Hello,
WeExchange had an unusual issue with Bitcoind being connected to peers and not accepting updates.
This basically left it isolated and was not getting new block data or passing withdraws into the network.
Was this an attack? No. It only connects to a set of peers that we specify. The peers were not at fault.
A system was setup to monitor for block desync and correct for it and notify someone.
Has WeExchange been hacked? No
Are all the funds in the hot/cold wallet safe? Yes
The same Bitcoin TXN id's that were given to users at time of withdraw (And is available by clicking the withdraw details button),
which never appeared in the network have now appeared.
I apologize for this interruption, and it will be monitored.
I haven't come across a single person who has had anything positive to say about WeExchange and I've spoken to numerous people who have flat out refused to create an account. It's time to realise that the baby is dead and remove it from you teat. It's just damaging your credibility at this point. |
|
|
|
That was a totally seperate payment, not for a mining package. That 0.25 was from Mining United in response to a forum post. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=189872.20 Post #26. This was when he was questioned about gambling on Satoshidice. Ok, the reason for that payment checks outs and the times do match up. Again, not really. There are some small transfers in my wallet. For a while I was doing the bitcoin faucets, and I did receive another bonus on 5-11-13 from Mining United for another forum post, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=201778.msg2106728#msg2106728 Post # 4. Payment was 0.0125, and also paid for a Mining United Premium Membership, 0.3 bitcoins on 5-11-13. Made a sale on Bitcointalk forum, 0.4 bitcoins on 5-18-13, and finally spent 0.32403 on Bitmit on 5-18-13. Those payments are irrelevant to what MiningUnited would owe you. Actually, I never got paid for 4 packages. A 0.25 on 5-8-13, a 0.05 on 5-8-13, a 0.05 on 5-11-13, and a 0.05 on 5-12-13. Why I got a full 1 BTC, I don't know.
As you said the last official payment for service was at 2013-05-04 16:03:55. Here's the list of payment you've made from the address, 1PSnLUwMqAa6qXb9XkMcFekAsntJbHwNNx. As you can see, that next service you bought was paid for at 2013-05-08 03:55:47 for 0.25 BTC, then 2013-05-08 03:57:02 for 0.05 BTC, the only other possible payments you could have made to MiningUnited were the 2 for 0.05 BTC to address 1Q8wC2Z2CkqMB6h9LwXVnKpnsWv9G3DiX8. By using your payment address and checking your position in MiningUnited's queue, we can see that your orders number were 2730 for 0.25, 2734 for 0.5. That's the 2 known unpaid orders. The next orders are 3114 and 3135. If we check the address of order 3134, which is 1NZkyjA8qhsxAPRegZCNCJYrUkJHYenHfe, then there should be a 0.05 payment to 1Q8wC2Z2CkqMB6h9LwXVnKpnsWv9G3DiX8 just before your last one at 2013-05-12 13:51:15. There was no such payment. Even if there was such a payment, that would mean that you had 0.4 BTC in orders not yet paid out. So, why would you get 1 BTC? The facts speak for themselves. |
|
|
|
It seems extremely likely to me. - They joined the forum to post about MiningUnited.
- They tried to discourage people from contacting the feds.
- They received a 1 BTC payment after the site closed, yet the blockchain shows they were only owed 0.05 BTC.
- The MiningUnited payout page showed that same address as having 0.4 BTC unpaid, yet the blockchain no such transaction for them.
- After making the allegation against Blueblade, a new use registered to claim that they were owed 0.2 BTC. That user received a pyou from CoinAd in the same transation as which Blueblade did.
Here's the thread, for those who haven't seen it yet. |
|
|
|
Not only did BitBet rip off its users, it also ripped off the creator of the bet as seen here. |
|
|
|
Blueblade, you're full of crap. You can see here that you send 0.25 BTC and here you can see that you recieve 0.2811 BTC. Again, you send 0.25 BTC as shown here and then send another 0.05 as shown here. You then recieve 0.25 BTC as shown here. They're the only transfers to and from your address, 1PSnLUwMqAa6qXb9XkMcFekAsntJbHwNNx (excluding that final 1 BTC). That would mean you never received a return for that 0.05 payment and the last payment you received was the same amount as what you sent. So why would you receive 1 BTC when you were only owed 0.05? Yet you clearly was sent 1 BTC, which only makes sense if you were complicit in the scam. Now, if we look at your posting history, your first post here was to promote MiningUnited as shown here. It's my opinion that you are the scammer who was running the site. Brilliant deduction. Blueblade give me back my .20 1JqsdYWZeGS9MknSQC6faT7HAwMfizUY2t So, you just made a new account to post that and just happened to receive a payment from CoinAd.com with that address in the same transaction as Blueblade. Nice try Blueblade, but you just managed to make yourself look even guiltier. |
|
|
|
Blueblade, you're full of crap. You can see here that you send 0.25 BTC and here you can see that you recieve 0.2811 BTC. Again, you send 0.25 BTC as shown here and then send another 0.05 as shown here. You then recieve 0.25 BTC as shown here. They're the only transfers to and from your address, 1PSnLUwMqAa6qXb9XkMcFekAsntJbHwNNx (excluding that final 1 BTC). That would mean you never received a return for that 0.05 payment and the last payment you received was the same amount as what you sent. So why would you receive 1 BTC when you were only owed 0.05? Yet you clearly was sent 1 BTC, which only makes sense if you were complicit in the scam. Now, if we look at your posting history, your first post here was to promote MiningUnited as shown here. It's my opinion that you are the scammer who was running the site. |
|
|
|
And you still try to push your agenda with misrepresentation, and conflation of your opinion with facts. The bet should not have been allowed in the first place as per BitBets FAQ/EULA. After it was accepted, when it became clear that bettors couldn't agree what advertised performance was (see the comments about in the bet, people even here can't agree) the bet should have been cancelled.
People have opinions on all sorts of things. Just because people don't agree with something it does not make that thing any less sure. Now if BitBet doesn't stick to their own policies and still wants to resolve the bet, "Yes" is a clear winner because it is supported by more sources and the only "No" source was negated when 28-03-2013 announcement stated that the devices will consume more power than previously advertised.
The post does not say the spec has changed. It says the first products will consume more power. Let me know if you still think that the 28-03-2013 announcement doesn't say that the first products will perform worse in terms of GH/J and I will help you out.
Thats very kind, but my reading comprehension is adequate for this very simple exercise. The only misrepresentation going on is by BitBet. They clearly think that performance = performance per watt, they also clearly know that a lot of people think that performance per watt is not performance, yet they do nothing whatsoever to clarify the vague phrase "advertised performance" when they could quite easily specify exactly what that performance is on the bet. The fact that they refuse to do so, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are deliberately misleading their users in order to rip them off. All because they have a grudge against BFL. |
|
|
|
I have a few things to state here. 1. I created the bets for march, april, and may on bitbets. 2. I created may's bet prior to the information release about official changes to power/hashrate. 3. Of the 3 aforementioned bets i've created, and the thousands of BTC they've brought in for bitbets, I have never received my portion share of the bet as stated at http://bitbet.us/faq/ . I have literally received 0 btc from bitbets. 4. I contacted the site after the specs were changed, and asked to cancel/append the may bet. i received no response. You may want to post that information in this thread as well. |
|
|
|
I'd avoid MPEX like the plague. Here's some quotes from their representatives: Nobody counts what niggers think, and nobody counts what idiots think. One’s not born black. One becomes black, through interaction. Mostly with their black parents, of course, but nevertheless, kids not being parented anymore by their parents (but the tv, records, etc) results in plenty of white skinned black people. It is certainly NOT improper to link the historical failure of the fenotype to the fenotype. So, any discussion of black people can not avoid the fact that they sucked. This is a fact. It is their own, proper but impersonal responsibility. It is on their head. For the record, a boatload of neckbeards doesn't pay for one single financier. This because tech people actually are humanly inferior to money people. They're less of a person. |
|
|
|
Performance per Watt is efficiency, not performance. It's that simple.
Heres the first hit on google ef·fi·cien·cy [ih-fish-uhn-see] Show IPA
noun, plural ef·fi·cien·cies.
1.
the state or quality of being efficient; competency in performance. efficiency ⊆ performance speed ⊆ performance performance per watt ⊆ performance performance ⊇ any aspect of performance You appear to be trying to assert that: "because a different word was used to describe one aspect of performance, it is not performance" You cannot redefine what words actually mean. Its got nothing to do with finance, or technology, and everything to do with just knowing what words mean. You have just re-asserted what branksy said, despite that fact that his whole argument was fallacious, by using more fallacious statements. "The only people who don't seem to understand this are scummy little weasels who work in finance." Ad hominem. "Ask anyone who works with technology, ask on a forum such as Anandtech's CPU or GPU forum and they will tell you the exact same thing." Appeal to common sense. "It should be blatantly obvious to everyone who isn't brain dead that performance per watt is not the same as performance." Divine fallacy "Of course you're going to defend their moronic, biased decision, you benefited from it." Appeal to motive. "How about we get some advice from people who live and breathe technology instead of relying on scummy little rats who live and breathe finance?" Argumentum ad populum. Besides, that is another affirmation of the disjunct. You allege that [everyone on anandtech] says performance per watt is efficiency, therefore it is not performance. The dictionary clearly states that efficieny is in fact a measure of performance. That leaves these two essentially identical statements: "Performance per watt is not performance, it's efficiency." "Performance per Watt is efficiency, not performance. It's that simple." Again, with the presenting opinion as fact: Special Pleading, Mind Projection fallacy. You have said nothing that warrants consideration. You present no evidence, just repeat conjecture. MPOE posted a link to advertised performance, they are the conditions of the bet, that fact you don't like it is neither here nor there. Let's ignore the fact then that performance is not performance per watt, despite what some financial weasels think, and focus on the fact that "MPOE posted a link to advertised performance". The only place that such a link would have any purpose whatsoever, is in the actual bet itself and it isn't there, despite repeated requests to have it added. It makes no sense at all to post the link on this forum where nobody using the BitBet site can see it. You can defend the elitist, racist, scummy, piece of shit scammers as much as you want, after all, they've paid you to do so by deciding that May bet in your favour. Their actions speak louder than their and your words, and their action are those of a scammer. |
|
|
|
My sources are irrelevant. What is relevant is that nobody has addressed my points with any valid counter arguments, or god forbid a link and not just a wall of text with no factual statements.
Your point(s) all seemed to be that you and your friends had some opinion on what should or should not constitute "performance", and that your opinion was that power consumption didn't count. Well here is my opinion: Performance describes the manner in which something functions. Those attributes that are particular to its operation, how it 'performs'. Specifications describe what something is. Its physical attributes, its form. Now you said... As i'm sure others here do, i work professionally with a lot of electrical engineers. I specifically asked a few before betting if power requirements would be considered performance or just specifications. What i heard back unanimously (from my small sample) is that performance doesn't relate to power consumption, that would be Performance Per Watt, which is different. It's the same as saying that case size relates to performance. Energy is just a utility to achieve performance, not the performance itself.
I understand that the reason BFL looked so good is because of the performance per watt, but just because we want low wattage for maximum profits, and just because that's what we based our pre-orders on, still doesn't mean it's relevant to "Advertised Performance".
Lets break that down: You contrast performance and specification as being two distinct things. This statement is important because it sets the mood. You will use this idea later to affirm the disjunct. You ask your friends to categorise "power requirements" as performance or specification. However "requirements" are something that might form part of an objects design, so naturally it would seem fit that requirements are considered part of a device's specification. Requirements exist independently of an object ever operating. When phrasing their response, you play a clever trick and switch the term "power requirements" for "power consumption", you say your friends tell you "power consumption" is not an aspect of performance. Power consumption is something that happens when a device is functioning. Consumption happens (more than likely in line with the specified power requirements) when the device 'performing'. It is an aspect of 'performance', which will likely be in line with the specified "power requirements". You try to redefine this aspect of performance as being something else. However in creating this other "not-performance" category, you actually use the word performance to describe it! You then make the statement "It's the same as saying that case size relates to performance". This is where you attempt to close the deal. You attempt to assert that "power consumption" is not performance, and use your original premise of categorising things as "performance or specification" to assert that it must then be part of the device's specification. "performance per watt" IS performance. Saying "GH/s isn't performance, it's performance per watt" is nonsensical. It is like saying "Mallards aren't birds, they are ducks" or "Ferrari's aren't vehicles, they are cars". Performance per watt is not performance, it's efficiency. I pointed that out several pages ago. The only people who don't seem to understand this are scummy little weasels who work in finance. Ask anyone who works with technology, ask on a forum such as Anandtech's CPU or GPU forum and they will tell you the exact same thing. Performance is about speed, Performance per Watt is about efficiency. It should be blatantly obvious to everyone who isn't brain dead that performance per watt is not the same as performance, otherwise we would simply call it performance and not performance per watt. Of course you're going to defend their moronic, biased decision, you benefited from it. How about we get some advice from people who live and breathe technology instead of relying on scummy little rats who live and breathe finance? Performance per Watt is efficiency, not performance. It's that simple. |
|
|
|
Please, lay down the marijuana when posting...
Did I touch a nerve? Sorry Puerto - just getting a bit sick of your 'I have a 60 GH/s asic and you dont' kinda posts... You do realize I rarely mention it right? Please don't ask me to post your quotes on how many times you have said 'I am an ASIC miner'... Puerto's ramblings reminds me of this Eddie Murphy shit. |
|
|
|
Wait, what?
For further lulz about "what most people reading this thread have figured out", who exactly have you asked? Name and surname please.
If you think i'm calling out people i work with on a bitcoin forum then your grasp on reality must be a struggle. A more productive response would be some sort of rebuttal to my argument. Here's a rebuttal: Anon asswipe (that's you) makes random appeal to authority (that'd be your anon expert friends). He then fails to name the authority, and the whole thing falls apart at the slightest examination. He then proceeds to claim "the OP's grasp on reality must be a struggle", because that's the problem with people showing internet idiots that they're internet idiots: teh grasp on reality, man. Next step, complain that I ad-hominem. Because after failing at making an argument, and failing at making a broken argument and failing at the entire "I win by losing" thing that's the one avenue left. Fucking retards seriously, how can you go on living? It's beyond the credible. Someone press this idiot on why they refuse to add the essential information about what constitutes "advertised performance" to the actual bet if they're not a bunch of scamming cunts. |
|
|
|
Wow, that is pretty damn clear.
As is the date of 09-30-2012. Also, that vital information has still not been made available at the only place that matters - the actual bet itself. MPOE-PR is also contradicting themselves by claiming: Whoever proposed this bet: Had a good idea but executed poorly. Basically as stated this is a bet on the contents of a webpage, might as well be something like: pastebin.com/blabla says "42" Is there some way to reconstruct this bet based on objective, verifiable criteria? Face it, they're a bunch of scammers who are full of shit. Basically as stated this is a bet on the contents of a webpage... Yet deciding BFL bets on the contents of a webpage from 09-30-2012 is perfectly fine. |
|
|
|
|
Well, I cashed out 1.6 BTC and bought a 5 GH/s BFL with PayPal. So, all those options look poor to me.
|
|
|
|
Wait a second..I'm starting to see a pattern here in looking at your posts in that thread, but I will not jump the gun and ask questions first:
1) what made you think that bitbet had anything to do with MPOE, and MPOE-PR wasn't just a concerned bystander sharing their opinion (this would not make them a scammer)?
2) what made you think that BFL actually delivered?
1) I sent BitBet an email, and MPOE-PR posted it on their blog. They then posted a comment boasting about their unprofessional behaviour as can be seen here. 2) They delivered a few tens of devices in April to various people. This was well documented and that part of the bet is not under dispute. The dispute arises from the phrase "advertised performance". BitBet take that to include power consumption of the initial devices as specified in a blog post from 2012, as opposed to the actual specification listed on the product page at the time the bet was created. Now, that would be fine if they actually provided that essential information with the actual bet so people knew what they actually betting on. I asked MPOE-PR to specify exactly which information was meant by "advertised performance" and to include that info in the actual bet. MPOE-PR claims that information is already present, which is simply pure bullshit. |
|
|
|
MPOE representatives are a bunch of lying, scummy, scam artists who simply refuse to provide a simple answer to a simple question with regards to a bad bet on BitBet. I have no idea why you would want to associate yourself with them, but because of that association, I will not be using your service and will be encouraging others to follow suit.
Could you link or reference in some way what you're referring to? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about but would like to know more. Also, off-topic to this thread but boycotts don't work. Sure, here you go. Also, here's the bet in question. As you can see, MPOE employees are clearly lying scumbags trying to rip people off. |
|
|
|
I shall not support or endorse any business associated with the individual for the very clear reasons above.
Mem, you are welcome not to support people or businesses you disagree with. That is fine. But you are not welcome to lie. Your list states that I "passionately defend the use of the N-Word as a derogatory slur." I do not defend the use of the word whatsoever. A racist is someone who believes in the inferiority of an individual because of his/her race. Mircea explicitly stated in that post that he does not believe this. Yet, you have not let these facts disrupt your narrative. You are not engaging in this debate from a foundation of honesty, but of flimsy, superficial assertion. If you don't want to support SD or me that's fine. Boycott whomever you wish. As gentlemen we can disagree on our opinion of Mircea, but please hold yourself at least to a standard of honesty. Even though you've defamed and insulted me, I will not be going around posting lies about you. If your opinion is legitimate, you needn't post lies about me to convey it. MPOE representatives are a bunch of lying, scummy, scam artists who simply refuse to provide a simple answer to a simple question with regards to a bad bet on BitBet. I have no idea why you would want to associate yourself with them, but because of that association, I will not be using your service and will be encouraging others to follow suit. |
|
|
|
Well then, idiot: 1) For the July 1st BFL bet, what exactly is the advertised performance?
Exactly what it was at the time the bet was introduced. 2) Why isn't this essential information listed on the actual bet?
It is. Also, you're going on my ignore, which means now you can't even get a second chance at asking a question. Practically speaking you're both deaf and mute now. Cool going, huh. MPOE and BitBet are run by scammy cunts as proven by the complete and utter bullshit just posted by this representative. |
|
|
|
Well then, idiot: 1) For the July 1st BFL bet, what exactly is the advertised performance?
Exactly what it was at the time the bet was introduced. 2) Why isn't this essential information listed on the actual bet?
It is. Also, you're going on my ignore, which means now you can't even get a second chance at asking a question. Practically speaking you're both deaf and mute now. Cool going, huh. Lol, I'm now on the scummy scammer's ignore list for asking 2 specific questions, just like they asked. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
