Says who, you? So now you are not only the king of freezing accounts, but also of what is acceptable on BTT?
BTT stands for BitcoinTrashTalk, it's pretty common knowledge. After you get Legendary badge you'll get it. Ah man, you left out the best part in your quote. Kids: Don’t drink the Kool-Aid
@David you are right, as far as I'm concerned this is done. |
|
|
|
Please try to act like a professional and stop making remarks like 'don't give up that quick', it's childish. It's acceptable on BTT, contact me via other means to get professional attitude. PMs will work.
Says who, you? So now you are not only the king of freezing accounts, but also of what is acceptable on BTT? Kids: Don’t drink the Kool-Aid Or do you have some additional information on CH's account that makes this impossible? I do.
Want to elaborate on that? |
|
|
|
|
So can we please move along now?
|
|
|
|
It is not about CH taking the btc, it's about the solution.
I think Davids solution is certainly a way to correct this. But I don't agree.
Why: because it is impossible for a third party to be 100% sure it is CH's account.
Without the solution it's 100% sure many people will get scammed. With the solution there's 0.1%* chance someone will get scammed. __________ * If we estimate the chance CH didn't sell the seed is 99.9% Two wrongs don't make a right. It's impossible for you to be 100% sure there are two wrongs unless you are CH or bought his seed. Your logic is flawed. Are you implying giving the stolen tokens to those who paid for them but were scammed is wrong? No, let me break it down in little pieces for you: Two wrongs: 1. it is impossible for a third party to be 100% sure it is CH's account. 2. 0.1% chance someone ELSE will get scammed (which is a random number you made up, but let's keep this in for the sake of argument) Hence the saying: Two wrongs don't make a right. Get it? |
|
|
|
It is not about CH taking the btc, it's about the solution.
I think Davids solution is certainly a way to correct this. But I don't agree.
Why: because it is impossible for a third party to be 100% sure it is CH's account.
Without the solution it's 100% sure many people will get scammed. With the solution there's 0.1%* chance someone will get scammed. __________ * If we estimate the chance CH didn't sell the seed is 99.9% Two wrongs don't make a right. It's impossible for you to be 100% sure there are two wrongs unless you are CH or bought his seed. Your logic is flawed, please rethink your comment. |
|
|
|
It is not about CH taking the btc, it's about the solution.
I think Davids solution is certainly a way to correct this. But I don't agree.
Why: because it is impossible for a third party to be 100% sure it is CH's account.
Without the solution it's 100% sure many people will get scammed. With the solution there's 0.1%* chance someone will get scammed. __________ * If we estimate the chance CH didn't sell the seed is 99.9% Two wrongs don't make a right. |
|
|
|
Please, I am disappointed in the 'suspect trolling' argument.
Ofcourse he can sell the account + seed, why not, this deal could be made without your knowledge.
But since I am the only one that is concerned about this, I will leave it at that.
Don't give up that quick. Explain how he could sell the seed if he is obliged to send iotas from that seed? Assuming he is not going to scam his customers. Please try to act like a professional and stop making remarks like 'don't give up that quick', it's childish. I am a customer who purchased software from a company you work for. You can sell a password/ seed/ private key whatever. No problem. Or do you have some additional information on CH's account that makes this impossible? |
|
|
|
@iotatoken has made a final decision, awesome everyone should appreciate there a lot of tasks to be done so lets move on. I agree @litcoin collector seems to be the only one still defending CH but i am done with hearing this name, there is a matter of days until launch and I am looking forward to see what awesome work has been done by the iota team ..
Since you are posting my name, I ofcourse am obliged to react. I am not defending anyone. I am only interested in the facts: yes CH is gone and took a lot of btc. It is not about CH taking the btc, it's about the solution. I think Davids solution is certainly a way to correct this. But I don't agree. Why: because it is impossible for a third party to be 100% sure it is CH's account. Again I am the only one with this concern so let's leave it at this and focus on Iota Launch. |
|
|
|
Also: How is leaving your purse on the streets and actively sending money to a complete stranger the same thing?
agreed, it was not the best analogy. It just goes against my sense of justice that it's not scamming when I want to buy something (from a stranger or not) and he keeps my money and runs away. I'll drop out of the discussion. Please try to answer the question: How is leaving your purse on the streets and actively sending money to a complete stranger the same thing? Your personal opinion/ sense of justice doesn't matter when it come to the Law. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_by_finding. Jeez, it's not the same thing, that's why it's an analogy.  And thank you for the article, it tells me that theft by finding is a crime in some jurisdictions if the subject did not take reasonable steps to locate the owner. And in the jurisdiction of my country, it's a crime if a seller does not honor his part of a purchasing contract. I think you made your point clear, you think that someone who stole money is not a scammer, thank you. As I said, I expressed my concerns but I seem to be the only one here. And No I don't think someone who steals is not a scammer/thieve. But let's focus on the Iota launch, and agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
I see you are strengthening your arguments by using memes...
I hate repeating myself but here goes:
You can't be sure 100% that the account is still in his possession, unless you are the owner of the account.
I use meme when I suspect that someone is trolling. Here is why I'm 100% sure that account is still in his posession: 1. He told me it's his account 2. He has several obligations pending, hence he couldn't sell the seed to that account Any flaw in this logic? Please, I am disappointed in the 'suspect trolling' argument. Ofcourse he can sell the account + seed, why not, this deal could be made without your knowledge. But since I am the only one that is concerned about this, I will leave it at that. |
|
|
|
If you can't win an argument don't be a sour loser and make in personal.
You just can't be sure 100% that the account is still in his possession, unless you are the owner of the account.
CH said he will keep some iotas for himself. CH told me his account. So, why I can't be sure? <Willy Wonka meme> I see you are strengthening your arguments by using memes... I hate repeating myself but here goes: You can't be sure 100% that the account is still in his possession, unless you are the owner of the account. |
|
|
|
Also: How is leaving your purse on the streets and actively sending money to a complete stranger the same thing?
agreed, it was not the best analogy. It just goes against my sense of justice that it's not scamming when I want to buy something (from a stranger or not) and he keeps my money and runs away. I'll drop out of the discussion. Please try to answer the question: How is leaving your purse on the streets and actively sending money to a complete stranger the same thing? Your personal opinion/ sense of justice doesn't matter when it come to the Law. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_by_finding. |
|
|
|
Hehe, you defend CH so furiously like he is your younger brother. Tell him his account is frozen and he should come here to sort out the issue before the 10th of July. If you can't win an argument don't be a sour loser and make in personal. You just can't be sure 100% that the account is still in his possession, unless you are the owner of the account. |
|
|
|
Imo no scamming took place: sending btc to a random, unnown, drunk on the internet is just stupid.
Sending btc to a random, unnown drunk on the internet and being warned multiple times is just retarded.
If you leave your purse on the street it's not stealing if someone takes it? No, that depends. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_by_findingAlso: How is leaving your purse on the streets and actively sending money to a complete stranger the same thing? |
|
|
|
Decentralisation is a big part of Iota as well, for security and transparancy reasons. If not why not just centralise?
Not yet. IOTA is quite centralized at the moment, and that's a good thing at this stage. It didn't launch yet, so the devs are free to freeze a scammers account. Ofcourse, since there is no official network yet. But I am talking about the general vision on decentralisation. If decentralisation would not matter why not use a centralised system. These system have proven to work, on the insuring both parties part. (creditcard companies, banks) |
|
|
|
It is kind of on topic because this centralised action could effect the Iota price. Imo no scamming took place: sending btc to a random, unnown, drunk on the internet is just stupid. Sending btc to a random, unnown drunk on the internet and being warned multiple times is just retarded. Imo in crypto we are trying to create transparancy, taking back control, for instance by not paying too much for electricity, monitoring and securing your own data etc. Decentralisation is a big part of Iota as well, for security and transparancy reasons. If not why not just centralise? Absolute power by an individual is not the way to go imo. But you made your descision, and since Iota will be decentralised after launch and data can't be altered anymore without consensus, this will be my last remark on the matter. @CFB I highly recommend getting CK's seed if possible. I HOPE he's not a scammer but I feel he is.
How can I get his seed? Since you brought this up and you are freezing Child_Harolds account, how did you get his seed? And how do you know it's his? |
|
|
|
|
How many coins will be distributed
Premine
Pow/Pos
Roadmap
|
|
|
|
In my country a judge discides if a crime has been committed.
How does the police decide if they should put handcuffs on someone in the first place? I bet a judge is not involved. We have the trias politica. Police enforce laws made by the government. They don't descide if an actual crime was committed because everybody is innocent until proven guilty, this is where the judge come in to play to descide if the alledged crime is in fact a crime. This is to prevent an absolute authoroty. |
|
|
|
Why would you freeze the account in the first place, just let it between the police and the ftards that send their bitcoin to a random dude on the interweb.
I don't know laws of your country of residence, but in my country I have the right to stop a crime if I have reasons to think a crime is happening. Even more, I get extra protection from the law in this case. So I took an active position in this very case by providing technical assistance to the company which sold iotas. You guys have made up your mind, which is your perogative since it is your project. I wanted to express my concerns and opinion on the matter and possible problems that could emerge out of this action. In my country a judge discides if a crime has been committed. |
|
|
|
How would he proove he is not CH?
It's a business between him and the police. Why would you freeze the account in the first place, just let it between the police and the ftards that send their bitcoin to a random dude on the interweb. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
