The FAA has ordered US flag civilian aircraft to stay away from the area this happened. International airlines have given pilots directions to do the same.

Frankly, Iran has every reason to lie about the location of the drone, and the US has much more to lose in terms of credibility, as do US officials who are saying they have seen evidence the drone was in international waters.

It is illogical to believe the Iran government, over the US by default.

If this was the case, I would suspect the hacker would decrypt the hashed passwords before trying to logging in, and the OP would be receiving emails (hopefully) to approve a login from a new IP address/device.

It is more likely that the OPs email was part of a hacked database (or multiple databases) separate from Deribit that included (hashed) passwords, and someone with access to the DB is trying these passwords to access the OPs account, hoping he reused passwords.

Exchanges have started cashing in on the ICO craze, and are doing the leg work required to do basic due diligence on projects and teams, and are leveraging their existing user base to reach many people instead of ICOs trying to advertise on many platforms.

Nearly every project who an exchange will accept will choose to do an IEO on an exchange over doing an ICO on bitcointalk/twitter/other social media.

---

The Junior member signature cannot display very much, it is not as flashy as higher rank signatures, and the threshold to become a Junior member is low, so there are a lot of them. The lack of signature features, along with huge supply of Junior members means any signature campaign that accepts JRs is going to pay very little.

It doesn't cost anything to wear a signature as a JR member, but what you will earn in a signature campaign is probably not going to be worth your time.

Perhaps you should stop commenting if you don't know what you are talking about -- I get that you want to make use of that paid avatar, but these types of posts are very harmful.

None of what you said has anything to do with the specific fact set that results in the OP being in breach of contract with the seller he was dealing with.

I think reviewing all feedback should be encouraged, regardless of how much positive or negative they have.

Some mentioned in the OP should not reasonably be dangerous to trust, and others should in no way be trusted under any circumstances. If someone has a negative rating for something frivolous, a potential trading parter will see it and promptly ignore it. If someone does something warranting negative trust (eg, selectively scamming), but has many friends on DT, they can get many positive ratings to have the negative rating be less prominent.

https://github.com/buxlover/autobump

I didn't create this personally, nor have I inspected it.

People have sold similar bots in the past, and even tried to use this as a service.

The only reason why he received the information in the first place is because he entered into an agreement.

The OP would not have received said information if he had not agreed to buy the forum accounts after receiving the PM.

It is good to know you will oppose holding someone accountable for not honoring their terms of an agreement, and that you will protect someone who lied in order to get something from someone.

IMO, your best overall option is to use coinbase pro, if you live in a supported state. They have the highest liquidity of exchanges accessible to US residents/citizens and the trading fees are not unreasonable. If you can't use coinbase pro, I would not use coinbase because they will charge several percent for you to buy/sell.

In addition to what others have suggested, gemini is also open to US residents, however their fees are ridiculously high.

I’m sure there are at least three people in DT willing to support a flag for someone who was harmed, even if the underlying business they are involved in is not well liked.

If someone can break their agreements with someone who is unpopular, the trust system would be pretty pointless, and would be nothing other than a popularity contest.

The price of bitcoin has roughly doubled in that time, so it more than evens out.

If you will make enough posts, it is the highest paying campaign, except for chipmixer. They won’t have the same problem Stake had in that their rates only attracted spammers. They just need to be sure to keep the spammers out.

It is the exposing the information he gave you that caused the damages. In conjunction with your not following through on what you said you would do causes the flag the person could create to be valid.

If you want to go around damaging the value of what other people are selling, I think that is kinda sleazy, but go ahead and do that, just don't fail to follow through on your obligations in the process.


You can learn about contracts here.

No clue, I saw who I presume to be jerald25 with a yobit signature, and decided to investigate if their campaign is still open, and it turns out it is.

Hopefully this time around, they will do a better job of policing their campaign.

The value decreased when you disclosed the confidential information.

Sting operations are a) done by law enforcement with strict oversight, and b) do not allow law enforcement to steal (or attempt to steal) from others, nor do they allow law enforcement to commit other torts

The offer does not expose a person to liability. In order for an offer to obligate the person making the offer, it will need to be accepted by the other party prior to the offer being withdrawn, or expiring.

When you said you would buy the account after he provides confidential information, you entered into a contract with him. The terms of the contract were he was to send you a PM from the account he was selling (exposing confidential information to you), you would pay him 550 and he would give you the account. After receiving the confidential information, you did not follow through on your end of the contract, and the person suffered damages in the form of decreased value of what he is selling as a direct result of your actions.

The term "scam" is very subjective, but there was a written contract, the terms were violated (assuming you can not demonstrate you upheld your end of the deal), and he suffered damages. This is the criteria for a written contract flag. It is up to the person to create a flag.

---

You are wrong, as per usual.

There is no requirement to see what is being sold in order for a contract to be valid. The OP made an offer that was accepted by the other party once he fulfilled his part of the contract.

If you want to look at what you are buying before being obligated to buy said item, you should not make an offer before seeing it.

There are a small subset of users who very infrequently post. I met one person a few years ago who had zero posts, positive trust and several days of online time -- it doesn't appear he was interested in posting here, and created an account in order to trade here.

I personally think it would have been more appropriate to post in the OP's sales thread that he completed a trade with the help of yogg, rather than create a new thread. I have no idea if the OP is an alt of yogg or not, but I don't really see him getting any additional reputation from this thread, so I would believe the chances are unlikely this to be true. 

These are the only ones that are proven to be up for sale, but only to the extent the PMs can be proven.

I do think it is unethical to tell him that you will trade with him after he provides information, and after receiving information, you do not trade with him "prove the second, then we can do it", and to say that you will pay for something, and subsequently not pay "I pay 350 if it's good" "I pay 550 for green trust legendary ok". It also looks like you entered into a contract with the person, but it does not appear you followed through: "Ok send me message from this acc and we have deal", responding to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=167659 that is a "green trust hero member" to which you agreed to pay 550 for. I don't see evidence you paid him.

If this person were to open up a written contract flag against you, it would be valid.

That tweet reminds me of the price of bitcoin in 2017, and hopefully in 2019 

Based on LFC_Bitcoin’s response here, his trust rating, among other things, I have excluded him from my trust list. I would encourage others to do the same.

You can exclude him from your trust list by adding the following to your trust list:

Please resubmit 30 days from your previous submission. (July 9, 2019).

The person having negative trust from "DTs" is proof of absolutely nothing, and I can almost guarantee you will not factor into any decision to possibly ban the person.