The warrant they used to start investigating Trump was based on "The Steele Dossier" which was paid for by HRC and the DNC. They did not of course disclose that to the FISA warrant judge (he was not happy). In effect this entire investigation was illegal, and now those responsible get their turn being hunted.
There was a footnote that said: (on page 23)[Steele] was hired by [GPS Fusion] to conduct research into [Tump's] ties to Russia. [Steele] provided the results of his research to [GPS Fusion], and the FBI asses that [GPS Fusion] likely provided this information to [Perkins Cole] that hired [GPS Fusion] in the first place. [Steel] told the FBI that he only provided this information to [GPS Fusion] and the FBI.[Redacted]The FBI does not believe that [Steele] directly provided this information to the press." This in fact does not mention either Clinton, nor the DNC being the ultimate client. Nor does it disclose Steele's anti-Trump bias. Interestingly, it also cited the Director of National intelligence, but instead of getting a sworn statement from him, they used statements he made on TV, obviously not under oath, nor in an interview with law enforcement, making any lies he said not a crime. There were also lines marked "(U)" (unclassified, I believe) that were redacted. The FISA laws need to be reformed, but that is off topic here....
The letter makes the final report sound more positive toward Trump than I expected. I'll be interested to see the final report, especially the obstruction-of-justice part which seems less conclusive and which the AG's letter only briefly summarizes.
The obstruction of justice piece is based on things Tump did in the public eye. An obstruction case against Trump could have been derived from one of two things, his firing of Comey, or his criticism of the Special Counsel investigation. As President, Tump has the constitutional right to fire Comey, as Trump is politically accountable to anything Comey does as FBI director. As a US Citizen, Trump has the right to protest any government action he does not like, and to petition the government to change its policies and/or laws. If the special counsel tried to prosecute the President based on either of the above actions, any conviction would likely be overturned by the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. I am also interested to see the final report, but I am going to speculate it contains a lot of innuendo regarding the effect of Russia's election interference. It will likely contain incomplete information, as I believe it was only investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, not Russian election interference in general, so Russia may have also helped Clinton, and this would not be in the report. One could also argue that Russia was intentionally inefficient in their efforts, and made their efforts easy to uncover in order to hurt Trump in the event he ended up winning. And he entrapped very unfairly, Flynn.
Flynn deserves a Pardon, as does Rodger Stone. Even though Manafort is not a good guy, the only reason he is being persecuted is because of his ties to Trump, and as such I think he should be pardoned too. |
|
|
|
Wow check this picture out:  |
|
|
|
...
The Mueller probe started with the intention of determining if the Trump campaign colluded ....
No it did not. That was the stated reason, the pretense. The minimum required to comply with the rules. You would like to establish the fact that this was all a sham. But it was never based on facts, but on manipulating emotions of the population. This was the underlying topic Mueller was investigating, or at least should have been investigating. Realistically speaking, there was not sufficient reliable evidence to support opening an investigation, so instead, the FBI used information/evidence they should have good reason to believe was not reliable.
AG Barr has reportedly sent another letter to congress, and select congressmen should be receiving a letter within the hour. The letter will likely include the principal findings of the report. |
|
|
|
This is a pretty good argument to not go in 'guns blazing' tagging every sold account because, according to threads I have seen in Auctions, both email addresses and private keys are being sold with accounts, making it very difficult, if not impossible to tell when an account has changed hands.
Maybe we should start asking suspect accounts to fund the private key and leave it there for a week.  I don't think there is any basis for telling people they must hold money in bitcoin in order to maintain their reputation. Well, I can't wait for the day that someone buys an account with a private key and then the seller recovers their account back, leaving the buyer high and dry. The seller may even get lucky and be able to recover the e-mail account too. [img height=150 ]https://media.giphy.com/media/pUeXcg80cO8I8/giphy.gif[/img] It is interesting to see that you are hoping that a certain group of people will get scammed. This has been noted. |
|
|
|
Any real scammer would never go from 0.02-0.05 to 0.33 then 3000-5000 EUR. That's waving a flag saying don't lend to me.
This is quite literally what you are doing, so by your own admission, lenders should not lend to you. If there really is some kind of strategy to make as much as you are claiming, your best bet would be to sell the strategy to someone trustworthy on a contingency basis for a portion of their profits. Your strategy appears to use an exchange that is probably not a good idea to trust, so even that may not be successful. |
|
|
|
This is a pretty good argument to not go in 'guns blazing' tagging every sold account because, according to threads I have seen in Auctions, both email addresses and private keys are being sold with accounts, making it very difficult, if not impossible to tell when an account has changed hands.
Maybe we should start asking suspect accounts to fund the private key and leave it there for a week. I don't think there is any basis for telling people they must hold money in bitcoin in order to maintain their reputation. |
|
|
|
I have reopened this thread as s/he is trying to ask something which is inappropriate.
I don't think it is "inappropriate" to be asking for a loan, however the loan sizes are consistent with someone trying to pull an exit scam. |
|
|
|
Are we sure this is the original marcotheminer? I've only skimmed the thread but he was pretty inactive from about 2016 and has only really recently started up again, especially with the loans. Has a signed message been provide from some old addresses?
Yes, he signed a message here that included the date. Also he has had multiple loans funded to that address. Yes, since day 0 until now. Signed address has been given several times since returning to active mode. To be thorough: can you give a link to a signed message and staked address? And since accounts are often sold including staked address, it will be much more convincing if you sign from a non-empty staked address. This is a pretty good argument to not go in 'guns blazing' tagging every sold account because, according to threads I have seen in Auctions, both email addresses and private keys are being sold with accounts, making it very difficult, if not impossible to tell when an account has changed hands. Just go to a bank and tell them this story you're telling us. I mean it's all so credible you should have no problem getting a 5000 EUR loan.
Bitcoin is the end of banks. Why? because this is possible. Banks would ask for collateral, they are legacy systems. They wouldn't even know what I'm proposing. Here, people have knowledge of the field. I am not sure if you have heard of a credit card, but that is an example of banks giving no collateral loans. Banks also give no collateral signature loans all the time, on much better terms than you are proposing. Banks will generally want to document a potential borrowers' ability to repay (usually based on their income) before giving this kind of loan |
|
|
|
|
One of the screenshots in the OP is of a "KuCoin" account that is purporting to show ~$120 in it. There was a recent study showing that 85%+ (IIRC) of trading volume at exchanges is faked, and this is absolutely not an exchange I would trust my money with
Marco PM'ed me asking if I can fill this loan, and after asking questions, he said it is part "arbitrage" and part something else that he described as "another aspect with it is happening (the real money maker)".
I am not sure if this loan will be repaid if filled, but it has many red flags of being an exit scam.
Also, Marco claims he used the proceeds of the previous loan he took to "trade", however he was late in repaying those loans, which implies the "method" that marco has is less than a sure thing.
|
|
|
|
|
If I had to guess, it will show zero collusion between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government.
|
|
|
|
Multiple news outlets are reporting that Mueller has sent his report to the Attorney General and that the Judiciary Committee of Congress should expect notification of this. It is also being reported that a messenger from the DOJ is currently in route to Capital Hill, presumably to give notification of the above as required by the special council regulations. President Trump has previously indicated he wants the report made public and the House of Representatives this week voted 420-0 on a non-binding resolution asking for the report to be made public. The Mueller probe started with the intention of determining if the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to win the 2016 election. To date zero evidence has been presented that supports this claim, despite many Democrats claiming to have seen such evidence. Earlier this week the Ukraine government has opened an investigation into government officials helping the Clinton campaign in 2016 after allegedly finding evidence of this. The start of the investigation into the Trump campaign can be traced back to propaganda by the Russian government given to a former British spy and forwarded to the FBI. Neither the former British spy, nor the FBI have articulated why the propaganda had any reason to be believed. Those in the FBI investigating the Trump campaign and the British spy all largely did not want Trump elected. Clinton, during her tenure as Secretary of State in the Obama administration helped broker a deal to sell Uranium to the Russian government and her policies were generally friendly to the Russian government. The Mueller report will be posted here once it is made public. Update March 24: AG Barr has sent a letter to congress, who should be receiving it within the hour. The letter will likely include the principal conclusions and findings of the Mueller investigation. Updare2 March 24: The letter from Barr regarding the Mueller report, says the Russian government attempted multiple times to partner with the Trump campaign, however all of these offers were either not accepted or rejected. The Mueller report also did not specifically opine if Trump obstructed justice and deferred to the AG in regards to this question. The letter to Congress from AG Barr can be found here |
|
|
|
The above is a picture of theymos I took after he saw this thread.
The analogy is not blackmail, nor am I aware of anyone doing this. There are certainly ratings given out for questionable reasons and certain people often have transgressions overlooked, but nothing like this. The closest I can think of to this is people calling out lauda for stealing funds in escrow for an ICO gone bad and him giving negative trust for calling out his extortion attempt. In these cases, no one else piled on. |
|
|
|
Whatever it is, it's much stronger than ibuprofen I think.
And he probably smoked it, too. I actually reported 3 of his posts today. One of them was an unnecessary necrobump of a merit thread with a trolling post, and two others that were pure trolling. He is out of arguments and is now just resorting to attacks, which I don't find appropriate. Though I doubt mods will do anything about his incessant BS, I've had about enough of it. To be entirely fair, he wasn’t the one who initially posted in that thread after a year, it was two signature spammers. He probably just didn’t notice the year of the post of yours he quoted. |
|
|
|
I am not sure if you looked at his trust page or not but he took out a loan in 2013 that he didn’t repay and has tried to take out additional loans substantially. I have no idea why you thought it is a good idea lending him money...unless of course, well I don’t think it needs to be said. |
|
|
|
Hi stack , Am night ,
Amount 0.01
Period : 1 week max
Collateral : none or btctalk account
Denied. Sorry, a bitcointalk account is not considered valid collateral. I am confused as to what happened here.... Did you just deny his loan, then send him money? If you have to borrow ~$10, you ain't paying back shit  |
|
|
|
Confirming that I am okay with escrowing the domain. BenCodie has agreed to pay escrow fees as well.
I don't know Subjot, and as such cannot affirmatively trust his opinion. DarkStar, do you have reason to know the value of this domain? Would you be willing to agree to buy it in the event of a default? OP - Are you wanting to have the loan dominated in USD, or BTC? Or something else? Would you want to receive the loan proceeds in BTC, or a stablecoin (USDT/USDC), or something else? |
|
|
|
I also checked the archived secolgs between the initial post and the sale retraction post. There is no evidence of the password being changed in that time period.(I would think someone who acquired an account would at least do that, even if they got the e-mail and staked address. Why would someone leave the password the same after purchasing it, unless they want to get the account stolen back from them?) In theory, someone could deposit money into escrow, and agree to buy the account xx time in the future in order to hide the sale from onlookers, and the password, email, etc would stay the same until some agreed upon date in the future. I do not subscribe to the underlying premise, however if one views selling your account as being sufficiently untrustworthy so that you are a scammer, then the attempt of selling your account would similarly make you an attempted scammer. |
|
|
|
The additional ratings he received are all generally saying he needs to offer collateral to take out additional loans, but none of these people are lenders, nor borrowers, so those who left the ratings are not "protecting" their customers or trading partners, which is often the case for those who like to hand out lots of ratings. I see no need to be protecting only a certain category of people. When I tag an account, it's meant to protect anyone. If I am not going to trade with person x regardless of their trust rating, you tagging person x is not going to protect me because it will not change anything. On the other hand, if I am considering buying widgets and you tag person x who sells widgets, then I would be protected (to the extent I am willing to listen to your warning) if you tag him for being a scammer. If you also sell and/or trade widgets, then you would want person x to be tagged if he is a scammer because if he scams a bunch of widget buyers, the marketplace could get a reputation that it isn’t safe to buy widgets, scarring potential buyers away. You may not limit your tags to widget scammers in the above example because a scammer who sells hammers might scare away potential widget buyers and otherwise give the marketplace a reputation where people mostly get scammed, or the victim of a scam attempt. In the same example, if you tag people unfairly who trade hammers, the marketplace might get a reputation for not being fair and potential widget buyers might not want to use the marketplace to buy widgets, hurting your business. Also some people might be afraid to do business with you if you tag people unfairly. |
|
|
|
|
The major problem with the trust system is the selection process for those who are on DT has nothing to do with who actually uses the trust system in a meaningful way (eg, they don't participate in the marketplace in a meaningful way). As a result, the DT system is not one of self governance, but is rather something closer to a dictatorship, in that those who make the rules are entirely unrelated to those who are bound by the rules, and those who are bound by the rules have zero input in the rules.
Those who are in DT are also not selected by those who have ever been active in the marketplace.
IMO, the best way to structure the DT system is to have several people who own, or have owned large bitcoin related businesses who have people on their trust list they are willing to trust their businesses' reputation on in regards to giving fair ratings, and otherwise acting fairly within the trust system. When there is a rating dispute, if someone is not acting in good faith, or otherwise is acting fairly, their sponsor(s) should be called out publicly.
The best and most appropriate people to run the trust system is those who are wanting to protect their (potential) customers.
Looking at the first 3 pages of the digital goods section, it looks like nearly all of the threads are scam attempts, or attempts to do something illegal. The services sub is made up almost entirely of signature campaigns, the currency exchange sub has few active threads of people conducting legitimate business, and very few loans are ever made in the lending sub.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
