before the air goes on underneath the ping pong balls, huh?

Having the option for bitcoin would only hurt if it would affect lock's liquidity.

Well, any currency is dependent on consumer confidence, and bitcoins have outperformed them all in that area, so far. It's not likely that they will become worthless that quickly, and they may just continue to grow. But the thing is, no-one is "in charge" of bitcoins, if they start to go belly-up, nothing can be done.

Despite being reportedly "hack-proof", of the $400mil in bitcoins currently in existence, around $16mil have been successfully stolen by hackers, with about half of those stolen bitcoins being recovered.

Even with all that, I do think it would be a good option for Lock to offer it's players, if the players were willing to assume the risks. All things considered, they have their positives as well.

Lock should use a processor for US transactions who operates within the mandates of UIGEA.