Bitcoin Forum

When somebody is confident that nobody can reverse their actions and confiscate the property (Bitcoins) they now possess, it seems to override what's socially acceptable and they keep the money in their pocket despite not delivering what they committed to. There is no possible and real consequence right now.

I've lost over 300 BTC to scammers in my lifetime on this forum, all because I believed people usually valued the property of others. Either because of the social disconnect of online mediums, luck or my over-trusting attitude this has continued to happen until this day.

I am giving in guys. I will start being tougher on who I do business with. This is a totally different ball game and I need to learn how to play it.

Trust unfortunately needs to be earned, at least here.

Good for you !

Petition to rename OP Hypocratlas

I have simply bought products that never were delivered. Konichua has been my only gentlemen's agreement bet.

We should not look down our noses at people who are not good with money or are just bad at operating in the free market.  I myself have never had a problem here and have never lost money because I look at every business transaction with perfect clarity, but not everyone can be as sharp as I am.  That is why we need government regulation of Bitcoin, we need to protect folks like Atlas who have been innocent victims of their own lack of depth and insuitability to an open market.  

I would happily lose it all over again, Rarity. Thanks but no thanks. You can keep your government regulation.

Anyways, great trolling. 9/10

I don't think an individual so easily scammed is someone those of us doing well in this Bitcoin free market should be consulting on how best to proceed.  Survival of the fittest is the name of the game here, and your mismanagement of your funds has proven you do not have what it takes.  If wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think, allowing yourself to become victim to a scam and lose your wealth is evidence of a total lack of any such capacity.  Our only choice is to use government regulation to protect you from your own lack of clarity. 

Aye, I agree, bitcoin seems to override most peoples sense of what is decent - maybe its the fact its mostly over the internet and people just dont have the morals to do business like they would in person (muggings aside).

I havent been scammed "yet" - I'm expecting it one day tho - now matter how clever I think I'm being there's always going to be someone who is most clever than me :).

I've taken to requesting peoples Facebook account and asking they message me from it to confirm some kind of identity - I know this is not perfect, but at least gives a small sense of security (as I believe most people dont really "lie" on there FB accounts, created a personal connection)

In meatspace, I much prefer paying with my credit card to using cash, and one of the reasons is that I trust my credit card company more than the merchant. In case of a disagreement between me and the merchant, having the credit card company as an intermediary on my side is really helpful.

I'm assuming that once Bitcoin matures, those kinds of intermediaries will be common, with me only buying from merchants that have an agreement with my payment processor whom I trust to "insure" the transaction somehow.

In the meantime, you do really need to treat bitcoins like cash. I think one problem is that cash is so rarely used for day-to-day transactions by many people that we've forgotten how to treat anything like cash.

We still need something to regulate our life in Bitcoin world. An instrument that allows to "reverse" a payment if there were no delivery of the good would be very handy.

Irked nedbert is nedbirked.

Countermeasures such as multisig is extremely important.  Multisig doesn't address every failing, but it can go a long way to prevent losses due to specific types of negligence and fraud.

Anything without balance or countermeasures is susceptible to problems.  In it's unmediated form the benefit provided by the irreversible nature of Bitcoin is heavily polarized towards merchants and thieves.  This attribute of Bitcoin is unbalanced.  

Performing direct person-to-person, irreversible trading without an intermediary is a personal failure of due diligence.  Depending on the circumstances I would go as far as to say that no one can be trusted.


The bigger problem is trusting services/organizations that cater to the Bitcoin market.  As evidenced, the potential losses for irreversible activity on services with aggregate wealth can be huge.


No one with significant wealth would be wise to transfer that wealth to a service dealing in Bitcoin without maintaining a minimum level of control over that wealth.  We might trust in the 'Full faith and credit of the United States,' and it's various institutions that might provide recourse for theft, but with Bitcoin it is incredibly foolish to take on faith, 'Trust me.  I'm secure and your money isn't going anywhere.'  


Reduce the gain from basic thievery by employing multisig and see that theft dwindle.  Ask the dev's for it.  Ask the services for it.

If that's what you think then i truely feel sorry for you.
Earned trust is not enough anymore as of recently trusted community members have shown a different face.
And how do you assign a trust value to a name on a forum anyway?
This is why, for instance, fiat is regulated. It gives you more than 'earned trust' to enforce contracts.
I also feel sorry for the people who think that money should not be regulated.
The way bitcoin is developing it only proves that some form of regulation and enforcement is needed to create a stable environment on which trade of goods can prosper.
I'm not saying fiat is the holy grail.
What i'm saying is that any money system needs forms of regulation and be able to enforce these regulations otherwise scams in all forms will dominate it in the end.

I think the majority of scams can be blamed on distance. When bitcoin merchants live in your local area you will see scamming rates go down significantly. There are reasons your local electronics store doesnt rip you off,not like buying graphics cards off an anon entity overseas or inter country. Its easy to go to consumer protection groups and report a scammy merchant living just around the corner because most people dont shit in their own nest :)

It's not just the scams.  It's the general shadiness and position of superiority that even seemingly well respected Bitcoiners carry on with...

Would you normally conduct your business the same way when transacting in other mediums of exchange?



escrow escrow escrow!

No, it's called ESCROW. =)  And you can do it almost fully automated via Bitmit.net..

Escrow didn't exist in early 2010.

I highly doubt it. We just got from selling spongebob stickers to actual goods.

So there wasn't a single trusted person in the community who could hold the funds?

Are you even the real Atlas? He used to make much more informed responses. :/

Bitmit.net may not have existed in 2010. But surely, some trusted form of escrow has always existed.  And if you are suggesting you lost 300BTC back in 2010 and are just now giving up then smoething does not add up in what msg you are trying to convey here exactly.. And if you did lose 300BTC back in 2010 it would have been worth, what $3.00?? Did this ruin you or something>?

Yeah I don't get it either, he's saying he's just now learning not to trust people, yet there was nobody he could trust for escrow back then either?

Then again it's Atlas, he may not even know what escrow means.

I'm shocked how much dishonesty bitcoin attracts. Several trusted members, mods and other well-known bitcoiners have shown to be just a bunch of lying scumbags.

Of course this is not enough. We have these randon newcomers who are in for a quick buck. Scams everywhere (whos sig is that?)

I'm so fucking disappointed. This community makes me sick.

Why isnt there a list of escrow agents stickied in the marketplace   ?

Personally I haven't because I don't trust anyone enough to recommend them to others. Would you? Who would you recommend putting in such a list?

What happens when they cut and run one day, or something beyond their control happens, and you catch a bunch of heat for recommending them?

We're just having a discussion here.

Anyways, irreversible transactions were a new thing for a lot of people back then. It took awhile for escrow to pan out. I am not making excuses. I'm just reporting the story.

Your version of the story and reality don't match up, escrow has been a thing for far longer than bitcoin.

Of course but it was not introduced as a concept here for awhile. I am not saying it's a new invention, my friend.

Exactly.  Only the government can be trusted to handle this.  Set up a government run central escrow service, fund it by taxing the Bitcoins involved.

Yes you did.

You guys are just being disrespectful and overly combative. Yes, in the end, it was my fault I lost money back then but it was pretty much discovering the venom that exists within Bitcoin.

Escrow didn't exist in [the bitcoin community] in early 2010. That is what I meant.

Telling you you're wrong isn't disrespectful. If I were to say you're dumb and full of shit, that's disrespectful.

My wording was wrong. The intended meaning wasn't.

Liberty Reserve is not popular in most circles. Look, you're trying to say I should of known. Nobody had really known. Nobody anticipated this. Not in the early Bitcoin community.

It seems none of you were here at that time.

Where did the "Closed due to non-interest" go that was here just a minute ago?

You need to calm down, Atlas.  I saw you edit out the giant middle finger directed to Bad Bear and edit out calling him an asshole and trying to lock the thread because you don't like where it's going.

Do not take out your anger at yourself for failing to succeed in the free market on the rest of us here who have found more success.  Instead, work for positive change and maybe write your Congressman and ask him to consider regulating Bitcoin so you can participate in it without being scammed as much in the future.

Many of us who have studied business were well aware of what an unregulated market would actually look like and how to protect ourselves within it.  All of our financial regulations since the dawn of civilization have been built on improving from that state of anarchy for a reason.

There is no real objective except a personal and emotional defense against my early losses. Let's carry on to something more fruitful.

I dont see why there needs to be  a marketplace here at all. Bitmit and localbitcoins.com as well as other third party sites have specialised ratings and reviews that handle buying and selling. Bitcointalk isnt ebay its a forum.

I am starting to think it's for the better. It would be nice to see commerce decentralize onto other sites.

Theymos probably likes the boards and  they add to the site's value. He won't go for it. I encourage him to prove me wrong, however.

Its called escrow.

Define fitness..
Because a.t.m. i see scammers being very very fit from a bitcoin aquisition perspective.

Absolutely, playing fair is not a virtue in this sort of unregulated free market system.  There are no negative consequences for playing unfairly.  You need communal values and firm government oversight to make sure honest business is the more logical path.  Bitcoin will not reach it's destiny as the currency of the future until we have those things.

The only way to stop the scammers from having such a prominent place in the food chain is to start protecting the less fit scam victims like Atlas from themselves.

I see a flood of escrow scams coming up.
Escrow just moves the problem and without a stick to beat the escrows you are in the same situation.
You would first need a good reason to trust an escrow.
Wat could fix that is a business specializing in escrow.
Then, if they fail once it would make all further transactions with them untrustworthy.
But single escrow deals as seen on this forum are just using the same trust mechanism as scammers.
I'm not saying that people offering escrow services are scammers, but from the point of viev of the people that want their transaction escrowed the trust relation is based on the same information as would be with a scammer.
As was said earlier in this thread, you basically cannot completely trust anyone here on the basis of what they do on this forum.
There is always an uncovered risk that someone will jsut run with the coins.

Yeah, this would be a good example of trustable escrow.
They would have no incentive to run off with the coins.
They have lots of incentive to not run off with the coins.

In spite of all the FUD in the the many multiples drama posts, I actually prefer the trading forum here.  I trust the other party within reason and I go out of my way to trade with newbees to give the a good, honest,  reliable trading experience despite the calls of "scammer" from other members as soon as a newbee posts a request for a trade.  

I never once even thought about an investment with pirate or a PPT and MNW has been on my ignore list since before the bitcoinica debacle.  I've pulled my coins out of Bitcoinica before the hack.  And I currently hold a zero balance in Intersango (waiting...)

Never been scammed by a newbee (though I've had bad trades twice with two "hero" members).   Don't care if its bitcoin, us dollar or persian rugs. All market places are the same.  Use common sense, decide who to trust and don't risk what you can't afford to loose.  

And I've never used escrow.

It's all a matter of the choices you make.   Our (US) society has come to so heavily rely on "others"  (gov't/state/big business) to protect/take care/look out for us  that it seems we are not longer capable of  fending for ourselves.

These concerns here are more a comment on our contemporary digital society then they are on the bitcoin community.

I mostly hear people about regulation in general, not nessesarily by government.
There are different ways to regulate stuff.
Not regulating is, by the way, worse than over-regulating (like in fiat).
The thing is that there is absolutely no proof that a monetary system can go on forever and will never collapse.
In fact, history shows that monetary systems come and go.
Saying that regulation on fiat was not a success is denying that most of us here on this forum have food, shelter and can live a reasonable life under reasonable circumsatances.
This has never been the case at this scale ever in history!
Certainly, it was never the case in situations where currency and money were not regulated.
So i would say that stating that regulation is the actual problem is more trollig that what you presume to be trolling.

You don't need government, you need a stick.
And you need clear rules about when the stick is applied.
And everyone should agree to this before being alowed to use bitcoin.

I agree to an extent.  I think bitcoin has made some great strides and this forum has aided greatly in self regulation.

I'd say yes and no.
This forum works as social grease.
So naturally it helps some in self regulation as some users want to use the forum for that.
But the other side of the coin is that it also aided in the incubation of scams in a supposedly safe social environment.
I would say that the forum is agnostic in this respect were it not for the operators that seem to enjoy games being payed around.
The question is whether this moral agnosticism is the center this forum should operate around if it wants to provide a platform that can cultivate the bitcoin community.

As others (almost) said, multisig escrow. Buyer and seller sign transaction, and money can't be released until both parties agree on settlement. Worst that will happen is you don't get your product, and no one gets the money. It's coming, but watch out for trolls w/ too much time.

One of my main reasons for why I got so interested in Bitcoin is because it is really the first true experiment in unregulated, free market capitalism. SecondLife came close, but it was at about this point (gambling rampant, ponzi just collapsed, lots of people lost money and complained) that LindenLabs stepped in and put in financial regulations, banning gambling, betting, and interest bearing accounts. I felt as if I was a scientist, closely studying a process, and just as things started to get interesting, someone stepped in, put their hand over it, and said, "no, you can't see that." Being as curious as I am, I was quite dismayed. Of course, this exact same thing has always happened in the rest of monetary history: things go horribly wrong, people complain, and instead of giving people a chance to see what kind of solutions they can come up with, someone always steps in, blocks the solutions from even getting a chance to materialize, and puts on tight controls on the currency.
We are now where SecondLife was in 2007, but without Adkins stepping in protect us from ourselves, and I, for one, am very excited to see where we will go from here!  :D

Sounds like a governing body.

Bullshit and you know it.
'Regulated' could just mean you have a way to secure your investment if there is a scam.
That would not give you overhead and you could still make quiet deals on some random forum anywhere on the interverse.

Unless you define what you mean here with 'regulated' you just cannot make the above statement.

Governing body != government.

edit: and even then, it doesn't have to be a body as such. It could be intrinsic rules governing the network.
I mean, there are at this time rules governing the network.
Or do you think that bitcoins magically find their way from one account to another?
It's all based on rules that govern the behavior of the network.

I don't agree.  The forum staff is actively involved in policing the form where scammers are involved.  Look at TizzyTazzy, BTC Guy and TheBitMan. The Form and mods/admins were instrumental in the outcomes of these issues

+1

I see you have caught on to Rarity's interesting form of sarcasm.  Took me a while :)  

I have the opposite experience, but then again, I'm overly cautious. I even get complaints that it's 'too' cumbersome to do business with me, and I've lost some deals over that. But I never got scammed on any person to person deal dealing with bitcoin.

The people who make the rules sound like a governing body. 

Fixed that for you...

I think that that's mostly about looking good to te community.
I see a lot of scummy things going on these fora without mods taking any action.
And i don't blame them, it IS fascinating to look at it and even to participate.
But the question is whether that sort of stuff belongs on a forum that represents the bitcoin community as a whole.

If you are on the internet, the odds are VERY good that your entire notion of money is as bookkeeping, rather than something physical.  Cash is something that you use despite the inconvenience in the few cases when you must use it, it is not your default.

Bookkeeping is very easy to undo, and we all grew up in that world.  The shift to bitcoin is huge, and we all have a lot that we must unlearn.

That was a bit toungue in cheek, sorry you didn't get it.
And you still have to define what kind of regulation you talk about (that in this case would prevent Nefario from setting up his own stock exchange).
Applying the word 'regulated environment' is meaningless in bitcoin land.
We do not have a regulated environment.
The regulations happening in fiat for the most part do not (yet) apply to bitcoin so you can't transplant the fiat idea of 'regulation' to bitcoin.

Regulation will come but it will likely come from individuals setting standards in acceptable trade etiquette for themselves and others. We won't need an authority to do this.

I've spoken against this from time-to-time but I now realize how immature that was of me.

Things take time to evolve and grow. 

Yes, satoshi is regulating the crap out of us.
Ever got angry because difficulty jumps?
Thats Satoshis protocols governing bitcoin.
Ever transfered bitcoin and happy that it actually arrived?
Thats Satoshis protocols governing bitcoin.

In the end SOMEONE needs to decide SOMETHING for there to be ANYTHING usefull.

Maybe we need some democratic process to decide the further governing of bitcoin.
It is badly needed and Satoshi won't help here.
It's up to us.

Maybe we need some democratic process to decide the further governing of bitcoin.
It is badly needed and Satoshi won't help here.
It's up to us.


This is how the dev team works you know...

Mobodick really does have a point.

It can be summed up as this: Anarchy doesn't mean no rules. It means no rulers. As always, there will be set etiquette in any society where people desire respect for themselves and their property. The form of governance that regulates and enforces this etiquette may vary.

Individuals setting standards in acceptable trade etiquette for themselves and others == authority

And then, if authority could be expressed as a mutually agreed upon change to the bitcoin protocol, why the hell not?
 

It could not be otherwise.
I just suggest that this process should extend to the community as a whole and be advertised as such.

A mutually agreed upon change to Bitcoin or anything else is no matter of authority but a mutual and voluntary exchange of desires. Authority implies power, coercion, something placed above others and their desires. That is not the case in a self-regulating society.

In essence, I agree with you but not your terminology.

When someone sets a price for themselves and their participation, that is far from implying power over other people unless you believe people belong to people; ergo, we're entitled to one another. It's just implying power over themselves.

If you're advocating for authority over oneself, then I agree with you completely.

True, but authority expressed as a mutually agreed upon change to the bitcoin protocol is autority.
The network has power and coerces the crap out of transactions on a level far far away from its users and their desires.
Only the top part of the bitcoin concept relies on the self-regulatory capability of the users.
The rest is written as protocols in stone.
Try to negotiate with the network and you will know where the boundaries are of what you call a self-regulating society.
Fact is, this self-regulating society could not have existed without the hardness of the underlying system.
Just see the panic when that system seems compromisable (51% attack and whatnot) and you know its importance.

Ironic that the drug dealers on Silk Road have better reputation than the e-businessmen on this board.

I think Silk Road has the same problem - sellers build up a reputation, convince people to trust them with their money without escrow, and then run off with a whole bunch of money. They also apparently have a problem with "selective scammers"; some sellers make money by scamming individuals not trusted in the community whilst keeping their reputation up by doing honest business with reputable people who will vouch for them against the buyers they've scammed.

One already exists.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=108770.0

I don't think removing Marketplace is a good response. Just as throwing up your hands and saying "I've been scammed I'll never spend bitcoins again" shouldn't be the default response either. I suggest learning lessons and being more discerning. Although, for someone unwilling or unable to do so the "never spend bitcoins again" may become a decent option.

Irreversibility and relative anonymity....not likely to bring out the best in people...

Or, conversely, might bring out the best people to the forefront of visibility (since people may end up competing for good reputation).

Hasn't yet, as far as I can tell...would have to drop the pseudoanonymity to build a reputation though...

Should be a votecoin that sits alongside bitcoin and you can vote for acceptable community standards by spending them at "elections" or "polls" to decide on different decisions to be made.

At least you cant bribe the bitcoin protocol or get dead people to vote for one party  :D

True. Create a new identity that is unconnected to a real world identity and make the new identity public. Maybe have a bonding agency to vet new identities and arbitrate disputes for a fee...