Jollygood you have been replying in very bad faith. I am genuinely surprised you made that comment. Few hours? lol This is day 9 and they havent replied my support email. If the maths are correct around 4 days ago you signed a message to prove you have access to the private key of the address you sent them funds from but unfortunately that proof along with the Letter of Guarantee does not mean much in the context of you losing your private key. I (along with other members) have already stated Whirlwind should have sent you an automated email to inform they have received your email and without much prompting they have stated they will do that in future therefore it seems they have chosen to ignore your emails. Also, after re-reading some posts it seems Whirlwind have given up on you as far back as 29th June 2023. Like we said we will leave this situation for the community to decide, if people agree you should get refunded then you will, if they don't you won't. Simple as that, we are not planning to tarnish our reputation for anyone or any amount, much less for someone that can't accept responsibility for his own actions and falsely blames everything on someone else while believing he's entitled to special treatment all at the same time. Going by this statement from them, I would advise you that as far as I am concerned you should not expect Whirlwind to give you any form of assistance because of your incompetence. Whirlwind made it clear they would intervene and make a payment to you based on community consensus therefore I will offer my opinion by saying Whirlwind should not be making a payment to you because you lost your private key. Other members can express their own opinions. From our POV not replying to your emails is completely warranted because if we play by the rules you lose your private key - you lose access to your funds so there's no point to discuss anything. We understand that the communities position is that we should reply even in cases like this and we will do that from now on, but we still fail to see how that would help the user in question. Anyways we'll let the others do the judging and if they are on your side post the refund address here and we will send your funds there. Whirlwind said around 4 days ago that they hold you responsible for your actions therefore there is nothing to discuss but they have taken onboard the advice of members and will respond to all emails regardless of the issue. Also just to note: even though there's no point in doing that the $40k DAI are still in escrow with minerjones and the last time we interacted with him is in this thread when we asked him to announce publicly 7 days in advance when we request our funds back. If you believe you were scammed and we are not being fair to you (and the community as well if they come to the conclusion that you shouldn't be refunded) we suggest you message him yourself and if you're in the right we're sure you will get your funds from him. You said in a previous reply you would contact minerjones. Have you presented your case to him? |
|
|
|
Yes his posting style has already been picked up by nutildah, Poker Player, lovesmayfamilis, myself and some others in the Tagging Accounts Sellers And Tagging Traded/Sold/Bought Accounts thread. For those of us who read the posts there (and elsewhere) had no doubt that the current rby account operator is definitely not the creator of the account. He is stuck between a rock and a hard place because if he were to remain adamant he was the original account creator, tags would be placed on the basis of him lying and/or because of the fact he scammed 2 BTC for undelivered work. However, if he were to claim he purchased the account it would automatically mean receiving tags for account trading. He had to make a choice and he chose to pretend he is the creator of the Rubycoin scam and with that he admitted he has stolen 2 BTC from a client. The person currently operating the rby account has already claimed they are the creator and original owner of the rby account. In other words by default they are claiming they are the person known as Kassado who is a technical coder who created Rubycoin. Thanks, somehow I missed that part of his post. I don't know if you compared his post history in Rubycoin thread against the most recent ones, but I suggest you to do so because its pretty obvious that whoever currently controls the account was not the person who created it, no matter what he claims. I mean, even the post you just quoted shows the difference in English level between now and 2014-2019 period. |
|
|
|
Even in the back days of the forum during my promotion of Rubycoin, can you show me at one time I have been involved in the mining board or technical board, and later on stopped. Must everyone be in the technical or mining board? The person currently operating the rby account has already claimed they are the creator and original owner of the rby account. In other words by default they are claiming they are the person known as Kassado who is a technical coder who created Rubycoin. I surely know that if a DT member delights in destroying people's account by leaving red tags without proves, even if nothing happens to them, the community is seeing. And they may not be on DT for so long (for ever).
What I would like to know is whether you deny that account changed hands (you were asked that in other thread but I haven't noticed that you answered that. I am asking because there is an obvious difference in the English level from period between 2015-2019 while being active in Rubycoin thread, and after waking up in 2022. How do you explain this difference because its one thing (and natural) to improve English level but in your case the opposite happened and your English got worse. |
|
|
|
Why did I not reply to this earlier? The football season is over, the new season has yet to begin but the previous season feels as though it ended years ago. I eagerly await for the new season to start. The Premier League, Champions League, FA Cup, League Cup and the European leagues will be coming soon  Imagine if Chelsea signed Haaland instead of Lukaku, that alone would have almost guaranteed a top top 4 league position at the end of the season. Now Chelsea do not want him, Inter Milan cannot afford him so want to send him back to Chelsea rather than buy him therefore he could easily end up in the Saudi Pro League. If Buffon, De Gea, Lukaku and a few other famous faces from European football join Ronaldo, N'Golo Kante, Edouard Mendy, Koulibaly, Neves and Benzema it will only bring more light on to the Saudi Pro League. With the phenomenal amount of money involved it seems they will bankroll their way becoming an elite league within a short space of time. He's such a poor man, constantly taking the piss when his team loses, just like Harry Maguire, but I'm not making him a scapegoat, I'm just saying he's not the big stage game player, he's the kind of player that scores one goal out of every ten attempts on goal. And you are correct. Lukaku was never a Tuchel type of player; he wanted Halaand, but the board made screwed up and went for Lukaku instead, wasting €100 million on a dud.
He doesn't want to return to Chelsea, and Inter Milan isn't interested in signing him, so he's already in talks with a Saudi team about a move this summer.
|
|
|
|
~snip~
Also just to note: even though there's no point in doing that the $40k DAI are still in escrow with minerjones and the last time we interacted with him is in this thread when we asked him to announce publicly 7 days in advance when we request our funds back. If you believe you were scammed and we are not being fair to you (and the community as well if they come to the conclusion that you shouldn't be refunded) we suggest you message him yourself and if you're in the right we're sure you will get your funds from him. stormbounty apart from posting here with impeccable regularity not always addressing questions put to you, try to answer this one: Apart from posting here do you have any other plans related to your funds not being accessible because you lost your private key? For example, will you be contacting minerjones as Whirlwind suggested? The option is available for you in order to ask him to reimburse you if he concludes you were correct in your assumption about being scammed by Whirlwind. |
|
|
|
Here is the original scam accusation thread I created in January 2019, that was at a time when I was very active in the Scam Accusations boards: SCAM: [RBY] RubycoinThis thread has been created to allow all matters related to the rby account being discussed here because a different thread related to discussing generalised Tagging Accounts Sellers And Tagging Traded/Sold/Bought Accounts is being taken taken off-topic by issues related to the rby account. Feel free to post here in the uncensored thread. |
|
|
|
edited: the original first part of this post will be posted nextAnd that's why I asked the opinion of @JollyGood himself about what he thinks about this account. It was he, who was the creator of the topic, who accused this project of being a scam. There are many allegations about this project on the Internet. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scam-rby-rubycoin-5102088They call themselves a precious gem for the digital age but is it all a scam? I posted in their official censored thread and had my post deleted because they want to silence any critical posts just Minex official thread is doing. After 10 months of no posts in its official Rubycoin thread the OP (rby) woke up from self-imposed hibernation and made the following post: Yes going all the way back to January 2019 I created a scam accusation about the rby scammer. I cannot recall why I did not tag the account, I simply cannot work out why I did not tag. Well, though it would be good for the current rby account operator to explain their actions (in the buying/selling process when they purchased the rby account), I expect to hear very little from them now that the account has been tagged by multiple members. For the current rby account, there is a sense of irony that the account is enrolled in the Sinbad.io signature campaign The original owner was a coder, miner, and security specialist. He very actively promoted his Rubycoin project and was its direct developer. As he often put it, he worked on it for six months, 100 hours a week. Satoshi worked more than six months and 100 hours a week to develop bitcoin. Where is Satoshi now and incase you find him, do you still expect him to be working six months, 100 hours a week in the bitcoin project still? The laughable part in that post is that somehow the Bitcoin creator (Satoshi) and the Rubycoin creator (rby) have been mentioned in the same sentence Even in the back days of the forum during my promotion of Rubycoin, can you show me at one time I have been involved in the mining board or technical board, and later on stopped. Must everyone be in the technical or mining board? So it is confirmed, the current owner/operator of the rby account claims to be the original creator of the account. I would also like to hear a truthful answer to whether @rby is the original owner You understand that you do not have any case here not even an iota. If there be, you should have uncovered it. Atleast, I have known you for sometime here and how you work. Poker player, follow the standard and don't just speculate. Everyone knows how to go into one another's profile to write whatever feedbacks. But we do it only when there are glaring evidences which are purely indisputable. The current owner/operator of the rby account has already claimed in a post I quoted above that they are the original creator of the account, therefore we have that statement now. They have made it clear they claim are the original owner/creator of the rby account. I think we all agree that claim is absolute nonsense. From this point forward, all posts related to the "rby" account or the Rubycoin scam in this thread will be deleted as we have already gone off-topic for too long. Feel free to continue the discussion regarding all matters related to the rby account in the newly created uncensored thread: The curious case of forum member: rby (of the Rubycoin scam)
|
|
|
|
Can you all please just refund me, my personal safety/health is really really on the line, and i'm sorry but i'll chose flooding the thread over being harmed, its been 8 days First of all, let it be repeated that this is a self-inflicted problem which you created. You created all this mess for yourself because you were incompetent when you mixed your funds. Your incompetence when you closed the wrong tabs on your browsers have made this process extremely difficult for Whirlwind to deal with because they probably do not want to set a precedent for others to follow especially if in future other Letters of Guarantees could be presented showing/claiming ownership for a transaction they already manually put through on the basis of customers claiming they lost their private keys. Today could have been the 100th day since you created the problem for yourself by opening multiple browsers with multiple tabs before getting mixed-up when you copy/pasted and closed the wrong tabs. From the perspective of Whirlwind and probably most members here it is irrelevant how many days passed by since your self-made problems. You made a mistake and you were liable for your error and based on your error Whirlwind are not liable to refund you. Having said that, around 3 days ago you managed to sign an address which was used to send funds to Whirlwind from. Still, maybe they will make an exception in this case even though they are under no obligation to do so because you lost your private key of your own volition. ~snip~
Also just to note: even though there's no point in doing that the $40k DAI are still in escrow with minerjones and the last time we interacted with him is in this thread when we asked him to announce publicly 7 days in advance when we request our funds back. If you believe you were scammed and we are not being fair to you (and the community as well if they come to the conclusion that you shouldn't be refunded) we suggest you message him yourself and if you're in the right we're sure you will get your funds from him. Whirlwind even offered you the opportunity to go directly to the escrow holding $40,000 (belonging to Whirlwind) if you feel you are being treated unfairly. Have you contacted minerjones to raise a complaint or will you wait for Whirlwind to come to a decision? |
|
|
|
Well, as far as customer services of any brand or company is concerned, they should send out an acknowledgement email, I think that was already mentioned by more than one member but Whirlwind have explained why they did not send you by email before. It is possible there may be some sympathy towards you by some members but you are flooding the thread with your issue. Kindly stop flooding this thread and instead have some patience in allowing Whirlwind to deal with the problem you find yourself in. Now you have signed a message using the associated address they will contact you based on that new information. If you feel the need to express your concerns regarding what you deem to be the lack of customer services you have received from Whirlwind, please refrain from flooding this thread. I definitely deserve to be refunded, or my support messages replied at the very least @ jollygood |
|
|
|
I think if there is agreement in this discussion that past mistakes will be forgiven... I feel you're over reaching in your expectations of others. Especially where scammers are concerned. In this case and in the context of the reply, I agree the expectations he has are over reaching. I think the case you make is too hypothetical.
LOL, hardly. I'm actually referencing someone very specific and within close proximity. But I will wait for others to figure out who it is. If they come to the same conclusions I have, it will provide a bit more objectiveness to my claims, and prove that this is not that unique of a situation. From the very beginning, I thought that the first reason for creating this topic would be to talk about this account. But for some reason, she left the discussion. And the owner quite flexibly evaded the answer. But if you look closely, then indeed, as you say, "the previous owner was a scammer, and the new owner is just a shitposter." JollyGood what do you think about it? But maybe you should take a closer look at these posts. Thank you for highlighting this lovesmayfamilis. Well, I have no idea if nutildah was talking specifically about the rby account but you are right about this thread. It was long overdue but after reading nonsense from rby in the thread you referenced, I decided to create the thread in order to have a generalised discussion about account trading. PytagoraZ - not quite sure I follow your argument. Are you saying someone who owns multiple accounts shouldn't be considered for scrutiny simply because although it is established they controll the UID's it may not have been proven those accounts were bought? Anybody can correct me if I am wrong but it seems he is saying with great conviction (and for reasons not yet fully known) words to the effect of: Someone who owns multiple accounts should not be considered for scrutiny simply because although it is established they control the accounts until/unless they have scammed. LOL, hardly. I'm actually referencing someone very specific and within close proximity. But I will wait for others to figure out who it is. If they come to the same conclusions I have, it will provide a bit more objectiveness to my claims, and prove that this is not that unique of a situation. On the one hand, if whoever originally created the account was a scammer, I don't see anything in his profile to indicate it, and on the other hand, he is not a shitposter. And if it were a simple case of the rby account simply keeping a low profile and making enough posts to reach signature campaign payment quote then you would not have even looked at their profile. The rby account is yet another that has unilaterally by their own volition brought an unwanted and unnecessary spotlight to themselves. Having said that do we know for sure who nutildah was referring to? |
|
|
|
My 2 sats: Even though I completely understand whirlwind’s decision to not deal with people who lost their private keys, I feel like they should at least let the guy knows about this over email.
Something like “As explained on our terms before you sent the coins, we can’t help you if you lost your note’s private key. We are sorry, but there is nothing we can do. This is our last reply about this matter” is enough. I agree, even it were a simple email from Whirlwind to acknowledge receipt with a short message, it would look better on their part and to be fair that would be the minimum you could expect from a customer services department of any website. Also, as can be seen using this case as an example, it would demonstrate they have responded rather than leave the sender not knowing if the email was received or not. In your emails you're also stating things like 'ill qietly go away just pay me my 200$ back' and accusing us of 'farming engagement' with your situation, which is certainly not true and very upsetting to read. Rightly or otherwise maybe part of the reason Whirlwind did not reply was because the content of the emails (which they received) had some rather ludicrous allegations and comments included. |
|
|
|
I will continue replying and addressing the key posts in the this thread but as they get too long, I post using small numbers. Having said that I decided to make this post before continuing with matters related specifically to this thread because I cannot be the only one reading these replies from PytagoraZ and wondering why he is very strong in advocating alt-accounts (which may or may not be cheating in signature campaigns and bounties) should not be tagged on the basis they have not scammed. PytagoraZ has been clear (apart from once in what appears to be a typing error) that there is a distinction between scammers and alt-accounts. I am not disputing that not all alt-accounts are scammers but a member such as PytagoraZ who has been registered in the forum for around 24 days is bringing attention to himself as his motives could be questioned. After all, he seems to know a lot about this forum in a space of the days he has been registered. Furthermore, he has clearly stated his friends do not have alt-accounts and has already laid down what can be seen by some as the information as protection in case an error of judgement happened on his part (such using a known address or merit abuse or email share etc) because he already covered most of that in his first post in this thread by alluding to account connections and if any such account was connected in future he has a case to cite this thread a reference in that he already stated shared address and said there is an element of fear his friends have when using this forum to the extent they dare not enter yet somehow share posted addresses. Add to that everything else you can deduce by reading between the lines it makes it clear PytagoraZ is not the newbie he claims to be who somehow frequently switches from the highly knowledgable to the innocent buffoon within the space of a few posts. For those reasons, if PytagoraZ has nothing constructive to add to this thread I advise him to stop posting here and will also state that if their main motive was to create an account in order to seek further rank for using in future signature campaigns (possibly alongside other accounts), then this PytagoraZ account has already been brought to the attention of some for users who just may keep an eye on it for future reference. As said earlier, I have been asked some questions by respected members and I intend to answer them as best I can but that will happen in the next post. Edit: Btw...The person who ordered and taught me to register in this forum now doesn't dare to login to bitcointalk anymore. The reason is because his wallet and friends are connected. Yes, I know my friends don't have alt, but they do have a community that used to be active on the bounty. And often they ask their friends for a little eth/btc. Yes I am willing to bear witness that they are not spammers, just a bunch of young people playing the forums well. But no one dares to enter the forum for fear of being banned/marked
I got this story when I wanted to buy BTC from my own friend and he didn't want to sell it to me because later my account would be considered connected to my friend's account.
Edit: Sorry, maybe this is not a thread for me to join the discussion. Maybe DT can communicate with each other to decide whether tagging alt that doesn't cheat is allowed or not? because forum rules allow alt.
I know about the DT system after installing BPIP extension a week ago I think if there is agreement in this discussion that past mistakes will be forgiven, it might be better if there is a dedicated thread to open acknowledgment of past mistakes, and it's worth noting that forgiven mistakes are about past alt /sale of accounts (according to the agreement). Let the members admit it and maybe it will be better
Past mistakes due to scam or fraud, in my opinion is unforgivable For scammers I think it is not unforgivable. Only people with alt accounts. And that mistake is only in the past. At least 1 or 2 years ago OMG...how is this actually? You are someone who I think really likes alt tagging, but you have alt? Honestly I'm confused by the rules of this forum. My understanding of this forum seems to collapse in an instant.
I'm so confused, actually alt is prohibited or not? Please answer me... I am confused to understand this forum |
|
|
|
This thread is in the Gambling board therefore it would not be acceptable to give disproportionate attention to avoid 1xbit over any other scam (or selective scamming website) by selectively pinning threads. The forum (unfortunately) does not moderate scams and by that I mean moderators will not get involved unless there is a pressing case put forward by the community and even then I have seen them nuke just maybe two threads during my time here. There is already a pinned thread in the Scam Accusation board where 1xbit has been mentioned in the subject title and considering there are several scam threads that come and go, it is already a victory that 1xbit is mentioned by name: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0Scam warning threads already exist elsewhere but I broadly agree it would be a good move to have a pinned thread. Having said that I think it would be far more constructive if any such pinned thread were not related to a single entity or organisation (such as 1xbit/1xbit1) but rather act as a generic warning. This is a good suggestion to have a pinned thread for general scam discussion serving as a warning and where users make regular comments and discussions on any ongoing scam casino both those who are present in the forum or outside the forum. This will go a long way to warn potential victims from falling for such scams since their will already have information about the entity on the thread, 1xbit or other scam entities who have exited the forum may find a way to come back under another guise so there is a need for relentless efforts combat any possible return and also a fine way to stop others scammers from gaining any attention here in the forum. |
|
|
|
I would say that if a new precedent is set, then it should be from July xxx 2023. Everything prior should be considered ancient history. Don't we already have a consensus that if there is a proof of accounts or merits trading then buyer and seller should be tagged? I'm here from the end of 2018 and it already was so if I remember correctly. So it's not about something new, it's about how deep is it correct to dig. If that is the case it would time for the consensus to either reaffirm that view or get together to lay down the rules of what is acceptable conduct when it comes to account buying and selling. Maybe we can consider other circumstances like if this account is active for years, got positive reviews and made recognized contributions it can be forgiven for old mistakes like accounts trading. But even if we will forgive anyone it should not encourage hackers to hack accounts. We already have problems with proving that accounts are hacked. nlovric was banned for plagiarism and got only neutral tags before it because it was not so easy to prove he's not an original owner of account. It was obvious but not 100% proved. That is the danger, whether we like it or not account buyers and sellers will see the forgiveness/amnesty/reprieve as s sign that they too might be able to get away with it and if they are caught they can plead the case of 'x' member who was granted a special case and not tagged. I would say that if a new precedent is set, then it should be from July xxx 2023. Everything prior should be considered ancient history. To a point I agree with that notion, but would say negative trust feedback from now on and minimum neutral trust feedback for historic or negative trust feedback if they were prolific or their sold accounts went on to scam. With regards to default trust (DT) I would suggest continuing to place negative DT on all newly uncovered account sellers to deter their trust feedbacks from showing up as trusted on the pages of those they transact business with. You could probably make a case for negative DT on historic as well as those sellers will have also provided trust feedback to those who bought their accounts. That sounds like a fairly reasonable case you have put forward and is definitely one of outcomes that could be discussed and then tweaked to accommodate what could be required in any final decision making process. It will worth much more lesser than 0.3 BTC. This is an evidence that bitcoin is an hedge against inflation. Despite that nutildah 's account is more valuable now, yet the bitcoin value will rather depreciate. If there is an easier to understand explanation of what you wrote above, you should write it here because I am sure I am not the only one that has no idea what you are saying. And since (by virtue of your post) you know a lot about this, will you tell the community here how much you paid to purchase the rby account and when you purchased it as well as why you purchased it. Here's an interesting question: what would you do about old accounts that likely changed hands where the former owner was a scammer but the new owner is just a shitposter? I would have to think about that to give you a definitive answer but if the previous owner was a scammer I presume the account would have been tagged with negative trust therefore any subsequent neutral tags for spamming would just be an add-on to the existing red trust. And, if the new owner (in an attempt to avoid the account getting tagged because it was discovered it was probably sold) claimed the account was never sold and historic negatives were never placed on the account, then it would probably be overdue to add the red tags but having said that I think it is too hypothetical to answer especially if somewhere along the line the majority members lean towards selecting a year before which all/most traded accounts receive a form of amnesty whereas after that selected year all traded accounts receive negative trust from multiple members. I think the case you make is too hypothetical. LOL, hardly. I'm actually referencing someone very specific and within close proximity. But I will wait for others to figure out who it is. If they come to the same conclusions I have, it will provide a bit more objectiveness to my claims, and prove that this is not that unique of a situation. I have tried but cannot even make a shortlist of possible candidates. I will give this some more thought and post back if I manage to discover the name you are referencing. |
|
|
|
I like this unbiased move cause we can see there is some kind of relaxation towards the sold/bought accounts because they have some contribution to the community (basically they earned merits). But let's take the forum rule again "No plagiarism" and if someone did that they will get permanent ban, no excuse while on some exceptions they have been awarded a second chance by admin. So the same thing can be applied here or as DT community it has to be very strict? I can only express my own opinion but for me the answer would have to be "yes" simply because there is no consensus on what action would constitute a tag. If we do not know exactly what the requirements would be in order for a known traded/bought/sold account to be deemed worthy of a reprieve or worthy of a tag, then it cannot be implemented. That was one of the reasons to start the discussion in this tread. I think what you said is right, I know that am new person but according what yahoo62278 said concerning some lenders using accounts as collateral previously I think tagging those accounts as a bought accounts is wrong, and considering the fact that those accounts have not committed any crime or used to defraud any one theirs no need of tagging them to be honest, what the DT's should concentrate on to tag is accounts that attempt to scam people and that is causing nuisance with different crime. From the explanation of yahoo its crystal clear that tagging a bought account without evidence of crime committed is 💯 wrong. I agree with you It is nice to see you have stated your opinion, others may or may not agree. I personally do not agree with your views or your statement that a blanket policy should be implemented as there is no reference in your comment as to what properly constitutes a crime. According to you, how many different types of crime are there and at what levels should they be deemed worthy of a tag? The different crime you mentioned was related to scam attempts but could there be cases where account buyers are spamming not scamming and deserve a tag? I hope more members add their views to broaden the discussion and debate. I strongly don't like accounts trading but mainly because it encourages accounts hacking. If someone sold his own account... well, it doesn't look good anyway, I'd say it looks shady anyway. But well, if it was years ago and it is the only one shady thing about the account which was active all these years, I don't think such old things should be digged. Especially because there was another consensus about it away back. Please elaborate further. As for new cases there's no doubt that new accounts trading should be tagged negatively for both a seller and a buyer. We can consider neutral tag in case when we sure that the true owner is selling his account totally publicly, in exceptional case. But in new cases it should be tagged anyway.
We can say that cases before 2018 or something like that are too old for digging if there's nothing else bad about that account. The fact you have mentioned a timeline is appreciated. Without having an understanding of where to draw the line in previous years as far as any amnesty (or exception) is concerned, it would be difficult to assess the viability. If you thought it was worth 0.3 BTC and then 0.275 BTC in 2016 (before you had a change of heart) then what it is worth at the current 2023 market rate? Then accounts were sold with a wallet address signature thrown in via account sellers such as tomatocage who started the stake your signature thread with a few of the first few pages all accounts he then sold with those wallet address - if there were any doubt the accused would just sign a message. It makes posting a wallet address signature meaningless. Thank you for another very informative post. I had a brief discussion with a highly respected member recently regarding what seemed to be a sold account and the reason I opted to not start a thread was because when the change of ownership happened it involved a signed message from an already known address. This part of the account sale process where known or previously used addresses are signed to show a new address is not being used, it makes it somewhat difficult to tag and when tags are given there is a chance the wider community could say it was unfair to tag if a previously known address was signed to list the new address. We can say that cases before 2018 or something like that are too old for digging if there's nothing else bad about that account. I would say that if a new precedent is set, then it should be from July xxx 2023. Everything prior should be considered ancient history. Now we have two dates from members as far as possible amnesty is concerned and they have different opinions about whether any potential amnesty should be conditional or not. |
|
|
|
It is very difficult to provide any better advice than this considering the current situation stormbounty finds himself in. The fact he has crossed the line as far as his choice of words are concerned is certainly not helping him. Now that he has managed to sign a message the best thing he can do is to wait a few days for Whirlwind to look in to the matter for him. The previous days do not count but as he has signed a message, maybe it should start from now. ~snip~
and now comes the important part, your behavior is not helping, I understand that this money could be all you got, and it's so important for you to get it, but what do you get from calling them names and all that? it will only make things worse for you, after all, they could ignore everybody's opinion, don't bother with checking any signature, and simply stick to their rules which you have agreed upon before using their service, you lost your private key -- your funds are gone.
I suggest you edit your posts, take a deep breath, send the signed message to their email along with the letter of guarantee, and then wait a few days before posting anything. |
|
|
|
I noted so it seems the OP did not get back to you after you sent the email explaining the need for further information yet he posted here effectively saying there was nothing else to send to Duelbits. I am glad to read the matter has not been closed from your side and as soon as the OP is able to provide you with the specific information you asked for, you will be able to assist him further. Dear Community Members,
We would like to address the concerns raised regarding the $500k withdrawal currently on hold. We appreciate your concerns in this matter.
First and foremost, we want to emphasise that it would be much easier for us to release the withdrawal to avoid any negative exposure within this thread. However, doing so without obtaining the necessary information from the user would have serious consequences.
We understand the desire for transparency, but we must uphold the utmost confidentiality when dealing with such matters. It would be highly unprofessional to publicly disclose any further details about this case or the user involved.
As many of you are aware, we are one of the most reputable crypto casinos. We have successfully processed thousands of withdrawals of similar or even higher amounts within a matter of seconds to minutes.
Nevertheless, there are rare instances where we require additional information before processing such significant withdrawals. This is done to ensure the protection of our users and maintain the integrity of our platform.
Currently, we are still awaiting the full set of information required from the user. We have received partial information, which so far has been highly appreciated, but there is one last piece of the puzzle that is still missing.
Once we receive the complete and necessary details, we can proceed with the withdrawal promptly.
Please rest assured that our team is available 24/7, dedicated to resolving similar cases as efficiently as possible. However, we rely on the full cooperation of our users to expedite the process.
If you have any further inquiries or if additional information is required, please do not hesitate to contact us. We are here to assist you.
|
|
|
|
Are you suggesting you go back in time to tag accounts that were traded way before you even existed in this forum now that you are a DT member? If so, then go ahead, that's your choice. I'll be prepared to do that, yes. Inactive isn't the same as banned. That is where I invite debate and conversation in order to find general consensus because if previously sold yet currently inactive accounts are tagged what would be the pros and cons as far sending out a message as a deterrent is concerned? Thanks for your good wishes. Unfortunately, in deleting 2,650 trust feedbacks, I wasn't able to archive all of them, so I'm starting with those I have notes for: You certainly have your hands full with this one I'm strongly against retroactive punishment when it applies to offenses committed several years ago and involves inactive accounts or accounts that have since proven themselves as trustworthy and/or valuable members of the community. This is for a few reasons:
- the "offense" may not have been deemed as such back then,
- the person may have genuinely changed for the better, and
- we should be able to demonstrate some leniency toward long-time members in the spirit of forgiveness. You make a great case against blanket tagging with the possibilities you cited, especially the demonstrating leniency part. I invite more views and opinions from members because widening the debate will bring benefits to the discussion. If you disagree, you can start by tagging my account first since I put it up for sale at one point in 2016. If you thought it was worth 0.3 BTC and then 0.275 BTC in 2016 (before you had a change of heart) then what it is worth at the current 2023 market rate? I have mixed feelings on this for a couple reasons. 1st of all, buying and selling accounts in not prohibited or against any rules of the forum.
RULE 18. Having multiple accounts and account sales are allowed, but account sales are discouraged.
Discouraged does not mean illegal. The definition of discouraged is having lost confidence or enthusiasm; disheartened. This is a welcomed timely reminder that account trading is (as you put it) discouraged but not against the rules of the forum however much it is frowned upon by the members of the community. Still, there is no harm in having this debate in order to read and to understand a multitude of views and opinions on this matter. I am sure someone who got scammed by a trusted member only to later discover the account was sold by the original owner would have a different opinion to say someone who is maybe have purchased an account some years ago but has constantly and consistently received excellent advice provided by an account buyer say in the technical boards (Development & Technical Discussion, Mining, Bitcoin Technical Support etc), then in my opinion it would be a pointless exercise tagging the account and that is why this debate with these points of views are great to read. I have posted my opinion many times on the subject and feel that if the account is a nobody, then it's no big deal. If they haven't built a rep and don't have any + trusts, they have hurt noone. An account and name is what the person who controls makes it. The accounts sold with a bunch of positive trust and big reputations are the only accounts we should worry about as they have the best odds at scamming the community. The only reason someone would pay a premium price for a trusted account is so they can get away with a scam they have planned. We as a community should evolve and grow, but what you suggest is regress. You mention several more very important angles about account trading in that trusted green member accounts can plan scams and that we should watch out for those and you would not be wrong for saying it. At some point, at some stage there has to be a line drawn as to what is acceptable and what is not when it comes to the buying and selling of forum accounts. If there is blanket tagging on account buyers and sellers, would it be appropriate to do it on the basis you pointed out that it is not illegal for buyers and sellers to do it according to the rules? On that basis there should probably not be any blanket tagging for that specific reason alone. If there is no blanket tagging for account buyers and sellers then can a different approach be taken which would still be acceptable as general consensus? I hope more members add their views to broaden the discussion and debate. |
|
|
|
The stories that are made up by some forum members in order to seek merits are becoming more and more unbelievable yet they continue regurgitating lie after lie. What would you really say the chances are of that scenario happening as you described it? Add to that the OP stating he will refuse to share transaction details therefore no evidence will be provided yet he assumes we all are basically going to take his word for it that someone not from this forum paid him $2500 and forgot about collecting his work and the OP being a caring individual is trying to reunite the client with his work? No, we will not take his word for it. Someone who is not a member of this forum, but knows a bitcointalk moderator, paid OP to do a job, but forgot to collect it and the moderator doesn't seem to know them either, so OP wrote this story on bitcointalk, so that person, who doesn't use bitcointalk, sees it and responds... I bet only OP understands his motives, but we are all dumb for not understanding and not believing. |
|
|
|
This has been a trend recently. If memory serves correct there were around 3-4 cases within the last say 6 weeks where the OP created a thread for a particular reason complaining about a neutral/negative tag but in the end they dug themselves in to a hole and did not stop digging. Some account farmers make the mistake of being over-confident therefore they have threads questioning their feedbacks and within a short time that becomes their error as their associated accounts begin to be listed. They bring attention to themselves without realising the impact it will have on their farming activities. And in the end the funny part is that the only thing this thread has done so for for the OP and the associated accounts is get them more negative feedback and removal from trust lists.
As the saying goes, when you are in a hole stop digging.
So a single negative from someone who has not been active for years that a lot of people may have ignored is now a major thing since there are so many more people looking and posting about it.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
