My assumption is that binance verified the KYC information of all the beneficial owners (above a certain threshold) of the corporation that opened an account.

I am not sure if they will proactively report to the tax authority that has jurisdiction over your friend, however they would certainly comply with any requests for information.

Also, as a FYI, it is probably not a good idea to go around asking for advice on how to evade taxes on internet forums.

---

Do you have a source for this? What level of information is binance providing Chainalysis?

While SMF is freely available, I understand that theymos has made extensive modifications to the version of SMF that he is using to run the forum. IIRC, one of the reasons he is using the old SMF version is that the license does not force him to make public the modifications that he has made.

It is difficult to propose feature improvements without seeing the code of the product you are improving.

Bitcointalk Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=358020
Current amount of posts (including this one): 15138
bech32 BTC Address: bc1qn0tyhf7ucavkqrcqpztvduzw5vh07uhpwyfjcm
BSC BEP20 Address for the NFT: 0x38D5412a7096fb5302020f9D95980a56cAa27F89
Earned merit in the last 120 days: 97

If a legendary position is not available, I am willing to take a lower position, if allowed.

I would argue that using a bigger chip has a positive impact on privacy, in some situations.

If you spend two chips of equal value, someone looking would know that you sent the chip value to CM on or before each chip was created. With a single, larger chip, someone looking would know you sent the chip value on or before the date the larger chip was created.

If someone knows all transactions going to CM, the list of transactions that meet the criteria of using two small chips is going to be smaller than using a single, larger chip.

The caveat is using a single chip that is larger than necessary. If you use a very large chip that results in a large change amount, it may benefit your privacy to rather use several smaller chips, depending on the circumstances. 

There is no way to *guarantee* there will be no risk of getting scammed in any transaction. Additional measures to reduce risk would result in additional costs and will probably not reduce the scope of people that will succeed in pulling off a successful scam. The procedures are clear to anyone involved, and those involved agree to the procedures before sending anything of value.

If there are unique markings on a box, underneath tape, and near the opening, it will not be trivial to reseal the box, as there will be evidence the box was previously opened.

I might point out that out of the dozens of transactions I have acted as an escrow agent for in the past, there was only on in which there was any kind of dispute, and in that case, the scammer did not even try to argue his point, nor provide any kind of evidence.

I have traded using at last a half-dozen different escrow agents, and all of them use a procedure similar to mine, and I have not seen any reports of a scammer successfully tricking an escrow agent into releasing funds in escrow to the wrong person as a result of sending an empty box, or anything similar. If it was trivial to scam this way, you would see the scam accusations page filled with reports of these types of scams.

The seller, ideally should have posted (or provided) pictures of what they are selling. So there should be a baseline amount of evidence that the item in question exists.

In the event of a dispute, it will be up to the buyer and seller to provide as much evidence as they can to prove they are in the "right" and that the other party is in the "wrong". This may include providing video evidence of packing the box the item is being shipped in (or in the case of the buyer, of opening the box the item was shipped in). Other evidence may include photos of the item that is claimed to have been received.

I have a special folder in my PM inbox for templates for escrow agreements that I used years ago when I would act as an escrow agent. Below is one template that I would use, and both parties would need to agree to these terms:

The multisig address is a 3-of-5 address, with theymos being one of the three.

A new address was created with the public keys of the 5 new treasurers (which is equivalent to theymos, the two treasurers that are remaining, and the two new treasurers). The transaction out of the old address would have been into the new address.

None of the treasurers would necessarily have known in advance that any of the treasurers were being relieved of their duties, or if they could deduct that one or more treasurers were being fired, which of the treasurers were being fired until theymos released the public keys of each of the treasurers.

The new treasurers appear to have less controversy around their (business) dealings in the forum. 

One of the former treasurers has a history of not verifying information.

Merry Christmas, happy holidays and happy new year.

As others have said, you will need to PM theymos.

I would also suggest that you sign a message from bc1qxqlelgec66g5sp9qleqrfkqp3gmumyu7rw92cu with today's date to confirm you are actually the person who sent the above transaction.

I don't think this is a case of someone using faulty software, or being infected with malware. This is likely a case of someone intentionally having an address in their clipboard, then falsely thinking they copied another address into their clipboard.

I don't think most of these people are anti-vaxxers. Most of them are probably uncomfortable being forced to be injected with a drug, rather than being given the relevant data/information, and being given the opportunity to make the decision on their own.

I would be willing to bet that most people who are resisting getting the vaccine would be willing to get it if they were shown the relevant data and given the opportunity to make the decision on their own.

I'll take your spot.

I am not sure if you are referring to the campaign DS is running (ChipMixer), or if you were responding to Stunna who posted in another thread...two years ago. FYI, the spreadsheet for all participants can be found in the OP.

---

In other news, my guess is that since signatures are no longer shown on the WO thread, they will no longer be paid.

I got him part of the way there. Unfortunately, I am limited as to how many merit I can send. I sent him the balance of my source merit, and most of my personal sMerit. Hopefully others will help him get over the edge soon.

I’ve been trying to help people who are close to ranking up recently and hope this will encourage everyone to try to make more good posts!

As others have mentioned, naim027 may have asked PP to unlock the thread so he could add to it. I have done this in the past when I wanted to add a point to a thread locked by the OP of the thread, and most of the time they let me make the post.

I do however think it is poor etiquette to re lock a thread immidiately after allowing someone to make a post in a previously locked thread. I think if you are going to allow a post to be made, you should generally allow others to respond to the thread, and add their own comments. This is especially true if the post is asking questions about (and/or accusing) someone else who was participating in the thread.

If a campaign is suspended or otherwise stopped, former participants are free to wear the signature if they so choose, but they shouldn’t expect anything out of doing so.

If LL chooses to not continue his advertising, he is free to do so. If someone posted that advertisers shouldn’t expect payment unless/until LL takes an affirmative action and he has not taken such action, there is no reason for LL to have to make a statement.

The above might be a shitty way of doing business, but it is not indicative of a scam, or a potential scammer. LL has consistently paid very little for advertising, so I guess he is probably not getting a very good ROI on his advertising. He could be taking this situation as an opportunity to stop advertising.

Yes, that was a typo -- I fixed it.

Perhaps I should have written that there is no *reasonable* expectation of privacy for a personal message.

The current implementation of the PM system makes this clear. For example, it is trivial to Blind Carbon Copy a third party any PMs that you send, including when you include a quote of a PM you previously received.

I would say, in general if you need to use some kind of encryption key (such as your GPG key) to read a message, there is an expectation the message will stay private. If the message can be read without using any kind of encryption key, there is no (reasonable) expectation of privacy. Exceptions to the above would be if the parties agree ahead of time.

When you encrypt (or decrypt) a message with GPG, you know exactly who can read a particular message.

A personal message is sent directly to a specific person, while a private message is sent and is intended to be private.

There is no expectation of privacy for a personal message. It would be similar to tagging a particular person in a message. The forum will not proactively disclose the message, but either party could potentially disclose the content.

A private message on the other hand has the expectation of privacy.

edit: fixed typo

It looks like Parodium is claiming you defaulted on a $100 loan from him. Is this what you are buying the BTC for?

If the OP's goal is to save the person's post history, my guess is he probably wants to be able to quickly find a particular post, or particular content. Your script might be good if the OP believes someone is about to edit their post history so he can quickly save it, however at one point, the post history will need to be processed and stored in a more searchable format.

The pools could claim they received the "fake" transactions "privately" and could even offer a service to privately confirm transactions without them being broadcast. Or they could argue the transactions were broadcast, and it would be difficult to prove them wrong unless someone is actively watching their node's mempool.

These pools would probably not be the types of pools that are common today. It would be likely that they compromise of private entities holding a large amount of hashpower.