This guy, game-protect has put a negative feedback on all the signature campaign participants while low-key promoting his own website. I've noticed this already as someone had informed me earlier. It doesn't really matter much as their negative feedback does not have an effect on the trust ratings. I probably won't go through with it, however,
I still consider Betcoin a company none should advertise.
Maybe neutral trust would be more appropriate at the moment. |
|
|
|
Except that you actively discussed a scam accusation against them.
"Note: I have not looked closely into the accusation and can't say whether it is valid or not.". In your weird world this means "actively". This is another lie Lauda. You joined in the evening UTC on July 5th, which is the same day Lutpin sent negative trust, and I have reason to believe he sent the negative trust prior to you posting that you have joined. False. The only person that is lying here is you. I had joined very early on that day (UTC), prior to noon. When I posted on that thread is irrelevant. Your ad hominem attacks reflect your lack of maturity and your lack of an argument to stand on.
It has nothing to do with ad hominem when we are talking about facts. More ad hominem attacks showing your immaturity. Nevertheless, numerous people had sent you messages asking you to remove your betcoin.ag signature, none of which are claimed to be me.
Again, another fact. If by "numerous" you mean 1, then yes. Nope. You see that people actually care if they are advertising something that might lead to others loosing their money.
This makes it obvious that you know nothing. I advise you to take a closer look at the list of participants again. |
|
|
|
You left a negative rating that said that defcon23 escrowed a trade that he was a party to when you knew that was a false statement.
That has nothing to do with "spreading false and misleading information", I was merely quoting what was already present on their trust page (whether the accusations are correct or not should be taken up with the person who made them). My rating was not focused on that, but the act of calumny for which he got negative ratings for anyway. TECSHARE, ABitNut, Slow death
If we exclude the people under subjective bias, we are left with 3 people. This is what you call "several"? What makes you think that they've excluded me after and/or because of these events? Are you regularly doing checkups on me? It matters enough for you to lie about the BTC coming from an anon source as a "donation". I want to correct you.
If you thought that the sentence was a serious one, then you have comprehension issues. It's none of your business anyways, you were in bed with TF before yourself. lauda, see the love QS has for you.
Isn't she a very kind person? |
|
|
|
No. You knowingly spread what you knew to be false and misleading information about defcon23.
What information are we talking about exactly? The negative ratings that he received are a result of his own doing, not any information left by me. If you do not understand that, then read them again. Yes, I have personally excluded you from my trust list as a result of your failed extortion, no I have not used any of my alts to do this. Others have excluded you from their trust list as well.
Who are these others? Your immaturity is very much showing in your reactions to my posts Lauda  Ad hominem because of yet another failed swing? It's interesting that (excluding parties directly involved) among so many replies, you're the only one trying to manipulate the story and label me as something that I'm not. Good luck with your endeavor. It was TradeFortress that sent you the BTC. The blockchain evidence overwhelmingly supports this.
Not that it matters either way: |
|
|
|
I think the major difference in Lauda's case is that Lauda fabricated evidence (and/or utilized evidence that he knew was fabricated) in order to harm the reputation of defcon23.
The only person that harmed defcon23's reputation is he himself. His unusual overturning of his own word and the act of calumny/blackmail is what got him in this mess. What they did was irrational at best. I think the major difference in Lauda's case is that Lauda fabricated evidence (and/or utilized evidence that he knew was fabricated) in order to harm the reputation of defcon23.
I would be interested in the "evidence" that I "fabricated". Please enlighten me. and multiple people have excluded Lauda from their trust lists.
If by "multiple people" you mean several of your own alt accounts, then this statement is likely to be true. Why don't you say that this is your personal reaction, Quickseller? Instead of saying stuff that is obviously either false or strongly bent in order to support your stance? |
|
|
|
Regardless of if you knew who the payment was coming from at the time, or what the purpose of the payment was, the transaction did in fact come from TF.
The blockchain trail leads to 2013 to an address potentially connected to TF (Inputs.io hack), but that's not conclusive or the evidence was presented somewhere yet to be seen by me. The story regarding the situation is certainly unusual. What you decide to do with it is up to you, and should depend among other things, if you have provided actual services prior to this post in exchange for the payment.
The real idea behind the payment is to fund a lawsuit against a certain individual. I also plan on PGP signing this. |
|
|
|
You still cannot honestly claim that you were never aware of any scam accusacations against betcoin when you joined their signature campaign.
Of course I can, because I wasn't. 1) saying that betcoin.ag did not have negative trust at the time is another lie.
Yawn; this is just another attempt at manipulation yet another story. They did not have any neg. rating at the time that I joined/was contacted. 2) I know that you would much rather spend your time attempting to extort people
That's obviously what I do with my free time. I guess it's still better than account farming and trying to launch group attacks versus various known individuals (all of which ultimately failed). I wonder what kind of person does this  3) If you are unable, or unwilling to spend the little amount of time it takes to investigate if the website you are advertising is a scam/is shady, then this says a lot about how you value your reputation.
I'm unwilling to waste my time on escrow scammers and their nonsense. Additionally: Regardless, in my experience, all it will take to get someone to stop advertising a shady site is a simple PM letting them know about your concerns about them advertising the shady/scam website.
is bullshit.
Here you go again, pushing the story away from OP. How about sticking to the actual topic? |
|
|
|
I wonder why you want to compare these two terms. To cover the first part, here's a link: What is embedded consensus ? As far as sidechains are concerned, idea stems from the question: What if you could transfer your Bitcoin directly to other blockchains? In case that you wanted to use the features of blockchain Y and you wanted to avoid the risk of purchasing those tokens, you could use your coins directly via two-way-peg. A very interesting sidechain 'attempt' at the moment is RootStock. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Ref. spam.
|
|
|
|
Lauda, what is your roll in working for TradeFortress?
The payment was a donation from an anonymous party for performing the ritual of giving 9 lives to kittens:  |
|
|
|
This is a lie. You were aware of scam accusations about betcoin.ag back in March:
No. I replied once and the thread died pretty quickly afterwards. I obviously memorize every single thread that I have ever responded to.  Prior to receiving this public pressure, you make it well known that checking if betcoin.ag is shady/a scam was very low on your priority list after you started advertising for them.
It was on low priority as they did not have negative trust at the time, because I have better things to do unlike some escrow scammers.
What am I missing here? I admit it's late in the day and me eyes is tired, but 1) I don't see a threat and 2) I don't see negative feedback by Lutpin on OP.
I had no idea betcoin was in trouble either, but I'm not in their sig campaign and I've never used their service and I don't even follow crypto news much. If they're proven, or even highly suspected to be scamming then I'd say people should be given warning to remove the signature if that's the issue. Some of the campaigners might be ignorant of the facts and not intentionally promoting a scam.
If you plan to get 'into it' then you've got a lot of reading to do. The accusations against the website in question have started a few months back (possibly earlier) and it wasn't until July that they've received negative trust (from several DT members). |
|
|
|
When/if it is proven. At the moment there's some initial proof the funds were hacked from inputs.io. If the winner is willing to give the coins back then several users and the rightful owner can research more. Oh, that changes the meaning behind the post. Let's say that the funds were directly from the Inputs.io hack, exactly who do does one return it? A lot of people were affected by this hack. How would one *fairly* return it? Are you willing to return the coins if someone proves who the rightful owner is?
If there are no legal reasons to do so, then maybe. I'm not empathetic nor Robin Hood, and generally feel like users are at fault for losing money in online wallets (one shouldn't keep it there in the first place). Yes there are a lot of shill/alt accounts. I'm not following what it has to do with giving the coins back.
I didn't necessarily imply that it has something to do with that, just stating the obvious. A shill is likely to disappear with the money. If I win, I will return all the coins back to BFX accounts that can prove ownership of hacked deposit accounts.
These funds have nothing to do with BFX, ergo you'd be returning it to illegitimate owners. |
|
|
|
Right now I see there are 4 options: - The coins go to someone willing to give the coins back.
I really prefer option 1. Don't you? If it's proven that the coins were in fact hacked and OP really gives them then whoever wins should give them back to the rightful owner.
It's proven? Proven where? Exactly how do you plan for the 'winner' (if there is one) to return the funds to the rightful owner(s) without there being too much hassle? The thread is being obliterated by shill/alt accounts.
The real power is the distribution amount to 1,000 people evenly
1,000 people will be a strong barrier to the owner of the money
Bullshit. That is not much different than keeping everything to yourself. Instead of 1 illegitimate owner, you would have 1000 illegitimate owners. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Insubstantial.
|
|
|
|
Part 2? Here's an address:
1HTKMvmC2qS8cPsaHYUyzahtUEUELc7fw5
This makes me feel that this giveaway is legit! Just because a staff member left an address in the giveaway that does not mean that it is legit. We can't really know whether anyone is going to actually get 1000 BTC and whether that user isn't an alt of OP (unless it is someone that is already known/trusted). What we do know is that: 1) OP is the owner of that address. 2) OP has given away some BTC to a few people via IRC. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Ref. spam.
|
|
|
|
One box will be auctioned for a charity idea I had later this year and the remaining two boxes I had wanted to save in my collection sealed and unopened but am kind of undecided because people still need coins I think for their sets.
Damn, that's a lot. Please sell them all. I need my last #006  We will sell any coin that we don't need once we acquire more boxes. Don't worry about it. The general idea is to help people complete their sets. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
