0.01 for all 15 accounts??
.01 is the starting bid. I hope that the final bid is a lot higher then my starting bid. If all of them do not have negative trust I will like to bid 0.01 None of them have any negative trust I will like to bid 0.01 Current high bid |
|
|
|
Why would anyone hand over ownership/control of large sums of funds to an anonymous entity? When centralized anonymous entities end up with massive amounts of coins then tend to disappear and 'everyone' seems surprised it happened. The same level of privacy enhancing can be performed using coinjoin without needing to trust that a centralized service will not abscond with your funds.
blockchain.info's shared coin uses this feature. There have been some researchers/academics that have been able to trace the "path" of inputs throughout this service. The reason being that roughly the same size output will eventually need to end up at an address that the original input was. All of the transactions that take your coins from address A to address B are generally confirmed in the same block, so an adversary would almost always only need to look at one block in order to determine the address where your funds ended up. I would say that this would likely involve privacy against an adversary with only very minimal resources/interest and would only delay detection from an adversary with more resources |
|
|
|
Well I think he should be given the opportunity to backup his claims. I don't think it is fair to go around saying that he is abusing his position on default trust until he has at least been given some time to either backup his claims that the law is being broken or correct/adjust the trust that he left.
You mean not fair, as in exactly like he does to people he leaves negative ratings for without even bothering to discuss it with them? Funny how VOD some how deserves leniency, yet he affords no such courtesy to others. VOD clearly has a long history of abusing his position on the default trust. This was not the first time he has behaved like this, nor will it be the last. Well sometimes it is appropriate to leave negative feedback ASAP in order to warn others as quickly as possible about a scam. I have left negative trust a number of times for people as a placeholder while I write up a scam accusacation. I don't see any issue if Vod were to know for sure that something is in fact illegal but needs some time to research the specific statute that is being broken. |
|
|
|
What I mean is that if the stolen fraud activities aren't stopped why should my legit MSDN shop be affected?The people who sell HBOGo (etc.) accounts are not admitting to selling carded accounts. You are admitting to selling keys that go against the TOS.
Violating TOS is not a violation of criminal law. That may be true, however my point is that there is a clear violation of *something* while the HBOGo accounts require some level of speculation before reaching the conclusion that something is being violated. I would say that the negative trust would probably no be warranted if only the TOS is being broken and not the law. |
|
|
|
Like I said, I think we should give Vod the opportunity to respond and cite which law he thinks is being broken. I don't think the situation is so urgent that a conclusion needs to be made this minute
Seriously? You expect VOD to back up his accusations? When has he ever done this? VOD's authority is granted by being self assured of his superiority. He has no desire to justify his actions which are clearly above the heads of the mere mortals he places his ratings upon. All he has to do is make baseless accusations, leave a few negative ratings, and lemmings such as yourself will concur with his baseless declarations, because, you know, BURN THE WITCH!!1 Well I think he should be given the opportunity to backup his claims. I don't think it is fair to go around saying that he is abusing his position on default trust until he has at least been given some time to either backup his claims that the law is being broken or correct/adjust the trust that he left. |
|
|
|
With these MSDN sellers (and the stolen Starbucks gift card sellers, and the amazon rebate services, and the ponzi operators, among others), their customers are getting a much better deal. Microsoft keys tend to cost hundreds of dollars while they are being sold on here for $10 or $15, that is in excess of 90% off. In other words in the event that these sellers follow through then they will get something they need for 90%+ off while if they are scammed then they only lose a small amount. They would need to get scammed at least 10 times before they would have been better off simply buying the keys directly from a retailer of directly from Microsoft. The risk/reward ratio is much better (although the chances of these people eventually scamming is much greater)
You missed those selling stolen netflix HBO and other accounts. That's is clear cut illegal. Credit card fraud it is. Also selling accounts, which you do is risky too and prone to scamming. You yourself left negative feedback to one of the accounts you sold, isn't that scamming mister? Well it is not 100% for sure known that the HBOgo (ect.) accounts are in fact stolen, although the chances of them being stolen are very high. If you are saying that you are selling MSDN keys, then it is my understanding that you are essentially admitting that the keys are somewhat stolen. What I mean is that if the stolen fraud activities aren't stopped why should my legit MSDN shop be affected? The people who sell HBOGo (etc.) accounts are not admitting to selling carded accounts. You are admitting to selling keys that go against the TOS. You yourself left negative feedback to one of the accounts you sold, isn't that scamming mister? I left negative feedback for an account that I sold that happened to be a scammer. In other words I left negative feedback for a scammer. I don't see how that could possibly be considered scamming. I did offer to have it be removed in the event that he repaid his victims, which he declined to do Should you have like, umm, not fucking sold the account to that guy :# The reason I found out he was a scammer was because he paid with a certain address, by the time he paid me it was too late HBO guys are clearly saying not to change the password, not to create new profiles, so just shut up if you don't know what you are saying. Also you could have easily returned the money to the buyer, you in my eyes are the biggest scammer ever for that transaction. I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion. |
|
|
|
My colleteral is my account on here.
Your account has negative trust. I don't think negative trust accounts have very much value |
|
|
|
I am not a lawyer, so I really don't know. I am just giving an example as to what laws might be broken if one was being broken. The key word in my statements about this is *might* - as in I am not 100% sure.
One reason why it might violate anti-piracy laws is that anyone can download most microsoft products, but cannot actually use them without the product keys. So if you use a stolen product key to unlock the software to use it then this would be the action that would be breaking the law. Now if the keys are really "stolen" or not is probably a different question
There is no maybe, this simply IS NOT A CRIME. Copying software illegally = a crime Selling legally obtained registration keys = a violation of TOS and NOT a crime. This very clearly does not fit the definition of software piracy because HE IS NOT PROVIDING ANY ACTUAL SOFTWARE! This whole criminal excuse is just some bit to justify VODs excessive, abusive, control freak extortionist behavior after the fact to save face and to attempt to manipulate staff into doing his dirty work for him. I would be interested to see if Vod can quote what specific law that he is claiming to be broken by these people. A somewhat quick search of google does not find anything that would refute your point. As I said in one of the other threads (I think it was another one - there are so many), I think Vod does have somewhat of a conflict of interest as he said that he is a Certified Microsoft Engineer This discussion can go on forever really. And the only two suitable solutions as I see it. First, is give every MSDN reseller red trust and make their activity as illegal/scam. Second, is just let is go as we are letting go all other gray area activity here and no one had a problem with it so far. Like I said, I think we should give Vod the opportunity to respond and cite which law he thinks is being broken. I don't think the situation is so urgent that a conclusion needs to be made this minute |
|
|
|
With these MSDN sellers (and the stolen Starbucks gift card sellers, and the amazon rebate services, and the ponzi operators, among others), their customers are getting a much better deal. Microsoft keys tend to cost hundreds of dollars while they are being sold on here for $10 or $15, that is in excess of 90% off. In other words in the event that these sellers follow through then they will get something they need for 90%+ off while if they are scammed then they only lose a small amount. They would need to get scammed at least 10 times before they would have been better off simply buying the keys directly from a retailer of directly from Microsoft. The risk/reward ratio is much better (although the chances of these people eventually scamming is much greater)
You missed those selling stolen netflix HBO and other accounts. That's is clear cut illegal. Credit card fraud it is. Also selling accounts, which you do is risky too and prone to scamming. You yourself left negative feedback to one of the accounts you sold, isn't that scamming mister? Well it is not 100% for sure known that the HBOgo (ect.) accounts are in fact stolen, although the chances of them being stolen are very high. If you are saying that you are selling MSDN keys, then it is my understanding that you are essentially admitting that the keys are somewhat stolen. What I mean is that if the stolen fraud activities aren't stopped why should my legit MSDN shop be affected? The people who sell HBOGo (etc.) accounts are not admitting to selling carded accounts. You are admitting to selling keys that go against the TOS. You yourself left negative feedback to one of the accounts you sold, isn't that scamming mister? I left negative feedback for an account that I sold that happened to be a scammer. In other words I left negative feedback for a scammer. I don't see how that could possibly be considered scamming. I did offer to have it be removed in the event that he repaid his victims, which he declined to do Should you have like, umm, not fucking sold the account to that guy :# The reason I found out he was a scammer was because he paid with a certain address, by the time he paid me it was too late |
|
|
|
You need to sign a message from all the accounts to prove ownership and always use escrow  As I mentioned above, the accounts have never posted any addresses (they have not participated in signature deals, nor in giveaways). I am the original owner of the accounts and am willing to stake my reputation behind the fact that no one will later come and claim they owned the accounts prior to the point of sale. I do accept escrow |
|
|
|
I am not a lawyer, so I really don't know. I am just giving an example as to what laws might be broken if one was being broken. The key word in my statements about this is *might* - as in I am not 100% sure.
One reason why it might violate anti-piracy laws is that anyone can download most microsoft products, but cannot actually use them without the product keys. So if you use a stolen product key to unlock the software to use it then this would be the action that would be breaking the law. Now if the keys are really "stolen" or not is probably a different question
There is no maybe, this simply IS NOT A CRIME. Copying software illegally = a crime Selling legally obtained registration keys = a violation of TOS and NOT a crime. This very clearly does not fit the definition of software piracy because HE IS NOT PROVIDING ANY ACTUAL SOFTWARE! This whole criminal excuse is just some bit to justify VODs excessive, abusive, control freak extortionist behavior after the fact to save face and to attempt to manipulate staff into doing his dirty work for him. I would be interested to see if Vod can quote what specific law that he is claiming to be broken by these people. A somewhat quick search of google does not find anything that would refute your point. As I said in one of the other threads (I think it was another one - there are so many), I think Vod does have somewhat of a conflict of interest as he said that he is a Certified Microsoft Engineer |
|
|
|
Like I said, what these people might also be violating anti-piracy laws. However breaking the terms of the TOS is nothing more then breaking a contract which does not have any criminal implications, only civil
How is the key seller violating anti-piracy laws? Is he offering the actual software... no...just the legally obtained keys. So again we are left with the TOS violation, which is at most a CIVIL violation. I am not a lawyer, so I really don't know. I am just giving an example as to what laws might be broken if one was being broken. The key word in my statements about this is *might* - as in I am not 100% sure. One reason why it might violate anti-piracy laws is that anyone can download most microsoft products, but cannot actually use them without the product keys. So if you use a stolen product key to unlock the software to use it then this would be the action that would be breaking the law. Now if the keys are really "stolen" or not is probably a different question |
|
|
|
The TOS is a contract between Microsoft and the person who is using the key. Violating the TOS of something, alone is not a crime. Although what the OP is doing may be against federal anti-piracy laws (I am really not sure on this)
This might be different case but I think this is appropriate. Example of how your tips are used.
F.B.I. and Chinese Seize $500 Million of Counterfeit Software
A multi-year investigation by Chinese police investigators and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation led to the dismantling of a piracy ring responsible for pirating and distributing up to $2 billion of software. The two-year investigation led to the demise of two criminal organizations - located in Shanghai and Shenzhen - and included up to 25 arrests according to officials from both nations. Microsoft, in gathering evidence it later handed over to the F.B.I. and to Chinese authorities, said more than 1,000 people had notified the company and sent in counterfeit discs. The consumers who sent in the pirated discs were apparently unaware they had purchased illegal software until a notification popped up on their screens. The F.B.I. said that a joint effort with the Chinese authorities had led to the seizing of more than $500 million worth of counterfeit Microsoft and Symantec software that was being made in China and distributed worldwide.
The arrests, according to industry executives, represented the most significant crackdown on software piracy. In the last couple of weeks, the operation led to the seizing by the Chinese government of 290,000 counterfeit discs and certificates of authenticity. The F.B.I. said that Chinese officials had seized more than 47,000 counterfeit Microsoft discs.
Like I said, what these people might also be violating anti-piracy laws. However breaking the terms of the TOS is nothing more then breaking a contract which does not have any criminal implications, only civil |
|
|
|
With these MSDN sellers (and the stolen Starbucks gift card sellers, and the amazon rebate services, and the ponzi operators, among others), their customers are getting a much better deal. Microsoft keys tend to cost hundreds of dollars while they are being sold on here for $10 or $15, that is in excess of 90% off. In other words in the event that these sellers follow through then they will get something they need for 90%+ off while if they are scammed then they only lose a small amount. They would need to get scammed at least 10 times before they would have been better off simply buying the keys directly from a retailer of directly from Microsoft. The risk/reward ratio is much better (although the chances of these people eventually scamming is much greater)
You missed those selling stolen netflix HBO and other accounts. That's is clear cut illegal. Credit card fraud it is. Also selling accounts, which you do is risky too and prone to scamming. You yourself left negative feedback to one of the accounts you sold, isn't that scamming mister? Well it is not 100% for sure known that the HBOgo (ect.) accounts are in fact stolen, although the chances of them being stolen are very high. If you are saying that you are selling MSDN keys, then it is my understanding that you are essentially admitting that the keys are somewhat stolen. You yourself left negative feedback to one of the accounts you sold, isn't that scamming mister? I left negative feedback for an account that I sold that happened to be a scammer. In other words I left negative feedback for a scammer. I don't see how that could possibly be considered scamming. I did offer to have it be removed in the event that he repaid his victims, which he declined to do |
|
|
|
Again this proves it is a violation of the terms of service, NOT criminal activity like VOD has purported in order to attempt to trump up the accusation to the point of getting staff involved. This is just more of the same from VOD, defining his own value by how many people he can harass over non-incidents.
So "violation of TOS" isn't chargeable under the law".  By the way, check Vod's trust feedback and the third paragraph in 1 st of mine. See whether you can fin Vod is right or wrong about it.  The TOS is a contract between Microsoft and the person who is using the key. Violating the TOS of something, alone is not a crime. Although what the OP is doing may be against federal anti-piracy laws (I am really not sure on this) |
|
|
|
@TECSHARE - I do agree that Vod does have somewhat of a conflict of interest here however he does have somewhat of a point in that once Microsoft finds out about the person selling the keys that they will all become invalidated, which would generally be considered a scam in most people's eyes. I am not sure however, how exactly Microsoft will invalidate some of the keys; if Microsoft can in fact invalidate keys to something that is connected to the internet even if it is not getting any kind of product update then the negative trust would be appropriate and my above statement would apply; if however Microsoft cannot invalidate keys (and cannot cause any product to stop working immediately) then the negative trust is probably not appropriate.
Trust me when I say this, just because someone has negative trust form someone on the default trust list, it does not mean that people will take the warning that was given to them. I have left negative trust to dozens of ponzi's in the gambling section and people had still "invested" hundreds of BTC in those ponzis. Similar results took place when someone was selling stolen Starbucks gift cards that would go bad after 4 days.
What will probably happen in the future is that people will take the ratings that Vod leaves less seriously and the effect of his ratings will diminish if he leaves feedback that is not warranted/appropriate. As I said above, I am not sure if they are appropriate in this case or not, however regardless it will not stop people from buying from them
His point is irrelevant. There are no customers complaining. What he is doing is NOT criminal or scamming. Anyone paying so little for a Windows key HAS TO know there is some kind of catch somewhere, yet still I don't see ANYONE complaining. Are we acting against future "scamming" here now? Where does it end? At what point does this community become exactly what it was built to escape from? His point is that they keys will eventually become invalid. I guess you could somewhat equate this to confidence loans, in a sense that lenders are not complaining about getting their loans repaid, but a confidence loan scammer will eventually run away and scam. I do understand your point about them not having any unhappy customers......maybe if they were to give more disclosure about the risks from buying from them then a neutral rating would probably be more appropriate This guy COULD POTENTIALLY MAYBE be a scammer so lets treat him like one and just save some time! As I mentioned above if Microsoft can invalidate your copy of Excel (for example) once the MSDN keys get revoked then it would be more appropriate for the negative trust, if not then it is not appropriate. Not that you care at all since you are not engaged in any kind of trading here, but a negative rating DOES IN FACT seriously affect people's ability to trade. Everyone is SO PARANOID about being ripped off here that even the slightest hint of something not being right people will go elsewhere. VOD's only value comes from the volume of people he can harass and label as scammers. This way, scammer or not, when he acts out of line and abuses the users here himself, he can just point to all the "service" he has done for this forum harassing people over non-issues, and magically his abuse is excusable!
I don't trade on here quite as much as you do, but I do trade on here a bit. In fact my S3 that I recently sold on here is on it's way to my buyer who was willing to pay me upfront. Plus I have traded well over a hundred accounts on here generally without issue, so I do understand the pressures of trading with others. The difference between "normal" trading (as in trading things at a generally "fair" price or at what most would probably consider to be a market price) and what these people are doing is that it should be generally obvious to most that the seller is doing something they shouldn't be doing. When someone trades with you they will generally give you $100 and will get roughly $100 worth of something in return - if you were to scam them then they would get nothing - the risk/reward ratio is not good because if everything works out they still have the same amount of money worth of stuff as they started with but if they are scammed they lose (IMO I think the chances of you scamming is very low). With these MSDN sellers (and the stolen Starbucks gift card sellers, and the amazon rebate services, and the ponzi operators, among others), their customers are getting a much better deal. Microsoft keys tend to cost hundreds of dollars while they are being sold on here for $10 or $15, that is in excess of 90% off. In other words in the event that these sellers follow through then they will get something they need for 90%+ off while if they are scammed then they only lose a small amount. They would need to get scammed at least 10 times before they would have been better off simply buying the keys directly from a retailer of directly from Microsoft. The risk/reward ratio is much better (although the chances of these people eventually scamming is much greater) |
|
|
|
|
ehhh. I am not even sure why Vod is even offering to have your negative trust removed at all.
First of all, it would not make financial sense for the MSDN sellers to take him up on this offer considering that the value of their accounts is much less then what they would make by even making a few additional sales.
Secondly, the thirty day, no scammy behavior and I will remove your negative trust policy works best for the newbie loan scammers, not more established members. The established members should know better then to scam/try to scam. I would say that since these people have technically not caused their victims harm yet - it will only be once the keys are invalidated that their victims will loose out and their business will collapse.
My general policy on removing negative trust is that if someone attempted to commit a simple scam then negative trust will be removed after 30 days of no scam-like behavior, and active participation in the forums. If they have actually stolen money (smallish to medium amounts) from someone then negative trust once their victim is repaid (in order to give them an incentive to repay their victims). If they have stolen larger amounts then the negative trust stays indefinitely, however any dox would be removed if one was posted upon repayment of their victims.
@TECSHARE - I do agree that Vod does have somewhat of a conflict of interest here however he does have somewhat of a point in that once Microsoft finds out about the person selling the keys that they will all become invalidated, which would generally be considered a scam in most people's eyes. I am not sure however, how exactly Microsoft will invalidate some of the keys; if Microsoft can in fact invalidate keys to something that is connected to the internet even if it is not getting any kind of product update then the negative trust would be appropriate and my above statement would apply; if however Microsoft cannot invalidate keys (and cannot cause any product to stop working immediately) then the negative trust is probably not appropriate.
Trust me when I say this, just because someone has negative trust form someone on the default trust list, it does not mean that people will take the warning that was given to them. I have left negative trust to dozens of ponzi's in the gambling section and people had still "invested" hundreds of BTC in those ponzis. Similar results took place when someone was selling stolen Starbucks gift cards that would go bad after 4 days.
What will probably happen in the future is that people will take the ratings that Vod leaves less seriously and the effect of his ratings will diminish if he leaves feedback that is not warranted/appropriate. As I said above, I am not sure if they are appropriate in this case or not, however regardless it will not stop people from buying from them
|
|
|
|
It hasn't been updated for a while. Total loaned will be different than Total Available. Total available is the amount I have atm but Total loaned is the total amount I loaned to people from the start.
I was adding up all the active loans in the OP and I got BTC0.9+ in active loans. But there's only BTC0.45 available? The address 1MZakirz92c76pK6BNy1NAEmbWYpDcP7mh has roughly .7 BTC in it, so I would assume that is how much is available for lending (unless he has some of that earmarked for other things) |
|
|
|
|
A long time before I got really involved in bitcoin, and involved in the forum, I would lurk in the forums of Silk Road (I never signed up for a SR account, or even created a forum account). It appears that bitcoin fog is a favorite for users of the dark markets to use to mix their coins. Although there are a lot of non-illegal ways to use them to mix your coins. IMO a likely reason why people who use dark markets like bitcoinfog is because it uses tor which probably gives them the illusion of privacy.
It has been a while since I have even looked into bitcoin fog, so I do not have the most up-to-date information as to any problems they might be having, how they work, or even if it is a good idea to use them now. I know that, at least how they would work in the past is that they would have a number of wallets (*for the purposes of this post, by 'wallets', I mean a group of addresses that may be associated with each other by spending inputs from multiple addresses - you would likely not be able to tell what all the addresses are without access to their database and/or private key files) that would be kept separate from each other. When you would fund your account, your bitcoin would fund one of their wallets, and when you go to withdraw your funds the funds would come from another of their wallets. When one of their wallets would get "low" they would transfer funds from one wallet to another. They would also have a time delay from the time that you sent the funds to the time your account would get credited, in order to prevent traffic analysis from you accessing tor and/or their .onion site and of the time that particular transactions funded their potentially known addresses. They would also force you to wait a somewhat random amount of time before you can withdraw your funds to prevent blockchain analysis of similar sized transactions.....they would also charge a somewhat random fee for a similar reason.
It should be noted however that the US government was able to recently able to take down a large number of tor sites, and although it was not publicly listed as a site that was taken does, that does not mean that it has not been compromised by the US government (which would at the very least result in the point being defeated to using their service for a good part - you would lose privacy).
Your post somewhat implies that you are planning on sending you coins through bitcoinfog multiple times, and this would probably be a bad idea. If you want to do something like this then you would probably want to use multiple mixers to allow you to have additional privacy. The only other mixer out there that is not a scam is bitmixer.io (although it is possible that they are also no longer legit), and it is possible they are also somewhat compromised.
If you are looking for privacy then I would suggest that you sell your bitcoin for DRK (dark coin) on an exchange, transfer your DRK to a DRK address that you control (repeat this a few times) and then finally sell your DRK for bitcoin on another exchange.
If you need any help with this then let me know
|
|
|
|
how much would my account go for? I don't want to sell it. But I am curious.
Seeing current market i would say around 0.7-0.8 at the most But market is too low , it can go around 1 btc at good times It would probably be more then that considering that he has a higher level hero account plus the fact that he has a good amount of positive trust. I would guess that if it was on the market for long enough then probably a good two to three times that amount.
The OP has been selling his account for a while, since at least last september, so I don't think he is in very much of a hurry for it to sell. I would assume that he is in a signature campaign so he is earning at least something with his account right now |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
