|
He PM’ed me a few days ago asking me to confirm if your country of residence was one of two countries you lived in — he said he found someone to sell your dox and was trying to arrange escrow. I asked him what he was going to do with the information and he responded that he planned on filling a lawsuit (presumably for libel) against you. I told him I was away from my computer and would get back to him. I forgot about his request and he messaged me to follow up, I responded that if he gave me what he received I could confirm if it is correct — I haven’t received a response.
I do think he has a case for libel. Although the amount of damages he would potentially get will not make filing such a lawsuit worth his while.
|
|
|
|
I think he is bluffing in regards to taking legal action, but that doesn’t mean he is in the wrong. I think he is just trying to defend his reputation, which I don’t think is an unreasonable thing to do. Also it is common for a lawyer to threaten to file a lawsuit they don’t ever file. |
|
|
|
I'm sure most would agree that suggests that theymos told him not to remove laudas negative feedback.
Indeed. This clearly suggests theymos told him something like "please don't remove the negative trust you left on Lauda's profile" or even "I agree with you Lauda deserves negative trust as he either scammed or tried to scam". OgNasty wrote that in a way there's a technicality to avoid explicitly accusing him to lie but, after reading the actual quote and explanation posted by theymos, I now know quotes posted by OgNasty can't be trusted unless I have access to the whole story and have read the whole conversation. I very much doubt OG would try to mislead the reader to that degree.
I thought that too but I was clearly mistaken. He can mislead to that degree as long as he finds a way to avoid bringing accused of lying. It seems that everyone involved is being very misleading at best. They are probably not doing what would get them convicted of perjury if they were under oath, but I would ask additional probing questions before trusting the substance of what anyone involved says in the future. I think everyone involved should agree with or dispute that theymos told the *whole* truth as to what happened Assuming theymos is telling the whole truth, it looks like OgN removed his trust against lauda in order to improve his trust score based on his above statement in addition to what theymos said. For this, I believe he is in the wrong. I also think theymos is in the wrong as explained in my above post. Lauda hasn’t really addressed the issue, but IMO, he was using his position in DT to silence his critic (along with his friends positions in DT). Lauda seems to have learned a lesson from my fiasco years ago — to not make any public statements when involved in controversy (as he has done many times— or to keep the public statements to be few and vague). In corporate America, not cooperating with an investigation is grounds to get fired, regardless of your innocence. |
|
|
|
I pressured several people to remove inappropriate, unconstructive ratings amongst each other. When OgNasty replied telling me that he perceived real trust issues with Lauda, I responded: If this is what you believe, then you shouldn't remove the rating, but then it wouldn't be fair for me to pressure Lauda to remove ratings against you. Personally, I find Lauda's history gray, not red. And the trust system is only going to work if there's some level of forgiveness and de-escalation. But if you really believe that Lauda isn't safe to deal with, then you should leave the rating.
Then there was an exchange between OgNasty and Lauda in which Lauda kept a laudably  cool head, and OgNasty was able to reach a point where he could feel OK removing the rating. The ratings did all end up being removed, which I'm happy with, and I appreciate the willingness to de-escalate and forgive from the people involved in this case. The fact that this issue came up at all indicates that the trust system isn't working perfectly (and I am considering future system changes), but it's still a good outcome. Lauda doesn’t usually lose his cool, he usually just tags his critics and trolls them when they complain. I don’t think OgN has any reasonable trust concerns about him by the “reasonable person” standard. OTOH, there are concerns about Laura’s history that you acknowledge (you describe them as grey as opposed to red — it should not be unreasonable for someone to have a different opinion than you). It seems to me that Laudas rating against OgN was to silence a critic while OgN’s rating against lauda was to warn others about what he reasonably believes to be untrustworthy behavior. It is for this reason that it would be fair to pressure lauda to remove his rating against OgN if OgN kept his rating in tact. I would repeat what I previously stated regarding the matter: would not have removed my rating against lauda under any circumstances that doesn’t involve substantial evidence of his evidence.
One can reasonably compare lauda to TradeFortress. If my memory serves me correctly regarding what I have read about the inputs scam, TF refunded the majority of money deposited into inputs, refunded the entire deposit amount of large depositors (investors), and only a small percentage (0%?) of small deposits under a certain threshold. I also believe that there were claims TF was using the trust system to silence people critical of him until he was ultimately removed from being on DT1.
In the escrow transaction that lauda was involved in (that was non-transparent), a mixture of bitcoin and various altcoins were deposited into escrow that was strongly implied to be 2-of-3 multisig with 3 escrows each holding one of the private keys. The altcoins were converted into bitcoin via exchanges, however the amount sent back to escrow was well below what would be expected, based on the *low* of exchange rates in the several time periods after the various alts were deposited into exchanges. The discrepancy was in excess of a million dollars based on exchange rates at the time. I also strongly believe that the private keys required to sign the various transactions to spend the money in escrow were controlled by one person.
The project ended up failing and those who invested were due refunds. IIRC refunds were given based on how many tokens were purchased. After the ICO sale, and after the altcoins were converted into bitcoin, nearly all altcoin values declined substantially, so the ICO investors likely ended up in a better position than if they owned the tokens and if they had owned their various altcoins they used to invest in the project, both even after accounting for the discrepancy. As such, less people complained than would otherwise be expected. However it still appears money was stolen. The majority of money was returned to investors.
When there are million dollar discrepancies in transactions, a promise for a similar situation not to happen again is insufficient. It is necessary to leave a negative rating warning others about the incident. Period. If TF promised not to offer deposit services that gets “hacked” again, it would be wholly inappropriate to remove his negative ratings. If Mark Kaapolis (or however his name is spelled— the person in charge of Gox) returned saying that he promises not to “lose” a billion dollars worth of customer money, it would be inappropriate to remove the ratings warning others against depositing money with him. Lauda and friends currently use the trust system to silence their critics.
The primary difference between lauda and TF (and Gox) is that TF admitted he didn’t return all the money owed to depositors. Lauda on the other hand refused to admit not all money was returned and refused to answer any questions about what happened to the money. Perhaps this is a lesson to scammers that if you refuse to answer questions about any missing money, you won’t be held accountable for any missing money.
I would rather be labeled a scammer (incorrectly) and excluded up the wazoo than be prohibited from warning others about his previous scammy behavior. |
|
|
|
|
Your formula is only accurate for non-segwit (and non-multisig) inputs.
A SegWit input will take up 91 bites and a bech32 input (a different type of SW address that starts with “BC1”) will take up 68 bites of block space after accounting for the witness (signature) discount.
|
|
|
|
as i know there is no faster way to get listed on the big exchange unless you are willing to pay i found this post about listing fee for your coins to be listed on an exchange but i don't know if the info is correct or still same? I found this thread very interesting and informative  This is info that i received in October 2018, so i don't know if the listing fees are still the same  Listing Price Binance - 50 BTC Poloniex - 30/50 BTC COSS - 40 BTC KuCoin - 30 BTC HitBTC - 10/15 BTC Cryptopia - 15 BTC CoinExchange - 2/4 BTC LiveCoin - 4 BTC btc-alpha - 3 BTC Meratox - 2 BTC Crypto.bridge - 1 BTC YoBit - 0.1/0.5 BTC Stex - 0.08 BTC Crex24 - 0.3 BTC Binance has been known to not charge listing fees if your coin uses some kind of especially good technology. I would suspect other exchanges would do the same if your coin is especially promising and stands out from other coins. |
|
|
|
- It might be good if you can make a list of only DT2 member whom did not earn a signed merit so far, rather than a mixture like current list. It is ridiculous when a real DT2 member has not been able to earn a single merit so far, especially if still being actively in the forum last year.
I wouldn't jump to conclusions and judge a DT member just because he/she haven't earned any merits so far. After all our trust is mostly based in transactions being done within the forum not by the quality of our posts here, what will make it wrong though is if we just make high merit earners a DT member just because of the post quality they have. DT members such as Carra23, ndnh, Eodguy149, and devthedev have been active in the forum in terms of running campaigns, buying/selling in the market place, buying cryptocurrencies with Paypal, and doing escrows all of them have 0 merits but they are trusted because of the successful transactions they have made. So I hope before you get suspicious at them having 0 merits just look at their trust summary before you judge them. Having merit means you have made “good” posts, while being on DT means you can generally be trusted, specifically to give good/fair/appropriate ratings. Or at least this is what these should mean. I met someone a year or two ago who created his account *solely* to trade with others in the forum and that is quite literally all he did (I assume he also read some threads). He created his account, got locked out, and created an alt account to recover his first one, and his second account had total active time of several days and had a fair amount of positive trust from trades done on the second account. I believe I met him prior to the merit system being implemented, however he would obviously have no merit (he had zero posts) but appeared to be generally trustworthy. ETA - it was this guy https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=515678 and his first account was https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=406863 |
|
|
|
if this is true its good news,theymos is taking actions against abusive members it would be nice if not only lauda,but most of his abusive gang members.
The action, if true, was done in favor of lauda... Well OG’s trust improved more than the cats.. could be said theymos was looking after OG. If he was looking solely after OgN he could have given the ultimatum to lauda only. There isn’t any reason to make them both remove feedback if one of them is a scammer. or everyone could stop with the conspiracy shit and realise that Theymos cares more about the forum than a couple of old timers having a stupid row!! I didn’t say anything about a conspiracy. I explained why theymos might do this (Lauda has received positive trust subsequent to scamming), and why I thought why this is an example as to why the trust system is not working properly (lauda is selectivity scamming and is supported by many who are conflicted [or are afraid to oppose lauda]). |
|
|
|
if this is true its good news,theymos is taking actions against abusive members it would be nice if not only lauda,but most of his abusive gang members.
The action, if true, was done in favor of lauda... Well OG’s trust improved more than the cats.. could be said theymos was looking after OG. If he was looking solely after OgN he could have given the ultimatum to lauda only. There isn’t any reason to make them both remove feedback if one of them is a scammer. |
|
|
|
if this is true its good news,theymos is taking actions against abusive members it would be nice if not only lauda,but most of his abusive gang members.
The action, if true, was done in favor of lauda... |
|
|
|
|
My reading of the situation based on the available facts from the various parties is that one of the following happened:
(In order of likelihood)
Theymos threatened both OgN and lauda with a DT1 blacklist if they didn’t remove the negative rating for the other
OgN and lauda both agreed to remove the others negative rating if the other removed his rating against the other
I am not sure if others would consider the first scenario as theymos “forcing” OgN to remove his rating (there is a strong argument to say that “force” is not an accurate adjective to describe what happened), however the first scenario would theymos absolutely putting his “thumb on the scale” towards getting lauda rating removed.
If the argument to tip the scale towards lauda has to do with the many ratings he received since his behavior that showed his untrustworthiness, I would argue this is another flaw in the trust system in that someone who selectively scams who has a lot of supporters who are conflicted will consistently show up as trustworthy, regardless of what they do.
|
|
|
|
|
Did you create this in a new thread? Or was it posted in an existing thread? What thread was it in?
I don’t think what you posted would belong in technical discussion. If there is another thread about the subject (I’m not sure one way or another), the duplicate thread should be deleted.
The identity of the moderator isn’t really important. If you have a concern about your post being deleted, you can complain in meta, and you can be told the post was correctly deleted, with an explanation, or if a mistake was made, this can be addressed.
|
|
|
|
Hello!
As the title says, i am looking to buy hacked accounts or member and jr member accounts.
Drop a pm or your telegram id
I don’t think trading hacked accounts are allowed here. If it is determined an account is hacked it will get locked. |
|
|
|
.....
At least you admit to ignoring history. No one said North Korea was wealthier than South Korea so its strange you are ONLY looking at something that isn't on-topic. Even though you are ONLY looking at today's economic picture, you are completely disregarding how we arrived at that economic picture and how the economics evolved over time.
It's unnecessary. Trump has invited Rocket Boy to defuse tensions, told him to share in the wealth is possible, and given him a guarantee of protection. Trump has outright told NK they can be as rich as SK, and US will help them get to that point. That's what matters. The NOW. The path FORWARD. And your anger is because it's not COMMUNIST. And it never will be. No I have no interest in what the path forward for Korea is. My anger is that the US wants to dictate the path forward for people on the other side of the world so much that it is trying to extort them into not defending themselves.. I say that the path forward for Korea should be left to the people of Korea and should have always been. And no one believes the US. The US has no credibility. Asks Libya how working with the US worked out. Ask the native americans how treaties with the US worked out... NK currently has “elections” but they are not real. The current NK government has removed many basic freedoms from its people, such as freedom of speech, even among other citizens speaking 1:1. It also has millions of its citizens in what amounts to concentration camps that use forced labor, who were convicted of questionable crimes under questionable circumstances. I can’t imagine how anyone could possibly think this is how the NK people want to live. |
|
|
|
- De-escalation: If some people end up locked in a feud where they're only really giving negative trust to each other in retaliation for negative trust, then one of them should propose burying the hatchet and removing the negative trust. Otherwise it never gets resolved, and everyone is worse-off for it.
Often, one user will give retaliatory negative trust but his ratings are meaningless and he ends up with additional negative trust for “fake ratings”. This is very one sided because one person is effectively trying to defend himself but only ends up with additional negative trust to the extent that he cannot reasonable expect to rebuild his trust score. Some people also criticize certain people (because of a rating they received or otherwise), and end up receiving negative trust for this specific reason. Frankly, I think it is past time to ban a number of people from being on DT (both 1 and 2) permanently, and there are a small group of people who should be banned from appearing on anyone’s trust network unless they are directly trusted by the person, and there is a small handful of people who should be considered to be banned from having their ratings show up by default (and their trust list being considered) under any circumstances. I don’t think it is appropriate to give negative trust for being critical of someone or “slandering” (allegedly or in reality) under nearly any circumstances. Doing this (in response to criticism about you or someone else) should make the person a prime candidate for one of the above types of bans. If you are being criticized, the proper response is to make a well thought out argument, or you can ignore the criticism.
Regarding CH (since this has become another CH thread) — I don’t think negative trust against CH is appropriate. To my knowledge, he hasn’t ever tried to scam anyone, nor has he done anything that would be reasonably consistent with him preparing to try to scam anyone in the future. It is my belief that his siding with scammers is him being critical of the system and not necessarily to help scammers.
|
|
|
|
|
The South Korea defense ministry has said that North Korea has fired a short range missile at 9:06 am local time
|
|
|
|
expressing the opinion that Thule is untrustworthy
IMHO trying to dox someone out of spite also deserves a bright red warning. This is not the type of person you'd want to deal with, particularly if e.g. you need to share personal info (shipping address etc) in the deal. I am glad to know that you believe that anyone who does something you don’t like deserves to be slandered. I didn't mention or imply slandering at all but you're a well-known liar so making such ludicrously false statements is par for the course I guess. And you believe that anyone who does something you don’t like deserves to be doxed so there is a great deal of projection in your statement as well, as usual. You are implying someone should have a “bright red warning” if they do something you don’t like, which is implying they should have negative trust as you have a “bright red warning” when you receive negative trust. Receiving negative trust means that the person is calling you a scammer. Doing something you don’t like doesn’t make you a scammer and as such you are advocating for anyone who does something you don’t like to be slandered. |
|
|
|
expressing the opinion that Thule is untrustworthy
IMHO trying to dox someone out of spite also deserves a bright red warning. This is not the type of person you'd want to deal with, particularly if e.g. you need to share personal info (shipping address etc) in the deal. I am glad to know that you believe that anyone who does something you don’t like deserves to be slandered. |
|
|
|
You're wrong. In a defamation suit the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove the statements made are provably false and resulted in damages by the defendant. Forum members giving their opinion about another member are protected under the First Amendment, because they are just expressing their opinion. Thats is wrong.It depends on the jurisdiction where the DT member lives.In Canada as example you don't need to proof anything. Also proofing that you didn't scammed anyone or even tried to scam anyone wouldn't be difficult where even these DT members confirmed they made the negative feedbacks not for scamming. Giving an opinon is protected by law and free speach correct.But marking a member as scammer is no free speach anymore expecially not when its being displayed on every of his thread. Marking has nothing to do with free speach None of your reviews claim that you scammed, or tried to scam. They express the opinion of the reviewer, that you are an unhinged internet troll, which (in their opinion) makes you untrustworthy. None of that is defamatory because it cannot be proven false. But claiming suchmoon scammed another member is defamatory; because it was an obvious lie intended to damage the reputation of suchmoon. Do you see the difference? leaving a negative rating in itself is calling the person a scammer. Read the description of a negative rating on a trust page. |
|
|
|
What warning box are you referring to? Edit: if you are referring to the box seen by guests when the OP has net negative trust, this is really not new because the description of a negative rating says the person is a scammer. In reality, anyone leaving a negative rating could potentially be liable for libel, however damage to ones reputation is likely going to be small for someone who isn’t on DT. Most people on DT are likely to have little assets and it would be fairly expensive to even find their identity if someone tried to sue them. Edit2: someone leaving negative trust without “full proof” will not necessarily cause liability, the threshold is if the person is actually a scammer or not. Although having “full proof” is a very good way to avoid liability. Nobody has the power to put himself on DT. Let's assume you're right, and DT members are indeed liable for their feedback. Doesn't that mean the users who voted someone onto DT are liable as well?
Read the rest of my above post. Having someone on your trust list is saying “you should listen to this persons ratings” so a court may find liability. This is only in theory. Edit2: the stipulation that the reviewer *strongly believes* the person to be a scammer may provide some protection but this is not absolute |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
