If a scammer posts on someone else's thread then the creator of that thread or anybody else can post a warning.
ok maybe i should have explained my concern a bit more. 1- a scammer starts a locked thread selling gift cards. 2- uses a sockpuppet to comment saying he sells the same gift cards maybe at cheaper rate and posts his email/telegram contact. 3- another sockpuppet to vouch for the previous sockpuppet. 4- another sockpuppet to confirm the scam warning about OP and vouch for the first sockpuppet. This is just one of many other scenarios, i am all about optimism but i can't ignore the fact this move alone won't help newbie visitors the way we expect. you know scammers don't rest, it's pretty obvious that this will be their next strategy, so in order for us to keep fighting them, surfing topics alone will not be enough, we now have to dig into every reply. @sandy has got a lot of work to do now since this was her idea  What you describe would be off topic. You should report those posts and they should be deleted. |
|
|
|
Here's what it looks like:  It might be a good idea to translate this to the local language when this is displayed in one of the local subs. edit: it appears there are many marketplace subs in the local sections that do not have trust displayed. |
|
|
|
I received the following email from bitfinex, and would like to share it with the crypto community: Dear Bitfinex trader,
By now, you may be aware of the events of the last 48 hours, but I want to personally give you an update on what has happened and how we are proceeding as a business.
On Wednesday, April 24th, the New York Attorney General’s office filed a petition and related documents in the NY State Supreme Court in Manhattan concerning Bitfinex and Tether. We believe the petition was based on understandings and materials received by the New York Attorney General’s office both from us and from other sources. Indeed, we had, until just yesterday, been co-operating fully with the New York authorities in their inquiries into and about our business. The petition and other materials were filed without notice to us or a chance to respond to them.
The materials, which do not constitute a civil or criminal complaint are, in our view, filled with inaccuracies and false assertions. In particular, we want to assure you that the allegation that we have “lost” $850 million is categorically false. We have been advised that these amounts – whether in whole or in substantial part – are, in fact, seized and safeguarded in several jurisdictions, including Poland, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We are actively working to exercise our rights and remedies to cause those funds to be released. We are confident in our ability to make clear, coherent, and convincing arguments to recover those funds. And rest assured that we will vigorously challenge the false assertions made by the New York Attorney General’s office in their filing.
I am here to tell you that we are good actors in the digital token space, and we always act with you, the customer, as our first priority. We have always taken our legal obligations very seriously, and will continue to do so. We continue to co-operate with regulators worldwide as they seek to learn more about our business. But we will not allow that spirit of co-operation and goodwill to be used to threaten our customers.
In the days ahead, you may have questions that arise, and we encourage you to share them with me or other members of the senior management team. We will update you as and when we can and we will address as many of your concerns and questions as we can.
We have been humbled and encouraged by the support we have seen from our customers and wider community in the face of these allegations. We are here to assure you we’re as strong as ever, we are not going anywhere, and we’re unwaveringly committed to you.
Thanks and best regards,
Jean Louis van der Velde
CEO |
|
|
|
Vod doesn’t look very good here. There are a number of concerns about him. It looks like Vod may have been using his position as a merit source to highlight businesses that he was is negotiations with to sell advertising space with, this is shady at best and amounts to selling merit at worst. Vod is unwilling to do what is right within the trust system if doing what is right is not beneficial to him. Most bizarrely, according to what OgN posted, Vod thinks of himself as god: Back in the day when I thought of myself as a god (yesterday) I still listened to people and changed my mind from time to time.
I cannot imagine anyone who makes this kind of statement ever being taken seriously. |
|
|
|
|
In order to reverse a F&F PayPal transaction that you actually initiated, my understanding is you will need to lie (possibly under oath) to PayPal, which I don’t recommend doing.
Hopefully this isn’t a lot of money for you and you can use this as a way to teach yourself how to better defend against scammers.
|
|
|
|
|
It looks like the investigations section allows for self moderated threads. I would think the intention would be to make these threads similar to scam accusations in that people are allowed to respond and self moderation is disabled.
|
|
|
|
here is Bitfinexs response. This doesn’t look very good for Bitfinex or tether. The value of the collateral that was securing the line of credit was valued at ~$120mm as of late yesterday after the news broke. This is on a $700mm draw on the line of credit. There are appropriately $2.7 billion tethers outstanding. This means the amount of dollars backing tethers is approximately $0.74 per tether, plus another $0.044 per tether, or a total of about $0.80 per tether (rounding). It isn’t unreasonable to suggest tether makes 3% per year on their bank deposits and charges 3% to withdraw for amounts over $10mm.
|
|
|
|
|
I am glad this got resolved and hope everything is okay with DebitMe.
|
|
|
|
A good example of this happening was CITM who had an outsized trust list that was not kept up with, which resulted in many scammers eventually getting onto DT via him; after some time, it became widely known his trust list was not good, and there became calls for him to be removed from DT1 (IIRC, he was only removed when he gave a frivolous rating to Dogie, which IMO was far too late).
Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=990074.0. CITM was effectively selling DT2 positions as a free perk for buying as little as a USB miner from him. Thanks for this. Despite the problems related to CITM, I think this was a time when the DT system worked best. There was a fairly small amount of controversy and when there was controversy, issues were usually resolved in one way or another after a public discussion. The introduction of trust exclusions gave people an excuse to not remove a controversial (inappropriate) person from their trust list. |
|
|
|
That doesn’t look good.
Sure don't, but it looks like the killer blow was landed by them trusting some other scum bags with most or all of their fiat. It looks like they were a sound operation until that happened. They don't seem to have a very good track record with third parties a la Bitgo and their hack. It seems Tether was solid. Bitfinex's attempts to plug yet another theft screwed it from the bottom up. Maybe that's when they adjusted the terms of its backing to 'nice things' rather than dollars. It looks like they were desperate to be able to transact in fiat and entrusted perhaps all their USD to a random entity. I have long wondered why bitfinex has had such a hard time maintaining banking relationships when other exchanges haven't had this trouble. Maybe it is because they allow for anon accounts. edit: It looks like some of the stolen coins from August 2016 are on the move today: 5c9df0646a32ff8c60e1fccee13e0929763182bb5b1b0b747b1abbff71654120 0b1013f38032dfac774d20e58e55fe803475db0478a41e16e0aded89b537207a b10e4c93bad4141e947e86de8de39835489130be6746e98beeff03a930c4a681 6b8397f26eb9808ff2191c41cbc0465a6fc2c9c33835e97f808ef8a3b8c894da a5c8ba6085677c5c4210d88587d85785670dfd4f04fe476b6cdde8ed2504bf0c 4489c57b17c478ad943b5623db9851abac51d1265482173fc7bfd9cf19bd374e c2f08af89534171f5a0d1ea01318135da66d15a2875b908c2b310e28f342409e 81bf61a1aafebd0399d2234876c392f9afad228c5aae43435c8f049b38f8616d 6d96cc48fff1db0e59d599d537a69bacfb4f9163a4d1702ce106f87cb0fcbf13 c514b630ba448e25749857bd8e0cdf515751df5b88c1847310abcaf39cbc6d7a e49d9872abebf3acd746d084734bda4b7a3184c55df465d31feb377b4f485d86 ac83876a357a96724c400f579587f609414c18943e14127355ee3808078dac4d 7285bf1f63b565be5224a09fba1963ee7489556a9aa2e97d0e133a13510084a8 This could be a good opportunity for the Aug hacker to sell back the coins since bitfinex is in need of money |
|
|
|
I mean, an user has right to know his/her own information.
In the EU, yes. In the US, no. The forum doesn’t recognize EU law. |
|
|
|
I wonder if 2double0 is late on the loan he got from marcotheminer:  I don’t think it is a real loan and there are no public loan terms. The later is probably intentional. |
|
|
|
IMO, the loan activity fairly solidifies the connection, despite the single password change after 2double0 last posted a blockchain linked address, and when Marco last confirmed he controlled it. |
|
|
|
You should only consider enabling this if you've staked a pubkey in the thread and you're sure that your account email is correct Will you consider accepting non-bitcoin signed messages for private keys associated with major (top 5-10 per CMC) altcoins? |
|
|
|
2double0, whom I strongly believe to be an alt of Marco is currently trying to take out a.5 ETH loan now that it would be very awkward for him to take any additional loans from his Marco account. |
|
|
|
. If this happens again I think the ban should be permanent.
I don’t think he was hacked *again* From what I can tell, the OP was hacked in 2018 (or possibly 2017), the hackers posted malware links, not all the malware links were deleted, the OP was banned in 2018, was unbanned later that year, and was banned again just now because a moderator saw the malware links from when he was previously hacked. Yes, I get that. But how can even the first (and most likely only) hack be proven? The best-case scenario is he wasn't responsible to neither secure his account or delete the hacker's posts. Wort-case scenario is the account was never hacked. Presumably whoever unbanned the OPs account was able to reasonably conclude his account was hacked. I would presume that most hackers don’t hack (or try to hack) just one account, so if the IP address and browser fingerprint is consistent with that of other known hacked accounts that are clearly different from the OPs information, you could reasonably say he was hacked. The IP/browser fingerprint would need to be both different from the OP and the same as a hacker. |
|
|
|
. If this happens again I think the ban should be permanent.
I don’t think he was hacked *again* From what I can tell, the OP was hacked in 2018 (or possibly 2017), the hackers posted malware links, not all the malware links were deleted, the OP was banned in 2018, was unbanned later that year, and was banned again just now because a moderator saw the malware links from when he was previously hacked. |
|
|
|
|
Hopefully theymos will unban the OPs account. His old posts with malware should be removed though.
It doesn’t appear Xal0lex was acting in bad faith based on the public information available.
|
|
|
|
The OP claims his account was hacked and that he didn’t post the links in question. Below is a PM he sent me. It appears his account previously hacked and recovered. At least one of the malware links was posted before the OP was previously hacked, so I would presume this was already looked into and the OP cleared, assuming no malware links were posted after his account was recovered. Was it actually you that posted the links? If so, do these links actually contain malware? Or are the VirusTotal reports inaccurate?
Hi, I would suggest that it will be helpful if you answer my question that I posted. Thanks. this link added hacker, all link come to virus, not download that |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
