ScenarioSomeone has a problem with a wallet, comes to Bitcointalk, creates an account, asks a question, and gets a solution. Great! A happy new user for the forum, and another happy Bitcoin user, which adds to Bitcoin's popularity. Reality (2 days ago) Someone has a problem with a wallet, comes to Bitcointalk, creates an account, asks a question, gets "help" by PM from someone who asks him to enter some code into Electrum, enter his password (and I quote: "(NEVER share this password with anybody)"), and gets scammed out of $30,000. Another clueless naive new user bites the dust, the forum loses a new user, and Bitcoin loses a potential user forever.
How can we prevent this? Wallets aren't always easy, not all Bitcoin users are tech savvy, scammers are smart and creative, and if we want Bitcoin(talk) to grow in the right direction, these things kinda just shouldn't happen at all. I know that's utopia, and we can't prevent all scams from happening, but we could do more than this, right? What would work? Disable receiving PMs? If they can't PM, they'll post their email address so that doesn't help. More warnings for new users? A warning PM for every few first posts they make?
I'm not sure if this topic is going to help, but I had to get it off my chest.
|
|
|
|
I'm not voting for several reason: - If marlboroza doesn't want to be on DT1, why would we force him?
- There's absolutely no point being on DT1 if a user has no custom trust list.
- His (great) scam busting can continue on DT2, which is where he is now.
- One of his reasons for wanting to leave DT1 was the drama around it, this poll isn't helping.
|
|
|
|
Frozen Storage BIP Lockdown Mode BIPDescription : An idea regarding "cold" address type with ability to prevent coins stealing. There are lots of flaws, but we can tell there's effort on it. Category : share technical improvement/upgrade Section : Development & Technical Discussion Lots of flaws is an understatement  It goes against many things Bitcoin stands for. But it's a new user who isn't a spammer, so I've merited him. I've also merited the second post in that thread: "hard fork can correct the issue by"
WTF I'm afraid meriting this post can be confused with endorsing it. It deserves Merit as it's clearly not a spammer, but I'm paranoid on trusting unknown software for creating private keys. |
|
|
|
Errr...on side note, you might want to PM klintay, I see some strange DT negative on your trust wall. While we're on the subject: I noticed that too. klintay is included by Dabs. For future reference: he left red trust " busy body who worries more about other people than himself. stay in your lane! " with a Reference link to this post. I don't think this is appropriate use of red trust. I'm hoping he'll see his wrong and remove it, or maybe Dabs excludes him. I'm not instantly excluding him, but I will if this doesn't get resolved soon. |
|
|
|
0100000001d393bd9ec0ae669023ed698a6779fc76a9ec896cee18c9b1ff5a4aeefd2022c200000 0001976a9149cbb4f2710d94e57fb30cf4a65b7f721f3091f0f88acffffffff01e040ef2b000000 001976a91406af5a334371ee5eaf7f2efbc6551b155581954f88ac00000000 https://coinb.in/#verify brings me to this 7.37 BTC transaction. So my guess is: He knew which addresses were yours, then he sent you a raw unsigned transaction. You signed it, broadcasted it, and gave $30k away 
It's too late for you, but as a general warning: you should never execute any code you don't understand on your computer!
The number of people keeping tens of thousands of dollars in an Electrum hot wallet also surprises me. Those wallets are just waiting to get scammed!
Following the money, it ended up here, here, and here. Together with other inputs, it's now spread out over many addresses holding exactly 0.256 BTC. The money is probably mixed by ChipMixer, and you'll never find it back  All that's left for you is to provide evidence that Coolserver.host is behind it, but considering he's a Newbie, that account has no value to him anyway. |
|
|
|
I'm not a collector, but a Bitcointalk coin somehow sounds very attractive. Until now I haven't even joined any of the many giveaways because I don't want to dox myself, but I might have to reconsider for this anniversary edition. I’d also be willing to offer my engraving services, but am not sure that private keys known by an individual would be a great idea. BIP38 can limit the risk, if only the receiver knows the password and the encrypted key gets engraved. |
|
|
|
Maybe theymos can enable this (again?) since long page of texts isn't much of a resource hog. Wall Observer disagrees Clearly, there should be a limit, but I too often miss this feature for long threads. "Show all" is so convenient to CTRL-F something. I usually end up scraping the thread (or someone's post history) to search the raw text. Update: it won't give you a printer-friendly format, but I made this for searching big threads: "Show All" on long topics. |
|
|
|
What do you think about splitting the scam rating, with a "warning" rating for scammed previously OR you strongly believe that they will scam in the future, and a "scammer" rating for scammed previously AND you strongly believe that they will scam in the future? I'm trying to decide which rating I would have used for my past ratings, and I think this leaves a large gray area. A new user who posts this for example hasn't scammed anyone, although I'm certain it's just the next alt-account made by a scammer, and it's obviously a scam waiting to happen. But technically he hasn't "scammed previously" until a victim shows up. A few DTs tag account sellers/buyers, I'm curious if they'd use the lesser warning for this if it's possible.
I wouldn't mind getting more feedback (pun intended) on the feedback I've left. I think I'm doing the right thing, but some feedback from upper management wouldn't hurt. |
|
|
|
Did BPIP stop updating modlog-data? This user for instance had many posts deleted, but BPIP only shows 1 deleted post. |
|
|
|
I hope other scammers will also appeal their case using this as an example,  I tag scammers, no worries there. But I don't think Apriand is a scammer: I was busy that time, and need money to pay my loan with Parodium. Then someone call me in telegram (he is from my country) to help me. He give me little money to pay back my loan but he want that account under his control for a month. He made a dumb choice that screwed him over big time, but he did it to pay back his loan. That doesn't sound like a scammer to me. So its okay to sell the account on financial needs  According to forum rules: yes, but it's "frowned upon". I don't think frowning justifies red trust in all cases. |
|
|
|
Hasbro might be interested that their brand is used illegally for making money. I've notified them already. |
|
|
|
But for this case, the owner of the account is self-admitted account seller. He's been punished for that by losing access to his account for several months. but i think this guy made a great mistake by giving someone access to his account. I'm hoping he learned his lesson. I'm all for second chances. |
|
|
|
Surprisingly DTs are removing their feedback also. That is what I said I would do: I'll leave red trust on the account, which I'll remove when either the real owner signs a message to prove he regained control, or when the account buyer can sign a message proving he bought the private key to the staked address with the account.
Reminder to myself: when removing the red trust, I'll leave neutral trust as a reminder the account was temporarily under someone else's control. The forum's recovery team decided to recover the account for the owner. I see no reason to go against that. I think our DT members should reconsider this matter before removing their red tag from that account. My red tags are reserved for scammers. |
|
|
|
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I'm Apriand from bitcointalk.org. Today is February 19, 2019.
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1GwqXVkMYGqGwcEdr3eqNoXnWHEbjdqCL4
H2on1bRDTCNGfx/snNW+/A7aT/SYHK4c74yb2wUSGpl0alsQPjYu6lIFaqlmDbHiPBkATot16n1QRmPOZnUCmPw=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- Confirmed! Welcome back  I've left a neutral tag as reference. You may want to remove all posts that you didn't make, so you won't get banned for plagiarism later on. |
|
|
|
|
Investor Stats: Bankroll: 12.06665726 BTC.
Right after the ICO, BetKing wanted to have the highest max profit per bet from all online Bitcoin casinos. It looks like the bankroll now comes from investors only.
|
|
|
|
Stats haven't been updated for a while, and the averages are all-time averages. Basically, it's wrong. To give a more accurate example: Yesterday (Dutch time) 17905 posts were created by 6112 users. I might have missed a few users, I failed scraping 13 of those posts, but the result is pretty accurate. This number doesn't include online users who read but didn't post. To answer your question: Bitcointalk isn't dying.
|
|
|
|
I was wondering how your algorithm considers who is scratching the back of whom? Which member to put first? Is there a ordering of merits that causes which member goes first on the backscratcher list? The newest account is mentioned first. Also, if the "alleged" backscratching member waits a week or two to merit scratch the back of the other member, it should still be caught in the algorithm, right? It's the result of all Merits ever sent between 2 users. It doesn't matter when it happened. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
