If the PM was sent from your account then your account does deserve negative trust, regardless of the IP. It's trivial to use another IP so you can't prove it wasn't really you. And even if you account was really compromised then it deserves negative trust because it can be compromised again. I've asked OP to prove the PM is real. If it is then I'll tag you too. If he doesn't prove it after some days you could ask vod to remove the feedback he's left on your profile |
|
|
|
When I clicked on the link it brought me to a Bitcointalk.org login page and asked for my login, however I didnt put anything into it just pressed the backspace to go back to the normal forum. Would this save my info or could it still have been stolen?
If you didn't enter your password there then you should be fine. I tried to shutdown my computer and a weird program was still running that would stop it the shutdown process. Possible malware? If yes, can they still access files after a PC format?
It's not very likely anything got installed just from opening the page. Did you download anything? Did you do anything else at all? But that does look like malware if it stops the shutdown process. If you format the PC you will get rid of everything, but when you restore your files you may re-install whatever you have now. Make sure to have a proper antivirus.
Please report his PM and in the comment ask the moderator to post here confirming the veracity of the PM. Then I'll tag AlexUAE777 to try and stop him. Or you can temporarily allow me or another trusted user to access your account to verify the PM is real |
|
|
|
received a small loan of 0.002 btc, with full account must be sr. member, you just give a positive for me, no need guarantees and I accept the loan only for 3 people, PM me if you are interested trimakasih!
In other words, you're just trying to buy positive feedback/rating, in order to change the status of your account from its current state (not happening). OP, please lock this thread immediately. The link is at the left bottom. If you do I will tag you with a neutral only. If you insist on this you'll be tagged red for trying to farm positive trust |
|
|
|
I wonder why no one ever tags this guy
Because OP hasn't provided any proof at all yet. OP, post at least: - The message were you agreed to deal
- The message were you gave your BTC address to him, and your address as text so we can check it
- Proof of the payment you sent to him
Coinman never answered me until I called paypal and they gave me my money back I recommend not to deal with him because apparently it does not have bitcoin and it's just going to make people lose their time Do post proof so I can add negative trust |
|
|
|
There's also this from LoyceV I'll update it with post titles if Cloudflare once turned off again. At the moment, I can't download from the forum using command line: ERROR 503: Service Temporarily Unavailable. Have you tried using this? https://github.com/Anorov/cloudflare-scrapeIt works fine for me (but I didn't try today, I'm not sure if you mean an additional issue) |
|
|
|
I wonder why no one ever tags this guy
Because OP hasn't provided any proof at all yet. OP, post at least: - The message were you agreed to deal
- The message were you gave your BTC address to him, and your address as text so we can check it
- Proof of the payment you sent to him
|
|
|
|
I've asked vein071315 to post his version here
He's had enough time now. I've tagged him until he replies Clearly he is scammer and not gonna pay me any, but I don't understand why admins wouldn't give me his e-mail / IP? Can't see any reason why scammer should be protected by anyhow. I understand now that you don't have any info on users, but head-admins surely must have this information and I hope they can share it to me.
Admins normally don't do that. Besides it's not 100% sure yet he scammed you
Edit: How naive you can be.  Learn the difference between "most probably" and "100%" |
|
|
|
The payment was sent and received (although 0.01897729 BTC after fees): https://blockchain.info/tx/e69668b4065d04877adb90ca11ef0ad6b0483ab254c601ad394be67f70455a80and it was already moved to another address. I've asked vein071315 to post his version here. OP, please post more proof, for example: - The thread, PM or message where you agreed the exchange, the amounts, and he gave you that BTC address (edit: I see you've just added this)
- Some proof that shows you didn't received the Skrill payment into the account you gave to him
|
|
|
|
TaggedBesides that user is almost certainly laundering money
|
|
|
|
I had this issue hundreds of times. whenever I reply to a thread I found that the person is no more online but status keeps showing that green sign(Online status) for quite long time. It should be in real time.
You need to better understand what "online" on a regular website is. Any user interacts with this forum (and therefore the forum knows he's still there) only when a link is clicked. The forum then sends the newly requested page and logs the activity. Then the user reads the page for several minutes without asking for a new one. The forum doesn't have any idea whether the user is still there reading or if he already went to another site or closed the browser. The best it can do is "guesstimate" the user is there for about 15 minutes. So it marks the user as offline after 15 minutes of the last interaction. For the online status to be "real time" a background (jQuery or similar) process would have to be querying the forum all the time, and it would need to keep updating the DB all the time. What a waste of bandwidth and mainly server's processing power! The best you can do is check the user's "Last Active" time rather than the Online status and draw your own conclusions. |
|
|
|
AccsBuySell has granted me access to his account (thanks). I've verified these PMs:   I've tagged M4cca and cryptomite |
|
|
|
Did you post the address anywhere? Ones in profiles likely won't be accepted.
I see it was posted here in July 2016 ( archived): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1545749.msg15553952#msg15553952Ones in profiles likely won't be accepted.
I know posting an address only in the profile is the worst idea as a hacker can easily remove it. But if the address is still there like in this case I don't see why it shouldn't be accepted. |
|
|
|
I think its enough to pay for what I have done before. Sorry for my mistakes
What did you do? In the feedback you left to Lauda you said you didn't post on ICO thread to spam or bump for a service, and that the accusation was false. What exactly are you apologizing for? Sorry I forgot to remove the negative feedback I've given to him (removing it now after this reply). I admit that I posted on some ANN threads of projects from telegram channel offers but I have no bad intentions or even to scam. So you recognize you blatantly lied in the feedback you initially left? I truly believe in second chances but thirds are another deal. You promoted ICOs without caring whether they're scams and you blatantly lied. I wouldn't recommend Lauda to remove this negative trust. I may add one myself if he does. |
|
|
|
I had been trying to send GBB to a different address however I got the next message: Could hardly send transaction: Too many communications, try delivering a smaller amount.
what can be issue
See "Why can't I send a certain amount of blackbytes" here. As the message clearly says, try delivering a smaller amount. Make several smaller transfers or send different amounts. |
|
|
|
|
At least the source is in OP now but he originally didn't have any intentions to disclose the source. He wanted to get some merits by misleading others into believing he wrote that himself.
|
|
|
|
|
Trump ya había prohibido a los ciudadanos y empresas de EEUU hacer negocios con Venezuela. Comprar o negociar con Petros es negociar con Venezuela así que claramente ya estaba prohibido.
Esta última prohibición explícita sólo elimina cualquier duda que alguien podía tener.
Claramente la razón de la pobreza extrema y del sufrimiento de los venezolanos se debe a las decisiones criminales de Maduro, pero estas prohibiciones internacionales empeoran la situación para ellos.
Ojalá que pronto Maduro no pueda sostenerse más y renuncie o lo echen, así estas presiones habrán valido la pena.
|
|
|
|
I think its enough to pay for what I have done before. Sorry for my mistakes
What did you do? In the feedback you left to Lauda you said you didn't post on ICO thread to spam or bump for a service, and that the accusation was false. What exactly are you apologizing for? |
|
|
|
Removing the ability to unlock threads would allow them only 1 bump before they had to lock it, however.. The scammers would then have to create a new thread and quickly lock it every time they wanted to bump. This would circumvent our new limitations and create more spam.
You're right, that would be a problem. There could be rules for newbies and jr. members to prevent them from creating a new thread after several days they've locked one, but that would probably bee too complex. I think the ability to delete a thread would suffice for what you want?
Yes, I guess. But considering only moderators can delete threads (I mean the whole thread and OP, not only a single post) then I think it's too much to ask to allow newbies to delete their threads. Besides it can delete other's warnings and important information. |
|
|
|
TaggedEdit: ... and unsurprisingly I got fake retaliation trust 
|
|
|
|
I can agree that some arguments/threads against Og have perhaps been taken too far, however I don't see owlcatz being at fault whatsoever in this case.
I agree. Both of them have taken things too far several times. In this particular case I see OgNasty is in the wrong, unless I just don't understand something Did you just agree with yourself? Sorry, wrong quote. I meant to quote this, agreeing with minifrij on that: It really seems both OgNasty and owlcatz are just looking for ways to accuse each other for anything at all, regardless of how little sense it makes
I can agree that some arguments/threads against Og have perhaps been taken too far, however I don't see owlcatz being at fault whatsoever in this case.
Nope. I turned over the information I was given about the Telegram scammer to Telegram and advised they file a police report. This was the proper action to take, right?
Yes, absolutely. I at no point said owlcatz WAS the telegram scammer or that I turned over any information about him. That is a jump he made for himself after an alleged conversation with some unknown and what I referenced as a Freudian slip of the keyboard.
It seems a lot of people made bad assumptions here, including owlcatz, minifrij, you and me. Talking (writing) clearly solves those wrong assumptions. Can you clear up this please? - Did you point Michael to owlcatz as he said on this screenshot? Do you have any idea why he said that? Or was he lying? This is very important at it seems to be the base to owlcatz (an partially minifrij -it seems- and me) wrongly assuming you said owlcatz was the telegram scammer
- Do you recognize there's a chance you're wrong at assuming owlcatz seemingly admitted to being the scammer?
- Do you recognize there's a chance minifrij made the wrong assumption in good faith and not to "spread lies"? Does making any wrong assumption deserve negative trust?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
