They came with the name first, that's it. Or do you object "bitcointalk" as well? Aren't we allowed to talk about bitcoins anywhere but on this forum?

Any plan to send a confirmation message to new members by email and confirm reception of coins?

Isn't that thread about you? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110435.0

I have received the rest of my principal (thus making this a 0% loan for 8.5 weeks) today (~24 BTC received).

For completeness, I must add that this happened after three personal messages from me to HashKing received no answers from him (I tried to settle his debt in a civil way). This may be a coincidence, as he told me today I was next in line anyway, but I received my coins back right after I informed him about the criminal charges (theft) I have filed against him. I will not pursue this path since the issue is now moot.

In case it helps others know where they stand, my deposit was number 516, made on July 27 for 8 weeks at 1.9%/week.

Case closed as far as I am concerned.

Confirmed, thanks!

You forgot to add "and if this trader uses the same method as you did before, you may now be the target of a chargeback by someone you didn't even know existed, because it is not the trader you're sending the digital product to who is sending you money via paypal and is now attempting to defraud you".

Nice scam.

Dank, is that you?

You are hereby assuming that Nefario has no other permission to release Alberto's documents and received them in the scope of GLBSE with no extra permission, so GLBSE TOS must apply. This may be the case, but this may also not be. Only Nefario, Alberto and possible witnesses know in which context and under what conditions this documents transmission took place and what rules govern their release.

I'd buy a block of 100 shares at 0.135 BTC per share by private transfer (you pay the transfer fee) if I get a proposal within 24 hours. Even with the fee (0.2% of the 5 days average trade price), this is still above the NAV and thus should help it get up if those are sold by the fund owners.

I haven't been luckier with this one.

I had a look at LinkedIn to check if the "lead engineer in Paris" happens to be a former student of mine, but I could not find anyone listing "Butterfly Labs" or "ButterflyLabs" as their company. Do they run by another name?

Please go ahead. Go through the bitcoins in your own wallet, and check to see if any bit of them relates to the various thefts related on the forum (you can find the transaction id in many cases). Note it can take a long time doing so, as it will require that you go up the transaction chain (each transaction having one or more inputs) until you hit either the coinbase (zero input) or a transaction that uses stolen funds.

By doing so, you should get an idea of the work it represents to do that for every transaction. And maybe you will identify some stolen satoshis (if that ever makes sense in a fungible currency) in some of your wallet inputs, and you will throw those transactions away to avoid using stolen funds.

Oh, and you haven't considered this case: S come from stolen funds, C are clean funds, S+C are sent in one transaction as T (the sender does not have the same blacklist as you do) and thus tainted flagged by your client, so T is sent back (because you can no longer distinguish S from C since those outputs are now spent) as U, and now U is unusable as well because it got tainted by S. As a result, now more funds are marked as unusable by you and those using the same blacklist.

Chances are that f you do the test with your wallet and all the known stolen funds, you will throw away (or at least refuse to use)) your whole wallet.

Blocking the coins makes no sense in many scenarios:

• If the coins are reused before being signaled as stolen, an innocent person will suffer from having received worthless coins before it was known that they were worthless. And you cannot distinguish between coins having been moved by the thief in his own wallet from coins having been used to pay a service or a good, so as soon as the coins have been moved, you can no longer blacklist them.
• If the coins have been sent through a mixer, then you will now blacklist any output which contains even one satoshi from the stolen coins.
• You can attack someone by convincing people that 1 BTC mixed with their 10,000 BTC has been stolen, thus rendering the whole 10,000 BTC worthless.

Can't you see the dozens of way your proposal could go wrong?

I can see why people hoarding lots of bitcoins do not want to check the exact status of what they own. If, for example, bitcoins are deemed worthless by a US judge, those persons have a lot to lose if they are not able to sell their "fortune" before the panic starts. This is precisely why even people who lost a lot of money with pirateat40 still haven't sued him.

However, small bitcoin owners and newcomers have a real interest in having the status of bitcoins tested and clarified before they buy more bitcoins. But since those people also have lost nothing or not much in the various scams, because they had less to invest to begin with, they are unlikely to press charges.

Having the status of bitcoins clarified in a major country could seal the destiny, good or bad, of bitcoin as a currency. However, it looks like people with large bitcoin wallets are not confident enough that the outcome would be pleasant

As far as I am concerned, the scammer tag would be most useful to warn people about not sending money to this now dead scam. Contrary to most scams, those do not require that you register prior to being scammed, everything is automated, so newcomers are at risk, as are unregistered people.

If the moderators were to obfuscate the addresses to send the bitcoins to in the first post of the three running scam threads (lottery, invest, poker fund), it would even be more useful than putting the scammer tag on the account.

Why don't you just look at the first post of this very thread and look at the list? You'll see that Victor still takes care of 1718.96 BTC, and you will even get the list of people that trust Victor enough not to have withdrawn their funds yet. You will also have the list of people that have successfully dealt with Victor in the past, as well as the amount withdrawn and the corresponding dates.

Micon, in case you have not noticed, this board is not write-only, you are allowed to read before you write.

Please give him the scammer tag as soon as possible. The sending address for supposedly automated rewards is still published as the first post in every thread, which means he may still be receiving money from this.

Also, providing any connection info about this individual would help identifying him.

It would make more sense IMO to rename "electrum" into "electrum.py" and "lib/" to "electrum/". The main executable can be renamed to "electrum" while installing it.

Maybe you should adopt the same terminology and branch naming as most software around here:

• the "master" branch always compile, but is not well tested enough to be deemed stable for everyday use
• release branches are created from time to time from the master branch when developers think master is stable enough; they are thoroughly tested; when a point fix for a release (maybe leading to a minor release) is committed into the release branch, this branch is then merged immediately into the master branch to acquire the fix there as well, or to make git record that the fix is not needed in the master branch so that it doesn't propose to merge it again later
• feature branches are used to develop features that might temporarily break working code or that are unfinished, and those are merged into the master branch when they are ready to be tested

Sticking to this well-known scheme also helps you test the new features once they are incorporated into the master branch, as, for example, some ArchLinux users will install "electrum-git" instead of "electrum". By doing so, they acknowledge that they want to use the current development version with a certain possibility of breakage, and will allow you to fix bugs before they go into a release.

You should have a look at git flow, which is both a model and a tool. It helps developing software in a collaborative way and sticks to the above-described invariants (master contains all the fixes from release branches and always compiles, releases aren't touched except for fixing bugs leading to minor releases, feature branches allow early testing of potentially breaking or bad changes).

So why did you?