Sent $10,701.03 to Coinbase. Still missing bitcoins. - <AUTHOR> I placed an order for bitcoins early last week and was slated to receive them on Friday. Not only did I not recieve them, the transaction disappeared from my account, even though the ACH withdrawal had already clearly happened from my bank account.
Now, I'm still missing bitcoins in my account for transactions that have already been cleared and I've received a portion of the $10,701.03 in bitcoin at the price that I was was locked in at if I was to receive them on Friday, December 13th. I received them 5 days late and at the price locked in on December 8.
Coinbase is at fault and they've violated their own terms of service. I've asked for a similar resolution that the other gentleman on HN got from Brian, and this is the response I received from their customer support:
"I'm not sure how that guy got the CEO of the company to intercede on his behalf, but that's definitely not a normal handling of that case.
I simply do not have the ability to do that, I'm sorry. None of the admins do. That guy must have been one of our extremely high volume VIP users or something in order for something like that to have happened.
I...don't really know how to respond further. That does seem somewhat unfair. Very sorry, but I just don't have the ability to push through such a request. Nor is it possible to forward a ticket to our CEO. My apologies, but I'm just not able to be of further help here..."
What's wrong with Coinbase right now? I'm a huge fan of them, but this is terrible customer service. I can't get a fair resolution because your ticketing system doesn't allow you to send a ticket to Brian or any of your other superiors? What kind of customer service is this?
I would even love an acknowledgment that Coinbase violated its TOS and is in the wrong here. I'm just looking for a fair resolution. <comment><USER3> When it takes a public outcry on HN for a company to do their job, I no longer deal with such a company. Simple as that. I don't care if you raised $25 million - if you can't treat your users fairly, you deserve neither.

<comment><USER4> Agreed. When there is a public outcry, it means that there is inadequate processes are put into place for protect their customers. This happened twice today. This means something is fundamentally broken in Coinbase's customer service.

Many famous VCs and founders browse HN. This will hurt their reputation.

<comment><USER5> Yes, Coinbase is a YC company[1], yes YC hosts this site (Hacker News is, after all, [https://news.ycombinator.com](https://news.ycombinator.com)), yes their investors do comment on Hacker News threads[2].

Also, the CEO of Coinbase is on HN[4]. He is the top response to the other indignant thread[5], where he seems to be trying to fix this issue. Also note that you can easily find the CEO's email from his GitHub account[6]

I understand there are many people who are very angry at the whole situation (just look at the conversation on Reddit[7]). I can only imagine how many other cases he is facing. The timing on this whole thing is just awful (1 week after funding announced, BitCoin crashes), which makes the whole situation very very awful. And giving support on public forums with angry customers is super hard, particularly because you start encouraging more people to do it, which escalates the situation to impossible terms, which sucks your time, which could be used to helping all the customers, including all the ones who are not being loud on Hacker News / Twitter / Reddit (also note that it is almost 4 AM where these people live, and they are probably sleeping).

I honestly expect Coinbase to do the right thing[8], and that you'll get your money back (or your money's worth of BTC).

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4177605](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4177605)

[2] Marc Andressen is [https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=cdixon](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=cdixon) , Chris Dixon is [https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=cdixon](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=cdixon) and they both commentd on their investment announcement thread[3]. Ben Horowitz is [https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=bhorowitz](https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=bhorowitz), but he has not ben very active here.

[3] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6893658](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6893658)

[4] [https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=barmstrong](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=barmstrong)

[5] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6929705](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6929705)

[6] First response on Google for me: [https://github.com/barmstrong](https://github.com/barmstrong), also the same username on HN: firstname.lastname@example.com

[7] [http://www.reddit.com/r/Coinbase](http://www.reddit.com/r/Coinbase)

[8] Brian Chesky told the story how Marc helped AirBnb during one of their worst crisis, on this video: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6yP...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6yPfxcqEXhE#t=5784)

<comment><USER6> Actually, Bitcoin crashing can only be an advantage to them since they lock the prices when the customer buys from them. As in, they just got an order for 20 btc at $1000 pr. btc, but, since it's crashed, _they_ only have to pay $500 pr. btc and the customer still only gets them as if they still cost $1000. Effectively leaving them with a $500 profit pr. btc.

<comment><USER7> Perhaps, but then, if that's how they were managing, then they could go out of business on a strong move up.

I think it's more likely that they are using a combo of reserve bitcoins plus actually buying on the market at the time you place an order. This is why, on some heavy volume days, you will see the message that Coinbase itself (not just you as a user) has reached its buy limit for the day. They buy at the price they quote you, then wait for your funds to clear ACH to deposit the coin in your account.

So, another risk Coinbase has is when a customer buys (prompting Coinbase to buy), then the customer's funds don't settle via ACH. Coinbase is then stuck with the coin until they can fulfill someone else's order. This might be at a loss if BTC has moved down. In fact, if a user places an order and BTC moved sharply down, it is likely possible that the user could purposely liquidate the bank account so the ACH would fail. I am betting they have seen this.

They have been toying with Instant buys as well, but having to adjust their requirements. In the first iteration, I remembered wondering how they weren't losing their shirts, as it was designed pretty naively, as if everyone were honest. Sure enough, they changed their requirements.

In general, they take on more risk than their customers, but one thing I do fault them for is failing to communicate changes in requirements, etc. And, apparently, they do need more robust processes, automated auditing, etc. It is the most reliable place to buy that I have found, but it definitely has some of the Wild West feel of BTC itself.

<comment><USER8> > They buy at the price they quote you, then wait for your funds to clear ACH > to deposit the coin in your account.

This is simply stupid, if true. There is no way any institution trading any type of instrument, asset, commodity, security etc should ever do this. And I doubt they do this.

> Coinbase has is when a customer buys (prompting Coinbase to buy), then the > customer's funds don't settle via ACH. Coinbase is then stuck with the coin > until they can fulfill someone else's order. This might be at a loss if BTC > has moved down. In fact, if a user places an order and BTC moved sharply > down, it is likely possible that the user could purposely liquidate the bank > account so the ACH would fail. I am betting they have seen this.

Again this is based on the most likely false premise that they do buy the goods before the payment is cleared. This is simply insane.

If you're right about your bet that they have seen this, and if the do buy the BTC before payment clears that they get what they deserve. There can never be bonus points for anyone doing nonsensical things.

> they have been toying with Instant buys as well

What type of instant buys?

Instantly buying the BTC on an exchange once the payment is cleared using a market order by default unless the user specifies a max. buy rate (or a min sell rate)? This is the only way they should have been doing it.

Or is it instantly buying it when the customer shows intent to purchase before the ACH clear? This is just stupid.

> In general, they take on more risk than their customers

If this is true, they should get an award for the most ridiculous business practices of the year. Again I doubt this is true.

What we need to find out is, in case of a delay on large order where the price of BTC went up did they honor the original quoted rate or the current rate?

<comment><USER9> Buying when the customer orders, rather than when the ACH clears, does create a risk if the price plummets.

But buying only when the funds clear creates a risk when the price skyrockets. It makes it harder to ever please customers with an 'honored price' that's lower than when the BTC arrives.

Also, any whiff of a two-step process, where the customer reconfirms the buy- intent at funds-clearing, would put Coinbase closer to holding $USD balances for customers. That's something that I suspect, as a regulatory matter, they would rather not do. A single irrevocable 'buy' with delivery some time later (at either a locked-in or a floating price) is closer to the e-commerce transactional pattern they'd prefer. (Otherwise, they look more like a money- transfer/foreign-exchange/banking/daytrading outfit.)

Despite the last 2 weeks, BTC has had more total _upswing_ than _downswing_ – going over its history from $0 to $hundreds in value. So, buying early likely will have won more often than lost, for Coinbase and its customers.

Calling that approach 'simply stupid' and 'simply insane', without having considered the real risk and regulatory factors affecting their business is silly.

<comment><USER8> > Buying when the customer orders, rather than when the ACH clears, does > create a risk if the price plummets.

It creates a risk either ways, it's just that different parties take ownership of the risk.

> But buying only when the funds clear creates a risk when the price > skyrockets. It makes it harder to ever please customers with an 'honored > price' that's lower than when the BTC arrives.

Actually you're complicating it more than necessary. There is no reason for coinbase to execute a market order as soon as the funds clear. They can simply let a customer make an informed decision, and decide if they want to buy at current market rate (market order) or using a limit order which will be executed internally if a customer tries to sell lower or will be filled on the exchange if the exchange reaches fills the order first.

This practice has existed for decades, whichever order is filled first simply cancels the other order.

This is also completely fair and very acceptable. Buying first waiting and waiting for the transfer to clear is not and will never be an good choice.

> Also, any whiff of a two-step process, where the customer reconfirms the > buy-intent at funds-clearing, would put Coinbase closer to holding $USD > balances for customers. That's something that I suspect, as a regulatory > matter, they would rather not do. A single irrevocable 'buy' with delivery > some time later (at either a locked-in or a floating price) is closer to the > e-commerce transactional pattern they'd prefer.

I can see why this would be viewed as the only choice. Unfortunately as I have stated in another thread, when trouble from regulator begins they will get classified as akin to a financial institution anyways. When this happens they'll have more trouble due to the misrepresentation.

> Otherwise, they look more like a money-transfer/foreign- > exchange/banking/daytrading outfit.

Again, I can see where you are coming from, but this doesn't mean the law will see them as anything but a money-transfer/banking/daytrading outfit as they fit the definition most of these in totality and a few (day trading) loosely. I left out foreign-exchange as this one is the only one they are safe from, until/unless BTC gets reclassified from a security(it meets SECs definition requirements) to a currency.

> Despite the last 2 weeks, BTC has had more total upswing than downswing – > going over its history from $0 to $hundreds in value. So, buying early > likely will have won more often than lost, for Coinbase and its customers.

On first glance this may seem like a likely observation, but it is unfortunately misguided (no offense intended). Unfortunately people give too much credence to the notion that past behavior dictates future movement and forget to compensate for lack of sample data and =/\- effects of things such as spreads, volume, volatility etc.

If there is a single profound lesson I can impart about this topic it would be "buy low sell high" only works for short-selling, albeit in reverse order ("sell low buy lower") but for most traders, investors and speculators they should learn that the true lesson to remain profitable in any trade is to "buy high and sell higher". This is simply calculated using momentum previous x day momentum. Preferably between 10 to 20 days. You could use a higher number but it would be too late to enter or exit or a lower that would enter and exit too often.

I can talk endlessly on this topic and its importance in all entrepreneurial/business/trade endeavors, but I digress.

> Calling that approach 'simply stupid' and 'simply insane', without having > considered the real risk and regulatory factors affecting their business is > silly.

I agree with your prognosis, I do have a bias that I failed to consider. But unfortunately, if this was the only solution to avoid the paperwork, auditing and additional responsibilities that would come from acknowledging that the business practices are similar to those of a financial institution, they are unfortunately doing something pretty insane and simply stupid. There is no way this will not drive them to hurt themselves and their users.

Its just the fact that has been proven time and time again, if the US regulators decided you fit the definition of a financial institution even loosely then they will deem you and prosecute you on past transgressions accordingly.

In the eyes of regulators here "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck", no exceptions considered.

<comment><USER7> Again, I don't know why you think you know better than Coinbase what they should or should not consider. I suppose I am a little biased against this kind of behavior. I run an online business and we occasionally have customers/others ranting about what we should or shouldn't do, as if they have any idea what goes on behind the scenes or what went into our decision-making.

I get your point and they may well have to face regulatory matters when regulation catches up with Bitcoin in general. But, for now, they seem to have some guidance as to how they need to structure their processes to sidestep _current_ regulations and precedent. Anyone who has experience with legal issues knows that the law is often gray. So, to wade into such waters, firms must rely on precedent and their good sense to guide them. It is a calculated risk, wherein the word _reasonable_ becomes important. Whether they should be classified as an MSB or financial institution will be a finding based on facts. They need to line up as many facts in their favor as possible and not keeping funds on deposit or allowing limit orders works in their favor. Likewise, the timing of the trades matters. If they buy and hold the commodity, then sell it immediately upon funds clearing, then it is substantively different from taking the buyer's funds first, then selling. The former is more akin to selling a commodity they own. The latter is brokering the transaction with the buyer's funds and is dangerously close to holding deposits (if only for a brief time). If you think there is no material difference, you're wrong. In fact, part of the difference is in what you've been demomizing them for: that is, the fact that Coinbase is taking on the risk in the former scenario.

So, I don't think you can make the statements you're making so definitively, nor do I think you should assume that you have thought this through more carefully than those who are running the company.

<comment><USER8> Some point taken and agreed with to an extent. Would have edited some of my older comments to declare the biases but was to late to edit; mentioned them in two comments a couple of hours ago.

Bias declared in [0] and mistake acknowledged in [1].

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6937475](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6937475) (noted under "edit:")

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6938355](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6938355)

edit:

quick note:

> I don't think you can make the statements you're making so definitively, nor > do I think you should assume that you have thought this through more > carefully than those who are running the company.

That statement is flawed under the same premise that the author is calling me out for, maybe to a greater extent. There is no way for the author to prove or disprove that I can or cannot make these statements due to the lack of experience, thought or knowledge within this domain.

<comment><USER7> > _That statement is flawed under the same premise that the author is calling > me out for, maybe to a greater extent. There is no way for the author to > prove or disprove that I can or cannot make these statements_

Not really. My statements were not definitive declarations based on my opinions, nor were they refutations of demonstrable facts (ex. how Coinbase works). Yours were. Even if you have knowledge of the domain, it does not mean that you understand Coinbase's business better than they or are solely and eminently qualified to predict the future regulatory environment, etc.

BTW, in stating that I cannot "prove or disprove that you can make these statements", you are asking me to prove a negative. The onus is on you to show why you know better than Coinbase. So far, you have not done so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The same class of problems (questions regarding account balance, money taken out but BTC missing, support went dark) happened earlier this year and there was another front page conversation: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5427985](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5427985)

Sadly, it seems that the key takeaway (the importance of customer support) was lost upon the Coinbase staff. Based on the last response, its clear that they have not learned their lesson.

I recommend pulling all money and BTC out of Coinbase before the next crisis. And I say "next crisis" because there is no indication that steps were taken to rectify the underlying issues here. For example, as speculated in both threads, do they need to move off of MongoDB?

<comment><USER11> Using MongoDB to process payments is a double facepalm fail.

<comment><USER12> I'm not an expert, but it seems risky to trust MongoDB for that. Isn't it the wrong tool for that space?

<comment><USER11> MongoDB commits are asynchronous and fail silently by default. This is in opposition to ordinary SQL databases, which are synchronous and fail noisely by default.

You can enable that behavior for MongoDB, but then you're just getting ordinary SQL-style behavior, so why were you using MongoDB in the first place?

<comment> emin-gun-sirer You mean "ACID transactions" and not SQL databases. Some NoSQL databases, such as HyperDex, provide ACID transactions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Well then, third post in week or so, I see HN has become the official support system for Coinbase ...

<comment><USER14> An interesting pivot, for sure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Does anyone else get the creepy feeling that this is mgrunin posting to stroke his own ego?

"That guy must have been one of our extremely high volume VIP users or something in order for something like that to have happened."

That just does not sound right. And it's not the first time he's tried a sockpuppet account [1].

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6930297](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6930297)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hah - good guess, but incorrect. Coinbase reached out to me this morning from this post. They've reconciled a transaction for 10 bitcoins, but there's 2 bitcoins from an old transaction that are still "missing" despite it being marked as completed, more than a week old and the withdrawal cleared from my bank.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> _" I'm not sure how that guy got the CEO of the company to intercede on his behalf"_

Well, he did so by raising a public fuss about it, that much seems obvious. The OP of this thread seems (quite reasonably) to be attempting to achieve the same outcome by the same method.

Taking this OP's claims at face value, it seems like the support person quoted was trying to be helpful (or at least empathetic). Unfortunately, on a basic customer-service level, the response fails spectacularly.

I fail to believe that a company such as coinbase would neglect to have some mechanism where staffers can escalate support tickets (as is apparently being claimed). Jeez, it doesn't even have to go directly to the CEO skipping all intermediate steps: just bump it up the chain!

That CEO intervention should be necessary to achieve basic customer satisfaction is crazy to begin with. Either empower the hierarchy to solve problems, or give them access to someone who can.

OP did you try emailing firstname.lastname@example.com directly? (I'm not revealing any information here that a quick googling doesn't).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for this message. I didn't email Brian directly. Rees from Coinbase reached out to me. He's fixed one of my problems and I'm waiting on the second to be resolved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Just a fun anecdote to throw in:

I never bought through Coinbase, but I did sell some coins there recently for like $7k. They deposited the $7k in my bank account twice, and then a few days later took the extra $7k back.

So although ultimately it all worked out fine, they do seem to be ridiculously reckless in their dealings with thousands of dollars. I can't imagine my bank doing something like that. Made me very wary of dealing with Coinbase in the future.

<comment><USER18> Are you sure that's the case, or could it have been ACH or reporting weirdness?

<comment><USER17> I guess it could be reporting weirdness? Never seen anything like it before, though, and I've made withdrawals and deposits to my account from many different sources.

One $7k deposit soon after I made my sale. Another distinct $7k deposit a couple days later, reflected in my account balance which was now up $14k. And then a $7k withdrawal a few days after that. Both deposits and the withdrawal still show up in my transaction history.

<comment><USER19> It happened to me recently, but it was my paycheck. Googling around, it seems to be something that happens with ACH transactions somewhat rarely, but it does seem to happen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> "I don't have the ability to forward this to the CEO"?

Fix that even before fixing the reconciliations...

<comment><USER21> Seems safe to say that the customer support person could have surely emailed the CEO if they really wanted to, according to [1] they have a total of 8 employees as of thier recent funding last week. Also, a 2-second google search shows that it is firstname.lastname@example.com

[1] [http://www.vcpost.com/articles/19649/20131212/bitcoin- focuse...](http://www.vcpost.com/articles/19649/20131212/bitcoin-focused- coinbase-nabs-25m-andreessen-horowitz-led-round.htm)

<comment><USER22> It just lends more credibility to the "this is just a mgrunin sockpuppet" hypothesis elsewhere in this thread. No way in an 8 person company, you "don't have the ability" to talk to one of them.

<comment><USER23> I'm guessing it's someone just spreading FUD, for whatever reason. I don't know that it's mgrunin, but they probably just imagined the company being some monolith that is actually quite small.

That's also an incredibly unprofessional response that completely throws their company under the bus, which I have a hard time believing anyone who isn't a complete moron would do. Seems quite convenient that it fits the poster's narrative perfectly.

\--

Edit: after doing a bit more digging, mcgrunin has been very respectful toward the CEO of coinbase after his mishap. So let's not go libeling people needlessly.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6933058](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6933058)

The rest of his comment history is the same.

<comment><AUTHOR> Surprisingly this is word for word the response I got from customer support. Rees from Coinbase reached out to me after this post and they've resolved 1 of the 2 transaction problems. I'm still missing bitcoins.

<comment><USER24> They will get you the bitcoins (I got mine yesterday afternoon after a promised Friday delivery) the question will be at what price they give them to you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Why are people even posting on HN? The easy answer is do an ACH chargeback and be done with it. Do it quickly as well since the price has plummeted. Don't even bother with contacting customer support.

<comment><USER26> Could Coinbase be arbitraged this way? Just running ACH chargebacks every time the Bitcoin price falls before fulfillment?

<comment><USER27> That would be fraud. I'm sure there are plenty of ways to make money if you're willing to commit fraud.

<comment><USER28> I'm not sure if it is fraud or not. Maybe an attorney can comment, but here is how I look at it:

Fraud:

(1) a false statement of a material fact,

(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue,

(3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim,

(4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and

(5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

The attempt at buying coins on coinbase while selling coins outside of coinbase, then if the coin price falls… If Coinbase doesn't deliver the coins according to their TOS and you say to the bank that you want to do an ACH chargeback due to them not delivering, it doesn't fit the definition of fraud in multiple ways:

The statement you would make to the bank would be: "Coinbase did not deliver the coins based on their TOS so I request my money to be sent back to me via ACH chargeback and if they do send the coins, I will send them back to Coinbase"

1) it isn't a false statement

2) doesn't apply since it isn't a false statement

3) not deceiving anyone

4) they are relying on it, but it isn't false

5) no one is injured since Coinbase waited to fulfill the transaction, they can just resell the coins at the current market price, assuming they are able to actually sell coins.

<comment><USER18> It's both fraud, and unethical.

<comment><USER28> It may be unethical, I don't make that judgement, but it definitely doesn't match the legal definition of fraud.

<comment><USER18> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith_(law)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith_\(law\))

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Hi, <name> from Coinbase here. Sorry for the delay on that - definitely not the customer experience we are striving for.

<some phone shit right here>

Edit: <we actually did our job and made it work. we also gave you 0.01% on top!>

</comment><comment><USER30> The problem what I have is 'fairness' (not just Coinbase, mostly all companies with customer service).

OP tried to solve it without making a fuss, without causing trouble for CoinBase but they couldn't help him and they didn't want to help him. Now he is creating negative press (exactly what you don't want) and see the response from last night. CEO probably comes in and saves the day.

The problem is that the people who 'behave' will get shafted, and those who seek 'social media' will get a prompt resolution.

That is a disappointing trend that with Twitter/Facebook only became worse (before those it was mostly threatening with consumer advocate programs on TV). Try it yourself, send an e-mail and a tweet to a company. E-mail gets a reply within 48h, twitter within 1h. Companies are creating their own monster this way....

</comment><comment><USER31> Assuming this post is legitimate, what kind of organization of that size (an article published today indicates that there are 8 employees!) has a hierarchy and culture where if an individual working in a customer support role sees something wrong they have no way of communicating with the CEO?

Scary, if true.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't know how else to prove this is legitimate. Not that I feel I have to.

Rees from Coinbase reached out to me this morning and we've resolved one of the two issues. I'm still missing bitcoins from my account and will update this when it's resolved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is exactly why I'm not buying bitcoins in the current dip. Counterparty risk on the exchanges.

[http://fc13.ifca.ai/proc/1-2.pdf](http://fc13.ifca.ai/proc/1-2.pdf)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> UPDATE: I've been in touch with Coinbase support and they've corrected the larger of the two transactions in question. I'm still waiting on the second transaction to be fixed. I'm still missing some bitcoins from transactions that are well beyond complete (more than a week old, ACH withdrawal completed and marked as complete in coinbase).

</comment><comment><USER33> Ever wonder why there are not 100 different exchanges out there providing services to the equities/options/bond markets??? Simple, it's fairly costly and complicated to 1) meet regulatory requirements, 2) achieve a level of liquidity/transaction volume to make the exchange viable, and 3) take business away from the incumbents...

moreover, as soon as you attach the word 'exchange' to your service you immediately set an expectation in the consumers mind that you will provide a similar level of service/liquidity as that which they would receive if they were working with a _real_ exchange operator.

coinbase currently lists a team which has _zero_ experience in the exchange operations world. the closest they come is a guy who did some foreign exchange trading at GS.

net-net they have a _looooooong_ way to go to get to being a viable exchange in the traditional sense of the word. and that's before you get to the whole topic of whether or not bitcoin is really something that will be a viable exchange model asset. that has yet to be tested outside of a very, very small base (relatively) of ecosystem participants..

</comment><comment><USER34> Wow, that is pretty surprising.

First thing in support is, YOU are the face of the company as far as the person you are in contact with, can see.

Second thing is, if you don't know, don't guess; tell them you will check into X and get back to them about it.

Third, empathize with the person - wouldn't you be worried over the disposition of $10K if you took it out of your bank account and then had problems getting what you ordered?

<comment><USER35> While I'm inclined to believe the OP, the text posted does set of my spidey sense.

<comment><AUTHOR> Word for word the response I received from customer support. Another customer support person, Rees, reached out to me this morning and we've resolved 1 of 2 issues.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Unfortunately this is a trend for Coinbase: [http://www.reddit.com/r/CoinBase/comments/1t6326/customer_su...](http://www.reddit.com/r/CoinBase/comments/1t6326/customer_support_ignores_my_tickets_for_a_month/)

Just don't use them and protect your hard earned money.

</comment><comment><USER37> Coinbase founder here. We'll reach out via email to discuss the details of this case with you.

<comment><USER24> can you perhaps tell us if everyone - even those with smaller amounts - <USER2> be receiving the same consideration? ie should we also be stomping our feet or is it just a matter of patience before you address smaller mistakes?

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6929705](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6929705)

</comment><comment><USER39> I have a question that is related to how Coinbase deals with situations like the one on this thread: I have a Coinbase account, and I am verified with a Credit Card. This means that I can instantly buy bitcoins. What happens if they fail to get the money from my bank account 2-3 days later? Would they charge my credit card instead?

</comment><comment><USER40> Seems like Coinbase wasn't able to create a viable and sustainable process. To me, they will just fail as long as their processes become scalable. Surely i won't deal with them anytime soon :)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> UPDATE 2: Still waiting to receive two missing bitcoins that were purchased on December 11 and promised delivery for December 17. I mentioned the issue to them days ago and it's still hasn't even been acknowledged. Sent them a message this morning and again right now.

Coinbase has been kind enough to resolve the issue with 10 bitcoins being delivered nearly a week late. But I'm not sure why 2 bitcoins disappeared from my account and they have yet to acknowledge the issue.

</comment><comment><USER41> To the OP: if Coinbase provides terrible customer service but you still publicly declare you're a "huge fan", what incentive is there for them to change?

<comment><USER42> Isn't the incentive to show them that you're still willing to work with them in the future so long as they get their crap together? I'm honestly not impressed with this stuff happening to people, even as a mistake, but at the same time I don't see people writing off entire companies that have otherwise acted in good faith.

Of course, if it happens to many more people, you can only do so much with so little.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> LOL it seems that Coinbase has a lot of junior developers that are too superior for unit tests . Try the magic the gathering site?

</comment><comment><USER44> 1\. Chargeback.

2\. Better Business Bureau.

3\. Federal Trade Commission.

4\. Lawyer/lawsuit.

All of these are better options than whining on some Internet forum.

<comment><USER45> 1\. You can't chargeback a completed ACH withdrawal. (It is possible to revert an ACH transaction, but that generally happens only if the original transaction was unauthorized, which is not the case here. ACH/debit transactions do not have the same level of consumer protections as credit card transactions. That's why Coinbase doesn't accept credit cards.)

2\. The BBB is a corporate shill.

3\. Rotsa ruck.

4\. Will cost more than the amount lost, and legal fees are rarely recoverable.

<comment><USER44> 2\. Shill or not, I've gotten results via them on multiple occasions.

4\. I don't believe this. You're basically telling me if I pay for a car from a dealership, and they fail to deliver, that I or a lawyer can't sic law enforcement on them.

<comment><USER45> > You're basically telling me if I pay for a car from a dealership, and they > fail to deliver, that I or a lawyer can't sic law enforcement on them.

No, you are over-extrapolating what I said. Cars and BTC are not comparable.

Buying a car is a business model that everyone understands. There are governmental regulations in place to track every vehicle, so claims about cars being delivered or not are easy to verify or refute. So if a dealership fails to deliver a car that you paid for you most likely won't even have to sue them, they'll just give you a refund, because if you did sue them there are well-established processes for determining the facts of the case, and clear rules about a dealership's obligations to deliver.

BTC is a completely different situation. There are no government regulations, no rules, no precedents. To prevail, you will have to prove in court that coinbase failed to deliver. You will have to prove this to a jury of people who barely understand how to use an iPad. How do you do this? Consider the possibility that the OP is not telling the truth, but wants to generate bad PR for coinbase in support of some ulterior motive. How could the OP prove that he's telling the truth? It's not so easy, even when you're addressing an audience that actually understands how BTC works.

Also, have you actually read the coinbase TOS? (I haven't.) Do they say that BTC purchased will be available by a certain deadline? I'd be really surprised. If no deadline is specified, none is implied. So all coinbase has to do to get the lawsuit dismissed is cough up 10BTC. If push came to shove, that is the best outcome you could hope for, and you'd still be out your legal fees.

<comment><USER46> the blockchain is public evidence, and should be admissible in court.

<comment><USER47> If it's ever used in court, it'll be construed as a hacker or terrorist tool by some barely literate computer forensic "expert".

<comment><USER8> Unfortunately you give the system too little credit. In Aug 2013 a Federal judge recognized bitcoin as akin to a currency (stores value, can be used for exchange of goods). It also opened the doors to allow SEC to pursue these cases[0].

Granted it was for a ponzi scheme.

[0] [http://rt.com/usa/bitcoin-sec-shavers- texas-231/](http://rt.com/usa/bitcoin-sec-shavers-texas-231/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Before the $25m round that was just announced, CoinBase had raised $6.71m.

What have they spent that money on?

<comment><USER49> It's a tiny amount of money for a financial services company - because they need money not for expenses & salaries (as a software company), but as a pure instrument in their everyday transactions. I can easily imagine Coinbase needing ten times more working capital than that simply to function properly (i.e., not as they seem to function now).

<comment><USER50> I would love it if you could elaborate on this. Since most exchanges don't do anything before they received money from buyer, what would they need the money for?

<comment> k-mcgrady The huge fluctuations in the price of BitCoin probably cause problems. Taking an order, locking the price in, and waiting a few days for the transfer gives BitCoin time to drastically change in value.

<comment><USER51> Presumably you had the opportunity to buy the coin at the price you offered when you offered it. I am a small potato with no customers. I bid on an auction a few days ago for more BTC than I had. Why?

Well, at the time, I hadn't planned to make up the difference at Coinbase, but that was my first plan. The due date of the payment would have been after the closing date of Coinbase transactions on that date. I could probably still buy more coins before they were due, if I was still winning the auction for 6BTC.

But the real plan? SatoshiDice. I'm not talking double, I had most of the BTC needed for my bid, and the difference between what I had bid and the next bidder (split the difference) was even smaller.

So, if I just need to win 0.9BTC, it's pretty easy to do that at SatoshiDice with 4.5BTC bankroll. In fact I won 0.7BTC yesterday, after someone outbid me. I could have made it up in cash at Coinbase, but then there would be no Christmas.

This however is a small auction for another speculative asset between friends. I am not a financial services company! I can't imagine the size of the spreadsheet required to predict whether Coinbase will be able to meet all of its obligations to every customer at each point in time given the possibility of price fluctuations. Certainly a harder problem than "can I maybe win 0.9 at SatoshiDice."

But certainly also, within striking distance of solvable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I think Coinbase ought to be aware we know their customer service needs work & when stuff comes on HN and it looks bad for them its just damage control to give a false impression of competence when they respond.

</comment><comment><USER53> Did anyone say Ponzi Scheme ?

<comment><USER54> Plenty of people say "Ponzi Scheme". Many of them don't know anything about Bitcoin (or Ponzi Schemes).

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> "There's a sucker born every minute" \- P.T. Barnum

</comment><comment><USER35> You posted here at pretty much the exact wrong time (11:30pm PT) but I would still be surprised if you don't eventually get taken care of (assuming a legit situation).

</comment><comment><USER56> Can we make a new rule? HN is not an end run around companies' bad customer support (even YC ones). We could probably fill this site with these pretty easily.

<comment><USER57> Matt, I think these posts are valuable. The readers of HN seem to be exactly the type of people who might be early adopters of Coinbase. It's helpful for those people to know how the service works from a customer's perspective.

Then you also have the benefit from the entrepreneurial side. These posts can serve as a cautionary tale to other would be founders as how _not_ to do customer service.

I think where this crosses the line from inane bitching to useful discourse is the gravity of these issues. It's not like these people are posting with complaints about the page layout of the company or <insert minor nitpick here>. The issue is with the core function of the company, and that's work discussion.

Just my $0.02.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> UPDATE 3: Still missing bitcoins purchased on December 11. No acknowledgment of missing bitcoins yet from customer support or Brian.

</comment><comment><USER58> They are 8 people. He can surely push through.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Final Update: I've finally got my missing bitcoins from Coinbase. I'm squared up. Thanks for responding Counbase.

</comment><comment><USER59> Sounds like it's time to start the process of reversing a fraudulent ACH transaction.

</comment><comment><USER60> That is one of the worst responses from a customer service agent I've ever seen.

</comment><comment><USER61> HN is not a Coinbase support group. There must be better ways to deal with this.

<comment><USER62> I think losing 10k through a computer glitch is something worth talking about...especially since it's becoming a trend.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Glad I don't use online bitcoin wallets.

</comment><comment><USER64> Bitcoin news...

I have no interest in Bitcoins. Is someone gaming HN ?

<comment><USER65> In this case, Coinbase is a YCombinator company. Even if you aren't interested in BTC, Coinbase and its business dealings are very much a good topic of conversation on these forums.</comment></comment>


ARM's CEO Warren East to step down after 12 years - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/19/arm-idUSL6N0CB1W020130319

<comment><USER2> ARM stock is down on the news 2.8%.</comment>


The Market Where France's Top Chefs Buy Their Food - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/matter/we-took-a-tour-of-the-worlds-biggest-food-market-bc1d770d16d8

<comment><USER2> > _But ask most Parisians if they've heard of it, and they're likely to shrug > and shake their heads._

As every other commentator just said, nothing about Rungis is "secret" and everyone knows it exists; what's true is that -- in theory -- you have to be working in the food industry to be allowed to buy there, but it's so not secret that there are organized tours for laymen/tourists:

[http://www.rungismarket.com/en/jaune/visiter_rungis/index.as...](http://www.rungismarket.com/en/jaune/visiter_rungis/index.asp)

This is also misleading:

> _Many [products] end up packaged and promoted in different ways to make it > seem like they're coming from different sources._

Rungis is a MARKET where sellers and buyers meet; products actually come from "different sources" (very different sources indeed) and not "from Rungis" \-- they are only sold there.

What you buy on eBay doesn't come from eBay!!

</comment><comment><USER3> As stated before, Rungis is absolutely not secretive at all. Every average citizen knows about it. It was initially within Paris (now Chatelet-Les Halles station) and was moved in the suburb to expand. Not only top-chef buy their food there, but the large majority of french restaurant, not only within Paris but from the rest of France.

I wonder about the doubts raised by the article on the future of Rungis. Rungis is almost a religion. I don't see it declining. In fact it has no competitors at his scale.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, Rungis is hardly secretive. So much not so in fact that my GPS seems to take a perverse delight in directing me through there anytime the autoroute is closed for whatever reason :-/

<comment><USER5> The joy of French map that are false around Paris in the suburbs unless you take the highway.

Was using IGN map to go to Paris from Pontoise using the straight line fresh market road from Rouen...

Nearly got killed by gypsies, and false indications ...

The screenshots of roads that disappeared years ago where a carrier near Cormeilles, made a very nice irrealistic suspended road in thin air 20 meters above the ground.

Would have been fun, if in the quite abrupt slope going down on Argenteuil I did not discovered at full speed a roundabout that was not supposed to be there. It makes you wonder why we send satellites in space if we don't update the maps for decades.

Probably a remain of De Gaule plans to confuse the USSR invading us.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Secretive ? Not really... We have news report on Rungis every other month on national TV. Everyone knows about this place in France.

It's delivering food daily for the whole country, and was initially within Paris. They moved it outside Paris to make it easier to access by train.

It's a place folks love because that's where you get the freshest stuff.

I live in Dijon (300KM south of Paris) and I can get fresh Fish that most of the time come from Rungis.

<comment><USER7> Indeed, "ask most Parisians if they've heard of it, and they're likely to shrug and shake their heads", living in Paris, that's simply not true.

Still it's kind of "secretive" in the sense that it's reserved to food professional (be it a restaurant, a butcher or a supermarket), so that most Parisians never get to visit Rungis. Now if we're talking about what top chefs get, that's a kind-of-secretive market because you can't just get in Rungis and expect to get the top of the line products, they're already reserved for the top clients. It's not even (well not only) a question of money, you have to work with the right guy who knows the right producers since like forever.

Old photos of Rungis: [http://www.lesechos.fr/industrie- services/diaporamas/DIAP260...](http://www.lesechos.fr/industrie- services/diaporamas/DIAP2602141263_3C846A-le-marche-de-rungis-il- y-a-45-ans-653800.php) (first one from the old paris market who was replaced) An up to date video: [http://www.elephant- groupe.com/docs/rungis](http://www.elephant-groupe.com/docs/rungis)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Mods could just drop 'Secretive' from the title to make it accurate.

Impressive pictures, however the copy seems like a missed opportunity to dig deeper than "the workers looked really tired".

<comment><USER9> Yes, we've done so. I overlooked an opportunity to do it last night, in fact, only to see that the thread was entirely about this word.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Yes Rungis is not secretive at all, everyone in France especially in Paris know about Rungis market! Gigantic for sure, all the popular local markets here get the food from there. I find the title lurid. For geeky people, you can even order on line directly from rungis and get your fresh and organic food delivered at home (see [http://www.mon-marche.fr/](http://www.mon- marche.fr/)).

</comment><comment><USER11> Secretive? Seriously I don't know who the author asked the question to, must be some hobos or he just made it up...

<comment><USER9> It was probably made up, probably by a headline specialist who knows what tricks work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Everybody in Paris (and most of France) knows about Rungis. It's merely a logistical platform for restaurants and food outlets, and most restaurants in Paris get stuff from there, not just the best ones.

</comment><comment><USER13> New York City has the Hunts Point Food Distribution Center, the world's largest, in the Bronx. The Fulton Fish Market and the Produce Market used to be elsewhere, but in the last 20 years there's been consolidation.

Anybody can go in to buy, but it costs $25 for a day pass to the Fulton Fish Market, and buying hours are 1 AM to 7 AM. So it's for bulk buyers.

</comment><comment><USER14> What other similar "secretive" markets are there around the world?

<comment><USER15> The London markets are fragmented, Smithfield for meat (still central there are some startups upstairs), Billingsgate for fish at Canary Wharf but due to move again, New Covent Garden for fruit vegetables and flowers in Vauxhall. You can visit all of them but most stuff is wholesale quantities only.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> "Gigantic"

-> True. I don't know if it's the biggest in the world but it is indeed gigantic.

"The best food in France [...]"

-> Bullshit. The best food in France (like, probably, anywhere else in the world) comes from small local producers.

"Where France's Top Chefs Buy Their Food"

-> Probably only partially true. Top chefs (Michelin starred) source their products directly from small producers (see above).

"But ask most Parisians if they've heard of it, and they're likely to shrug and shake their heads."

-> Total bullshit. Most Parisians know about it, and it's been featured on national TV (including popular show like Top Chef and Master Chef) times and times again.</comment>


AT&T redefined the word 'bonus' as a $10 price hike for data you didn't ask for - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/6/20952512/att-price-hike-cellular-mobile-share-value-plan <comment><USER2> Telecom companies manage to piss off people everywhere. Here in India, before 2016 and before Jio, operators used to sell plans like this - Rs 749 per month with FREE 1GB of data and 750 mins of FREE calling and 100 mins of FREE roaming. Airtel was particular bad about it.

They managed to stuff the word "free" in pretty much every ad and service included leaving one wondering if everything is free, then what the hell am I paying for?

This was on top of awfully complicated plans (especially prepaid ones) which felt as if you were preparing a tax return.</comment>


Show HN: Segfault, a podcast mapping the field of computer science - <AUTHOR> https://honestyisbest.com/segfault/2020/Jun/16/programming-languages/#series_header <comment><AUTHOR> Hey folks, I'm Soham, the host of Segfault, a podcast mapping the terrain of Computer Science research. The first episode, available at [https://honestyisbest.com/segfault/2020/Jun/16/programming-l...](https://honestyisbest.com/segfault/2020/Jun/16/programming- languages/) & linked above, is about the research area of Programming Languages (PL), and features Adrian Sampson, Rachit Nigam, and Alexa VanHattum of Cornell's Capra group. There's a complete transcript for the episode at that link as well, if you would rather read it than listen to the audio.

What's the point of this? Well, Computer Science is composed of many different areas of research -- operating systems, algorithms, and cryptography, for example -- each with their own problems of interest, publications of record, idioms of communication, and styles of thought. What people doing research in these areas actually do, and how that interacts with what people in other areas do, is not usually apparent to folks who haven't spent a lot of time in academia or are just starting out.

Segfault intends to serve as a map of the field, with each episode featuring discussions about the core motivations, ideas, and methods of one particular area, with a mix of academics ranging from first year graduate students to long tenured professors as guests.

If you find the time to listen to it or read the transcript, I'd love to get your feedback.

<comment><USER2> Are you avaliable on Spotify? I found a Segfault podcast there, but it's completely on a non-common language.

<comment><AUTHOR> We're not on Spotify at the moment. We are on Apple Podcasts and most other players, and you should be able to import the RSS feed directly into most players as well. My personal recommendation is Podcast Addict ([https://podcastaddict.com/](https://podcastaddict.com/)). Feel free to email me at soham [at] soh [dot] am if you're still having trouble subscribing.</comment></comment></comment>


MySpace API preview - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2007/07/10/myspace-api/

<comment><USER2> This is probably as much as they have done so far...</comment>


The four essential laws of software updates - <AUTHOR> http://philltopia.com/blog/2009/07/12/the-four-essential-laws-of-software-updates/ <comment><USER2> Why is this necessary at all? Why does every program have its own updater, some of which are even _resident_? Why can't the OS just do all of this for us? Linux and the BSDs have package managers, but there's a solution just as easy for the rest/majority:

Both Microsoft Update and Apple Software Update could be modified, very simply, to read updates for additional software from signed RSS feeds, and queue them into a background downloading service (on Windows it's called BITS, I'm sure OSX has an equivalent) when they see them. There would need be no central repository; each software package installed would simply install a subscription, and a public key for checking against it. The updates would all be installed in the operating system's "update mode" that starts after shutdown, negating any worry of updating a running program. It wouldn't even need to trouble the download centers themselves—the RSS subscriptions could be torrent containers, and every PC could be configured to serve as a peer.

Now, if it were _me_ , I'd move the Mobile App Store from iTunes to Software Update on OSX and make it into a Multi-platform App Store, and create a similar store for Windows in their own update service... but that's perhaps, as they say on the Internets, "too much win."

<comment><USER3> Sparkle (<http://sparkle.andymatuschak.org/> ) seems to be becoming a de-facto standard on OSX, and I'd say it does a pretty good job when judged against the points in the article.

I think the update-at-shutdown isn't such a great idea, most programs don't need the computer to be restarted after they update.

<comment><USER4> Sparkle is just awesome - and I really wish Apple had the guts to roll this sort of thing (if not simply roll Sparkle in) as a standard recommendation for all apps.

The problem isn't so much that apps are rolling their own updaters, it's the fact that these updaters are often extremely heavy-weight but aren't justifiably so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Disclaimer: I'm a newbie blogger and member of HN (though I've been reading it for a while, I just joined a week ago). But any comments, criticism, or advice you might have are all definitely welcome. Thanks!

<comment><USER5> An OK article. But if you have seen most _good_ usability and UI design texts, they cite actual applications. You have your own, prototype, "hopefully not your application" dialog boxes as examples. If you can't find real-world examples of the problems you're fixing, maybe they're not that big of a deal? (which they ARE, you just haven't been researching this long enough, I am guessing.)

I clicked on the link hoping to find technical information on automatic software updating, like:

<http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~pes20/update-popl-2005.pdf>

<http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/old/hicks01dynamic.html>

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not that I didn't have anything in mind (I did, and, in earlier drafts, used some), it's that I felt this got the point across faster and simpler. Using the examples I gave _and_ real-life screenshots felt too much like flamebait for my taste. I definitely see your point though.

<comment><USER5> That's OK, welcome to HN and I would love to read you next article.

Cheers!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Law Five: Finish the job - Hopefully not your program: "Update has been downloaded. Have fun installing it. Bye!" - Dunce: Wordpress

Law Six: Stay alive - Hopefully not your program: "Software updated. Go have a coffee while I tear down all your work and restart myself." - Dunce: Firefox, Windows

Law Seven: Get with the times - Hopefully not your program: "You can't install that, it's brand new! Play it safe and use this two year old beta with many known vulnerabilities." - Dunce: Ubuntu

(I gave up on the formatting, sorry)

<comment><AUTHOR> Wait, what's wrong with Wordpress's update mechanism? I've only used it for a short while but I've been nothing short of amazed how simple and easy it is (two button presses), compared to years of downloading packages, diffing files, uploading files, running database upload scripts, fixing errors, and so on under phpBB/IPB/MediaWiki.

<comment><USER6> So it does. Somehow I missed it when trying to upgrade a friend's blog.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A good reason to make sure your nightly (or whatever) build process generates deliverable installers as early as possible, and then conduct all deployments (test, demo, beta etc.) via these installers. Stress points soon get removed.

Throwing a finished executable over the wall to some poor sod at -1 week away from ship date may deliver a poor experience.

</comment><comment><USER8> Essential laws?</comment>


Does Clean Laundry Have Germs? - <AUTHOR> http://www.stopthestomachflu.com/does-clean-laundry-have-germs-1 <comment><USER2> I thought it was common knowledge to sanitize your wash machine every month with a bleach load to kill germs and whatever. Sadly though, none of the coin laundry shops I go to do that. When I ask they are like, "it does 3 cycles, there are no germs". Then people throw dog beds encrusted with feces

"If you wash a load of just underwear, there will be about 100 million E. coli in the wash water, and they can be transmitted to the next load of laundry," Gerba said.

[https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/washing-machines- load...](https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/washing-machines-loaded- bacteria-dirty-clothes/story?id=10751420)

"Bacterial Exchange in Household Washing Machines" [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4672060/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4672060/)

<comment><USER3> _I thought it was common knowledge to sanitize your wash machine every month with a bleach load to kill germs and whatever_

After decades of doing my own laundry, I'd never heard of that practice. Well, at least not until recently when I got an HE front loader machine, now I run a bleach cleaning cycle once a month or so to kill odor causing germs. But not to keep germs off my clothes.

<comment><USER4> Partly this is a design flaw with front loaders. Old school washing machine it's easy to leave the door open when not in use. So everything dries out and you don't get mildew (if your machine is like mine you are smelling mildew).

Front load the damned door smacks you in the shin and you close it. Creating a nice little terrarium to grow stuff in.

I throw a little white vinegar into the prewash every time I launder cotton. Keeps the mildew under control and helps with hard water.

Check out the top load HEs. The Japanese were using that design for a long time.

<comment><USER5> We have had the same front loader for twenty years and my girlfriend wants that door closed. We have it always closed and never had a problem with mildew. Don't use bleach very often either. Maybe mildew comes into the washer from the air and once you get it you never are without it. If you always keep it shut, the mildew never contaminates the washer. I'm also in the East Bay where humidity is not stupid high and we don't have mildewy things to wash often. That might be part of our luck.

Here is an experiment whose results I'd pay for. Who to fund it; NIH or NSF? They are always asking for the societal impact of the research to be performed.

<comment><USER6> It probably has more to do with your climate than your model of washer. Warm and wet climates vs cold and dry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The issue I suspect caused this is all of the newer energy efficient washers/ dryers. The author tested a Samsung dryer. I recently lived in apartment with a similar model, and it was terrible. When visiting parents I was stunned at how well their older washer/dryer worked. The clothes came out much more clean too.

In my experience the newer energy efficent washers/dryers are almost total garbage compared to the older ones. I would love to see this experiment repeated with an older 90's kenmore or whirlpool or really any brand from the 90's or before.

I love the idea of saving energy, and energy efficient laundry sounds like a great idea on the surface, but what I think happened was the government put regulations in place without really considering the actual impact this would have on the quality of the washers/dryers.

<comment><USER8> What I don't get is why those machines are so eager on saving water. The amount of water used costs so much less compared to the electricity (at least here in Germany) but on some kinds of load the clothes get barely wet. Making it heat up slower or using more efficient motors would be enough IMO. Or at least add a button that reads "waste a shitload of water".

My washer is sitting next to the kitchen sink and I just manually add a huge load of water every time I turn that damn thing on. I installed a faucet with a hose just for that reason.

<comment><USER9> Water is finite. Meanwhile you can generally always pay for more electricity.

Cape Town will likely be out of water by July 15.

High efficiency dryers and washers have their place; just maybe not where water is prevalent.

<comment><USER10> Depends on where you live - in North of England and parts of Scotland the water is so plentiful you don't even get a water meter in your home, you only pay a flat delivery charge each year, but are otherwise free to use as much as you like. In which case, I'm happy to use a program that uses loads of water, but obviously in other locations(Cape Town) the amount used should be restricted. There is no one-size-fits-all solution.

<comment><USER11> Water may fall from the sky in the North, but it's not rainwater that comes out of the tap at home.

The lack of water meters is a legacy thing. Water companies all over the UK (including the North) are trying to migrate consumers away from unmetered tariffs. For example: [https://www.nwl.co.uk/your-home/your- account/considering-a-w...](https://www.nwl.co.uk/your-home/your- account/considering-a-water-meter.aspx)

And in case you think the water companies are just as happy if you're on an unmetered tariff: [https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east- news/water-m...](https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/water- meters-how-you-forced-13560774)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > My sister Christy has an older top loader (not HE). She washed this laundry > on hot and added the 1/2 cup chlorine bleach directly to the wash water and > it was very, very clean. She measured the temperature of her wash water when > the tank filled up using her meat thermometer and it was 130 degrees F. She > used Sam's club detergent. Her laundry was perfectly clean (to the limits of > my detection abilities).

So, 130F is just under 60C - what's usually the minimum considered to kill bacteria. While I haven't measured the actual temperature, my aging, second hand washer have three "white" programs: "hot" is 90 C, and there are two rated 60C. I'd never assume any of the other programs had a sterilising effect.

If "hot" is just 60C, and often not that - I can see a need to use bleach for some loads (or other means of killing off bacteria) if the norm is to use warm (not hot) water for washing.

Would be interesting to see similar test with just water (no soap, bleach) and a 90C degree program.

I'd guess the results would be "dotted middleground" like many of the test here.

Also would be nice to see how hanging in the sun would effect otherwise clean clothes (airborne bacteria vs uv death ray stand-off - might be meaningless without checking for _type_ of bacteria).

<comment><USER13> An interesting side effect here is that the house water heater has its own temperature control. For years people have been turning down the temperature setting on their water heaters to save energy, as a result the typical house water heater might be set to 60C (130F) and the washing machine was doing the best it could.

<comment><USER14> Washing machines use cold water and heat it up themselves, so I don't see the connection?

<comment><USER15> While vaguely modern European ones generally do, American ones often don't. I suspect this is down to the 120V power; with normal wiring you can only get about 2kW if not less, vs about 3 on a European system.

<comment><USER16> Don't most washing machines plug into a 240V circuit?

<comment><USER17> No. Electric dryers do, but not washers.

But that said, it would not be hard to run 240V to washer, so that can't be the reason.

Do Europeans typically heat water with electricity? That might be the reason - if you are anyway using electricity, you might as well let the washer do it.

In the US natural gas water heaters are very common (it's more efficient). And natural gas dryers too.

<comment><USER15> No, most water heating in most places in Europe is gas.

Modern front-loading washing machines, especially those managing an A or better on the EC's energy rating system, tend to use very little water, though. Depending on the plumbing system, by the time the potential cold water in the hot water pipes had run through, you might not get very much hot water at all before you were done, so you'd have to heat electrically anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> If you're ever forgotten to dry the laundry for just a day or two, you can easily notice what your "clean" laundry starts to emanate. I think that's a simple enough experiment that confirms that "clean" laundry does have LOTS of bacteria, especially before it gets killed by removing the leftover water.

Speaking of bacteria, another interesting at-home experiment is the one with tea. Not everyone knows, but tea is highly anti-bacterial. If you leave an old tea-bag from milk-free green tea lying around with just enough water to keep it moist for a few days or even a week, the chances of spoilage or mold are extremely low — the water will evaporate faster. (I sometimes didn't throw old tea cups from my desk for weeks, and none of them ever developed anything bad, unless they had something other than the tea, e.g., milk tea will develop mold pretty fast.)

<comment><USER19> Doesn't matter what a thing is (Edit: Except for a green tea bag, apparently?) if you leave it around damp for a couple of days it'll start to smell musty just from airborne bacteria growing on it. If that thing is a warm damp mesh, it's basically the perfect home for bacteria and will start to smell even if it was 100% sterile when it came out of the machine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Some readers are asking what's the point since germs are everywhere? I was actually quite interested in this. As a practitioner of BJJ, a common rule among schools/dojos is to not allow you to train with dirty gis, and a lot recommend washing it as soon as possible after sessions. Staph is an ever- present (though not incredibly common) concern with all the sweat, rolling around, and close contact. A bit grossed out to read that washing doesn't do all too much to reduce germs and therefore chances of staph.

<comment><USER21> Staph isn't fun, but you should also be worried about HIV, hepatitis B, and other bloodborne pathogens.

Not all blood pathogens can be killed by traditional disinfectants, even bleach. You need to soak the affected article for 10 minutes with a caustic sterilizer such as Sporicidin or CaviCide (which unlike disinfectants will kill bacterial spores)

No training center I have ever seen cleans their mats this way. Roll at your own risk...

<comment><USER22> There is absolutely 0% chance of contracting HIV through a mat at a martial arts studio, unless you eviscerate someone with a knife, stab yourself, and roll around in their blood thirty seconds after the evisceration.

<comment><USER21> Alright, so HIV is a minor risk, but other blood pathogens are easier to transmit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Detergent is a surfactant, designed to lift dirt, food and other stains from your clothing to be rinsed away with the water. It does absolutely nothing in terms of bacteria or germs beyond this.

In cases where that's necessary, like hospital linens, a combination of bleach and hot water is used. Most new washing machines now come with a "sanitize" setting that will use a built-in water heater to get to boiling temperatures to clean clothes.

You should also clean your washing machine regularly, using empty cycles and letting it completely dry out. You can't clean much if the cleaning equipment itself is dirty.

<comment><AUTHOR> _" Detergent is a surfactant, designed to lift dirt, food and other stains from your clothing to be rinsed away with the water. It does absolutely nothing in terms of bacteria or germs beyond this."_

But it should wash away the bacteria, right?

That's why hospitals advise doctors and patients to wash their hands with soap, isn't it? It's not like they're under any illusion that soap will kill the bacteria/viruses, but just that it should wash them off.

<comment><USER23> Yes, you're right, but the physics are different. Soap is different than laundry detergent and is designed for your relatively non-porous watertight skin, which when held under a stream of water lets bacteria wash away easily.

Fabric is much more porous and absorbs deeply, along with the trouble of being enclosed in a sealed container. No matter how much soap and water is used, it's unlikely to truly wash away the microscopic bacteria trapped within the fibers.

There are some experimental machines using ultrasound to agitate clothing for removing stains, germs and even the water itself for instant drying, but that's not quite production ready.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > Crystal Wash allows you to do your laundry with NO detergent! You put these > 2 balls in your washer that contain special "bio ceramics" that change the > pH of the water and allow dirt and bacteria to be removed naturally. The > company claims that it is as good as regular detergent, natural, and will > save you money. To recharge your crystals, you simply set the balls in the > sun for the afternoon.

Is this a real thing? What's the chemistry behind it?

<comment><USER25> [http://laundry.reviewed.com/features/crystal-wash-tested- doe...](http://laundry.reviewed.com/features/crystal-wash-tested-does-this- detergent-alternative-actually-work)

<comment><USER24> TL;DR:

 _When it comes to stain removal, Crystal Wash does not work any better than hot water. And, when it comes to some important stains, Crystal Wash often works far worse than laundry detergent._

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Honestly I never expected laundry detergent to actually sanitize anything. I use it to help remove stains and grime from my clothes during a wash.

Do people expect the laundry to actually sanitize clothes? I would think having to option to use cold water is a dead giveaway.

Anyone have a link for a dishwasher test similar to this one?

<comment><USER27> Age-old wisdom passed from my grandma to my mom to me is that if poop gets on something, just throw it in the wash, even with other laundry (unless it's like A LOT OF POOP), on a hot cycle.

Always seemed to work just fine, now I'm horrified.

<comment><USER28> As someone currently fostering a batch of kittens with stomach bugs... I'm going to go home and burn all of my clothes now.

<comment><USER29> You might want to google feline toxoplasmosis. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis#Parasitology](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis#Parasitology)

<comment><USER28> Yeah, I'm familiar with it, though hopefully not _familiar_ familiar with it. As far as we know, it's some other kind of coccidia. Either way, there's a whole lot of washing and hand cleaning going on these days.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> For towels at least, I do a "bleach load" every few weeks when I start to notice normal washing is not enough and they smell a bit after only one or two uses. After I was with bleach, they smell clean and I can use them for like a week before a normal wash. I try to only use white towels.

</comment><comment><USER31> European washing machines usually have the "almost boiling" setting: 95 degrees Celsius. I use it for linen and towels. Other types of cloth don't bear this so well.

<comment><USER32> yes, I was wondering the same... that should be enough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> A few years back I got a new washing machine. After a few weeks of use a light came on that simply said "Hygiene". I had no idea what this meant so looked in the manual. It turns out that the washing machine expects to have a 90 degree C cycle every so often so it kills all the germs inside. This was a feature that my previous machine didn't have.

</comment><comment><USER34> Funny enough a clothes line on a sunny day might yield good results.

I wonder if anyone makes a dryer with embedded UV lights, that'd be interesting.

<comment><USER35> UV lights are used to kill pathogens in a number of different settings (some hospitals have super-neat UV robots). The issue is you need _direct_ UV exposure - a pile of clothing in a dryer would largely shield itself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> This site is pretty interesting in itself...like even clicking away from the laundry and checking out their tests of various products like hydrogen peroxide and such on their counter tops is interesting to look at

<comment><USER37> On the downside the site seems organized in such a way to SEO for Amazon link referrals and to drum up visibility of a vanity-published book series written and illustrated by her daughter.

Not that it isn't an accomplishment, but it feels... forced? And not in the way of someone inexperienced with web stuff and proud of their kid.

It has that auto-generated-from-the-previous-contents-of-the-expired- registration domain parking website feel.

Pages go on forever, disorganized navigation, boilerplate explanations duplicated everywhere, very little in the way of charts or tables or summaries, and most of the links about products go to Amazon.

<comment><USER38> That explains the focus on detergents and not temperature?

I was baffled she hardly even mentioned the temperature setting, here it is well known that you should run your washer with at least 60C if you want to kill germs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I am an advocate for energy efficient appliances, but dang it, things got to work.

I have a new dishwasher that takes 3 hours to wash, and I struggle to keep red bacteria from growing all over the place in it. I just did a no-dishes bleach wash this morning. I've never had this problem before.

</comment><comment><USER40> Semi related. But dr bronner's sal suds is quite nice as a laundry detergent - works better than the regular dr bronners (for laundry). 2 tablespoons is all it takes, smells great, and it should be fine for most people with sensitive skin.

</comment><comment><USER41> Related to germs, how often do people clean their keyboards/mice/electronic surfaces in their office. How come tech companies don't have such a service? Would people be interested in it?

<comment><USER42> The cost to pickup, clean, and return a computer mouse/kb is almost certainly higher than buying a new mouse/kb

<comment><USER43> That totally depends on your setup. But in my case, I keep a container of 90% isopropyl alcohol on my desk to wipe away my keyboard, mouse, laptop surface, desk, etc. regularly. It certainly seems easier than having some service take it away for a day or even a few hours.

<comment><USER44> I just use the Clorox wipes that are always on hand in the office kitchen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> tl;dr Only chlorine bleach and certain washers with a "sanitize" setting reliably sanitize laundry.

With bleach you have to make sure you add it to the water at the right time which a malfunctioning dispenser can fail to do (and you might not realize it), but apart from that it works reliably and even with cold water. A "sanitize" setting can get similar results but it depends on the machine; her neighbor's didn't work as well as hers. Unfortunately non-chlorine bleach and "sanitizer" additives do not reliably sanitize.

The obsessiveness of the post can given the impression that this is someone who's a germaphobe, but she actually notes that it's not necessary to kill germs most of the time. She's just motivated to figure out how to effectively sanitize in the cases where you want to do it, like a household illness or cloths used to wipe up raw chicken.

<comment><USER35> Note that even this may not work perfectly.

For example, Clorox recommends using 1/2 cup of Clorox regular bleach in laundry. That's 8 tablespoons worth. That's on the low end of what the CDC recommends _per gallon_ of water for disinfecting something that's contaminated with Norovirus (a viral stomach bug especially common in the winter).

Norovirus is also pretty heat stable, though the sanitize setting _should_ get hot enough, though it's not clear if its hot enough for long enough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> This is why I've always been grossed out by shared washing machines. In public laundromats you're soaking your clothes in water that's been used by the whole city. People are washing cloth diapers full of baby poop for all you know.

</comment><comment><USER47> My Samsung washer I bought 10+ years ago has a sanitize setting that releases steam and silver ions into the wash. Used for Bedding / Sheets / Towel wash cycles.

</comment><comment><USER48> Anyone else get reminded of Oxygen Not Included while reading this thread? A big part of the game is about germs, temperatures and how to manage heat or use gases like chlorine to kill germs.

</comment><comment><USER49> This is interesting indeed and I appreciate the amount of work done, but honestly I don't see the point.

Yes, germs are everywhere (surprised?), so what?

First, you can't bleach all you house.

Second, even if you could, why do that? Our body seems to fight nasty stuff pretty well. If you have some specific condition or disease, then just take targeted measures.

<comment><USER50> > I don't see the point.

>If you have some specific condition or disease, then just take targeted measures

Did you even read the article? That's _exactly_ what she says she is doing. When there's a stomach flu or other harmful bug going through the household, she is using targeted washing methods to rid those germs.

<comment><USER51> I have a hard time buying the idea that if you are going to catch stomach flu, it will be from germs from "clean" laundry. Most germs just get washed away, and you can't completely eliminate germs elsewhere in the environment, so that seems like one of the least likely vectors.

Sorry, but this just seems like OCD disguised by a bit of science.

<comment><USER49> Exactly what I meant. Yes, you can bleach all your clothes, but not your whole house.

Then, if you already have stomach flu, then I don't see how bleaching your clothes might help here. Take a medicine.

Finally, reading about stomach flu (I'm not a doctor), it doesn't look like a serious problem: > Most people with the stomach flu require no formal treatment. The key to a rapid and safe recovery at home (home remedy) is proper hydration.

If it gets more serious then take a pill or/and go to a doctor.

<comment><USER35> It's a serious problem for the 70,000 people who get hospitalized for norovirus every year in the U.S. It's even more serious for the 800 people who die.

And given there's not "a pill" you can take for it, I don't see how a couple capfulls of bleach is _more_ problematic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Isn't this why you need to dry your clothes on the hottest setting?

</comment><comment><USER53> Granted this is a real life study with a large set of data sampling a small number of machines, though likely using the same city water. The culprit might be the city water, or the build up of bacteria in the machines from long term use of the city water?

<comment><USER54> She tested the water in the article too and found it free of bacteria.

<comment><USER53> Its difficult to find any evidence relating to bacteria in water systems, but its certainly not 100% disinfected, or free of bacteria.

The problem with washing machines is they are devices that are rather difficult to disinfect. If you were to take a brand new washer, as in never had water ran through it, you would probably see a drastic reduction in her results. However, after a few uses bacteria from the air, cloths, water, and other sources will eventually end up in the system. If the system is not vented, then wet spots will exist throughout each washing cycle carrying with it any bacteria.

With that said, what I am suggesting is the washing machine is the culprit for bacteria from city water, which is not 100% bacteria free. Add in the fact that High-Efficiency washers use substantially less water then older units, and you have a perfect bacterial soup machine. Older machines used more water, which allowed for further dilution and flushing.

Would the situation be the same if the water was 100% free of bacteria with a brand new washer that would be dried completely after each use?

<comment><USER55> If you had read the article, you would know that (a) the water was free of bacteria, (b) she tested an old HE washer, an old normal top-loading washer, a new HE front-loading washer, and a normal front-loading washer and (c) the problem wasn't the washers.

<comment><USER56> And she tested the washer and dryer too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Anyone know a good way to sanitize wool and high-tech fabrics?

</comment><comment><USER58> Is sterile laundry clean?

</comment><comment><USER59> TL;DR: Only bleach and/or a high temperature in the dryer kills most of the bacteria. Various laundry detergents seemed to have no effect. If you are a norophobe, try to use disposable paper towels, nappies, etc. when you can.

<comment><USER60> The article seems to miss UV/direct sunlight. Don't leave strong colours like red out too long, but it nukes washing. I've had a search but can't any decent measures of what sunlight does.

<comment><USER21> Sunlight does nothing. UV radiation, which you are exposed to in the outdoors, will disrupt a microorganism's DNA, preventing it from reproducing (it doesn't kill the microorganism, though). There's no guarantee that just leaving something out in the sun will penetrate enough to be effective.

A glass window filters out almost all of the UVA spectrum, but you can buy a UVA lamp if you want to disinfect the surface of some item indoors. (DO NOT USE THIS LAMP ON YOURSELF). As an example, The SteriPEN uses a UVA lamp to sterilize water, but needs to be on for a sufficient amount of time as the water is agitated.

 _edit_ I'm an idiot, the SteriPEN uses UV-C, which doesn't even get through our atmosphere. UV-A and UV-B do get through and do affect organisms. Here's a paper on the SteriPEN: [https://www.travelmedicinejournal.com/article/S1477-8939(15)...](https://www.travelmedicinejournal.com/article/S1477-8939\(15\)00174-X/pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> This site is making my skeptic radar ping really hard... especially the referral links to buy 'essential oils', and all the carefully posed super-mom photos.

<comment><USER54> Generally mommy-blogs are sketchy (people pay or give free product for great reviews), and this is a literal mommy blog, but I read the whole thing and it seems pretty legit. She even reviewed the ozone cleaning device and revealed how much of a scam it was.

There's really no recommendation for a specific brand except the norwex+lysol combo, which she wasn't able to explain why it worked.

<comment><USER61> I wasn't saying I think the information is necessarily bad, just that it's sort of in the "grain of salt" category, as many sites along these lines are peddling all kinds of quackery.

<comment><USER62> unless she's peddling bleach and avoiding top-loading HE machines, she didn't make a very compelling case for anything else....so I think it's fair not to lump this article into the category of website you're describing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Everything has germs... The idea that you can get rid of them is flawed.

<comment><USER64> Unless you live in a literal bubble you're going to have contagions.

The people exposed to the dirtiest conditions as children are perhaps the least vulnerable in their adult lives. Excessively clean conditions are a problem.

<comment><USER65> > Excessively clean conditions are a problem.

Maybe. But for those of us around immuno-compromised people, this kind of data is good.

Am I going to worry about standard dirty clothes? Meh. Not really.

Am I going to pay more attention when someone is sick and I have to do their laundry? Yes.

<comment><USER64> If you're immuno-compromised I'd invest in the right equipment, like perhaps a more industrial-grade cleaning system. The sort used by hotels can kill anything.</comment></comment></comment></comment>