Received fiat, but bitsquare mentioned in reference

Hello everyone, first timer here.

Went forward with selling some BTC the other day, and today the fiat hit my bank account.

I was, however, not happy to find out that the buyer mentioned bitsquare (misspelled) in the reference; it looked like this:

BITSQUIRE TRANSACTION xxxxxxx ON xx:xx YY AUG 2016 CEST

The sending IBAN matches, but there is no name at all in the incoming transaction!

Perplexed, I went online and found this https://bitsquare.io/arbitration_system.pdf

Where it says:

Incorrect data or payment amount (bank fees)
If the bitcoin buyer transfers an incorrect Fiat
amount or does not use the exact reference text (offer ID) it is
considered a breach of contract.
If a trader uses the words “Bitcoin”, “BTC”, “Trade”
or “Bitsquare” in the reference text it will also be considered as
contract breach, as some banks are very hostile against Bitcoin related
transactions and the other peer might get serious problems with his
bank.

I’ve not confirmed payment at this stage, as I wanted to ask for opinions here first.

I’m worried that this is a scam and will get me in trouble, because there’s no name on the sender (what bank would allow that?)

1 Like

Welcome saidalan,

you’re correct. Traders are supposed to follow the protocol. If they don’t it’s considered a breach of the contract. This rule is in place because if you alter the trading protocol to your wishes, you could tweak it to scam people.

The info of what to do can be found via several sources and are explained in the popups in the app.

The fact that there’s no name puzzles me a bit as well. I can’t think of a reason for it. If the name is not required by the bank, the NAME field makes no sense at all. Banks do the weirdest things sometimes and have different requirements.

You have two possibilities:

  1. Confirm the trade and be over with it.

  2. Call the arbitrator (cmd+o or ctrl+o) when the trade is selected and see what he has to say.

I’d do 1) because I think the chances of a scam are very slim with SEPA and the other trader had good intentions.

  1. Will consume quite some time.

It’s depending on the sum as well. I’d say if you traded for a small amount the chances of a scam are slim. If it’s a higher amount… I don’t know :slight_smile:

Strictly speaking it’s a breach of the contract and the btc are be yours. Generally are you using BETA software and the pop-ups might not be clear and intrusive enough. How’d you feel if you’d lose your fiat due to a ‘mistake’.

Maybe you should call the arbitrator and ask for a second opinion.

Thanks for the feedback, @marc

I chose to open a support ticket, stating that I am in favor of the trader receiving the BTC; but in the interest of protecting the privacy of other future trading partners, asked the arbitrator to tell the trader about the rules.

Hi @saidalan,

That is me created so much fuss with my first trade and am sorry for the frustration you faced. I would like to assure you that there has never been any scam intent there.

The arbitrator is in contact with me, and we are following the established procedure (and I am taking my lessons).

It is unfavourable to both of us that my bank sent you the SEPA transfer without my name. Perhaps, other common attributes are missing too. My impression is that this is the overall CZ-style of bank messages - ripped off more than needed. At least, my bank is doing it and was also confused when I relocated to Czech a few years ago and stumbled upon this fact. It looks like I will have to compensate such items by adding them to the free message part of the transaction.

Please share what else is missing - it would be useful to the other fellows using their CZ bank too.

So far I have seen two minor errors in transfers.

Example 1. The seller’s account name did not quite match the details provided to Bitsquare. They had three initials in the account name but only two on Bitsquare.
Example 2. The buyer entered my name instead of their name when doing a transfer to my bank account.

In each case the Bitsquare reference and all other details matched so I accepted the deal. I think pedantically calling for the arbitrator is not always necessary if it can be judged to be a minor user error.

1 Like