|
Only two people have joined so far. If I am not able to get more people to join in the very near future I will escrow funds
|
|
|
|
|
You want to buy 46 euro cents worth of bitcoin?
You are kidding right?
|
|
|
|
He might not mind. I have had buyers approach me before offering very low prices for a senior account with the stipulation that he is okay with it having negative trust I think the bigger issue with that account is that the original owner is trying to recover it. It appears he has some claim to it, since he was apparently never paid for it. The concept of ownership of accounts is not clearly defined within the forum rules (this is probably a problem). Lets assume that the account was not hacked - as the claim is that it was purchased but funds were never sent. It appears that the previous owner gave the password to gumble99 with the promise of payment soon thereafter, gumble99 then took payment from the new buyer, gave the password to the new buyer and never sent the appropriate payment to the former owner. The question is what constitutes a transfer of ownership of an account. Is it the act of sending payment, or is it the act of voluntarily providing the password to the account with the understanding that you are in the process of selling it. I would probably say that it is the later, which appears to have happened I don't think voluntarily providing an account's password is enough to constitute a legitimate change in account ownership when it is provided under false pretenses. In this case, payment was promised and not received. I don't really see how this is any different than refusing to return an account held in escrow or setting up a phishing site that mirrors the forums. The account credentials are voluntary given in these cases as well, but I don't think anyone would consider them legitimate "transfers of ownerships". Accounts have been and will be returned if they are stolen through these two methods, same thing should happen with the Jazkal account in my opinion. It would be a clear cut case if the account hadn't been resold already. Unfortunately, it was, which complicates things, but the original owner still has more of a right to the account than the new one, given how the account was obtained. I think it is a complicated question that should be addressed. The difference between providing the password to a buyer and providing it to a phishing site is that you are agreeing to give up ownership to a buyer while your intention is clearly not to give up ownership when inputting it into a phishing site. Being able to prove the lack of payment received is also very difficulty, especially when some trades happen off site that are difficult to trace (or when payments are handled off chain - for example via a cex.io, a btc-e code or a coinbase transfer). Both an off site sale and a off chain payment would be very difficult to prove a transaction happened either way. |
|
|
|
|
Another concern is that .33 is not very much more then what you can realistically sell two full member accounts for (it may be less depending on the market) so the borrower would essentially be selling two full member accounts to the lender. (the OP in this case has an apparent history of selling accounts per his trust - not that this is wrong however it may be an indication that this is his last two accounts he wants to sell and this is his way of effectively selling them)
|
|
|
|
He might not mind. I have had buyers approach me before offering very low prices for a senior account with the stipulation that he is okay with it having negative trust I think the bigger issue with that account is that the original owner is trying to recover it. It appears he has some claim to it, since he was apparently never paid for it. The concept of ownership of accounts is not clearly defined within the forum rules (this is probably a problem). Lets assume that the account was not hacked - as the claim is that it was purchased but funds were never sent. It appears that the previous owner gave the password to gumble99 with the promise of payment soon thereafter, gumble99 then took payment from the new buyer, gave the password to the new buyer and never sent the appropriate payment to the former owner. The question is what constitutes a transfer of ownership of an account. Is it the act of sending payment, or is it the act of voluntarily providing the password to the account with the understanding that you are in the process of selling it. I would probably say that it is the later, which appears to have happened |
|
|
|
He might not mind. I have had buyers approach me before offering very low prices for a senior account with the stipulation that he is okay with it having negative trust |
|
|
|
|
I would say that as a general rule the first two conditions are very important and any buyer will risk claims that the account was hacked at anytime in the future (although a 6 month old address may be a little overkill - a full member account is probably not even 6 months old).
I can say from personal experience that it is still possible claim your account was hacked and can credibility prove that you were once the owner of an account even if your post history does not have a BTC address (although there may also be other evidence that the previous owner should not remain in control of the account anymore).
|
|
|
|
I am sorry to tell you but the days of being able to buy seniors for .1 are over. There are too many signature deals out there that are paying well. The cheapest senior I have seen recently is on this thread. He is selling for .3 although I cannot speak for the quality of accounts as I have not purchased from him before. Too many accounts is just drifting. You sell i want to buy. I need 2-3 more.. Waiting for propositions. (I pay escrow costs) I will send you a PM |
|
|
|
You did not need to be respected to have an avatar, nor did you need to be trusted. You only needed to have joined prior to the forum getting hacked.
So just to fully understand, are people whose accounts are pre-2014 able to add an avatar now or is it only accounts that had the avatar already before the ban? pre 2014 accounts can keep their avatar if they had one (you did not have to put one on). You cannot change your avatar and if you did not have one on (or if you have theymos remove it) you cannot put one back on. tl;dr you cannot add nor change your avatar regardless of when you joined edit: They are frozen in time. They cannot be added or removed
theymos will remove it if you request him to do so |
|
|
|
|
You did not need to be respected to have an avatar, nor did you need to be trusted. You only needed to have joined prior to the forum getting hacked.
|
|
|
|
I am sorry to tell you but the days of being able to buy seniors for .1 are over. There are too many signature deals out there that are paying well. The cheapest senior I have seen recently is on this thread. He is selling for .3 although I cannot speak for the quality of accounts as I have not purchased from him before. |
|
|
|
Selling a Full Member BCT account (not this one, obviously) with: +3 Postive trust ratings 190+ Activity No negative trust ratings, loans, or anything of that sort. Asking .14btc, you can make quite a bit of btc with sig campaigns. Price is somewhat negotiable, but don't lowball. If you have a good escrow I may accept it, otherwise I will try to get my own.My own escrow is found here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=15927If you don't like it, feel free to suggest others.  This person is not qualified to act as an escrow. He does not have trading experience, nor is he trusted in the community. It would probably be better to pick from someone on this escrow thread as it is generally kept the most up to date. here is another escrow list, however it is not kept as up to date. |
|
|
|
For clarification for anyone considering to buy this account, it has been banned from the bit mixer campaign so even though he is now wearing the signature, you will not be able to earn money from it edit: per https://bitmixer.io/signature.html uid 132747 is showing as active, however he was complaining that he was banned from the campaign previously Would be funny if supa tried to fake sell his account just to get negative trust off of his account. FAIL.  This actually has worked with one of my buyers before. I had lent to someone with negative trust with their account as collateral, they didn't pay and someone was looking for a senior account for really cheap and was willing to take one with negative trust. He messaged Vod and he removed the trust. It happened on this postI personally don't think it would work in this case I would have to agree. Supa is a scammer and well known. Even if the trust was removed, the account would still have a negative reputation attached to it so it would be difficult for someone to sell for the "true" price of a hero |
|
|
|
For clarification for anyone considering to buy this account, it has been banned from the bit mixer campaign so even though he is now wearing the signature, you will not be able to earn money from it edit: per https://bitmixer.io/signature.html uid 132747 is showing as active, however he was complaining that he was banned from the campaign previously Would be funny if supa tried to fake sell his account just to get negative trust off of his account. FAIL. This actually has worked with one of my buyers before. I had lent to someone with negative trust with their account as collateral, they didn't pay and someone was looking for a senior account for really cheap and was willing to take one with negative trust. He messaged Vod and he removed the trust. It happened on this postI personally don't think it would work in this case |
|
|
|
For clarification for anyone considering to buy this account, it has been banned from the bit mixer campaign so even though he is now wearing the signature, you will not be able to earn money from it edit: per https://bitmixer.io/signature.html uid 132747 is showing as active, however he was complaining that he was banned from the campaign previously |
|
|
|
I want to know whatever cex.io is REALLY profitable or not as so far I've around 1.5 Th/s and all what I'm getting is (negative) BTC amount in my cex wallet.
As this is not the place to take about it, I just posted the question to get the help for the BEST place to post about it.
Plus, I have a good business where I accept the payments in BTC, so what is the best investment so far ? Shall I withdraw it and save it in a saving account in my bank or what exactly ?
For your negative balance problem at cex I would suggest posting here or creating a new thread here. The former would probably result in you getting a better response (although cex/ghash does not seem to be very active in the forum), you may get a better response by contacting their support. In regards to trying to determine what to do with your BTC I would suggest first browsing the trading discussion board and if you cannot find the answer you are looking for then create a new thread in that board (or if there is an active discussion similar to your situation you may want to contribute to an existing topic). |
|
|
|
I would like to join your campaign.
Username: Daniel91
BTC address: 1LAtAeAN5yiGVqrB93YgZxLCX2YkVqmxNp
Rank: Full member
Current post count: 958
I will soon become senior member.
I hope that you can update my payment rate later.
Thank you for this campaign!
Your in Unfortunately I will only pay you as a full member, although I will take into consideration that you received a promotion if you make a lot of posts and my campaign works out for me in terms of sales |
|
|
|
|
there would probably be 3 potential appropriate places for this kind of question. Service discussion as H&C mentioned, mining support or the ghash pool thread.
Yes cex is cloud mining, probably one of the only legit ones (they more or less have proof of mining ect. but the prices for their cloud mining are set for the market because they are tradable and are very overpriced)
|
|
|
|
How about the option of 3-factor?  . Google auth would be better than email but both are only as secure as you are. Email is probably much easier to hack, but couldn't you reset google auth via email? no. Google auth has nothing to do with email. You are given a qr code to scan and anyone that has access to the qr code can display the 6 digit code you enter that proves you controlled the accoint at the time it was set up. It is similar to signing a message |
|
|
|
|
I think 2fa in general would be beneficial. But I don't think email is the right way to do it. Maybe Google authentator would be a better solution.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
