They do have similar writing styles. Big wall o' text and all.
You're saying that is what led to the scammer tag? No I don't know anything about that, just sayin.
|
|
|
They do have similar writing styles. Big wall o' text and all.
|
|
|
nckrazze has been given a scammer tag https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=108756.0I asked in hashkings thread, can anyone confirm (by confirm I mean a post or PM or something by hashking himself) that he did say that the lower interest rate brackets weren't exposed to pirate? I can't find it anywhere but people keep saying it.
|
|
|
You guys are just being disrespectful and overly combative. Yes, in the end, it was my fault I lose money back then but it was pretty much discovering the venom that exists within Bitcoin.
Telling you you're wrong isn't disrespectful. If I were to say you're dumb and full of shit, that's disrespectful.
|
|
|
Of course but it was not introduced as a concept here for awhile. I am not saying it's a new invention, my friend.
Yes you did. Escrow didn't exist in early 2010.
|
|
|
I've lost over 300 BTC to scammers in my lifetime on this forum, all because I believed people usually valued the property of others. Would you normally conduct your business the same way when transacting in other mediums of exchange? escrow escrow escrow! Escrow didn't exist in early 2010. Sure it did. I highly doubt it. We just got from selling spongebob stickers to actual goods. Escrow is older than Bitcoin... Give me a break. Just because you didn't think to use it does not mean it did not exist. We're just having a discussion here. Anyways, irreversible transactions were a new thing for a lot of people back then. It took awhile for escrow to pan out. I am not making excuses. I'm just reporting the story. Your version of the story and reality don't match up, escrow has been a thing for far longer than bitcoin.
|
|
|
Why isnt there a list of escrow agents stickied in the marketplace ?
Personally I haven't because I don't trust anyone enough to recommend them to others. Would you? Who would you recommend putting in such a list? What happens when they cut and run one day, or something beyond their control happens, and you catch a bunch of heat for recommending them?
|
|
|
I've lost over 300 BTC to scammers in my lifetime on this forum, all because I believed people usually valued the property of others. Would you normally conduct your business the same way when transacting in other mediums of exchange? escrow escrow escrow! Escrow didn't exist in early 2010. Sure it did. I highly doubt it. We just got from selling spongebob stickers to actual goods. Are you even the real Atlas? He used to make much more informed reponses. :/ Bitmit.net may not have existed in 2010. But surely, some trusted form of escrow has always existed. And if you are suggesting you lost 300BTC back in 2010 and are just now giving up then smoething does not add up in what msg you are trying to convey here exactly.. Yeah I don't get it either, he's saying he's just now learning not to trust people, yet there was nobody he could trust for escrow back then either? Then again it's Atlas, he may not even know what escrow means.
|
|
|
I've lost over 300 BTC to scammers in my lifetime on this forum, all because I believed people usually valued the property of others. Would you normally conduct your business the same way when transacting in other mediums of exchange? escrow escrow escrow! Escrow didn't exist in early 2010. Sure it did. I highly doubt it. We just got from selling spongebob stickers to actual goods. So there wasn't a single trusted person in the community who could hold the funds?
|
|
|
That wont be possible. Scam have and will always occur. But we at least should not be the poster board for all scams on the main Bitcoin forum. Start by removing the negative (like any other big institution is doing) and let wounds heal themselves with time.
If scam occurs it wont be plastered all over the main focal point where new users arrive to check up on Bitcoin news and development.
Hiding the bad won't help anything, if anything it'll make it worse.
|
|
|
Nckrazze did lie about not having funds with pirate, and fully deserves a scammer tag IMO. Haven't updated yet, and I also invest in other opportunities that rise up, I have some of my personal coins with Pirate, but none of the coins of my depositors. I keep a fine line between the two.
Due to the recent controversy surrounding pirateat40's departure from the Bitcoin investments scheme after he announced the end of his operation, Bitcoin Savings and Trust, I have decided to end the depositing service, "NCKRAZZE's Deposits". I have developed many close friendships with many of the clients I have had to deal with, and it is truly difficult for me to leave the program behind. I personally felt that the service was expanding very quickly and had potential to be a large, ongoing project. However, following pirate's resignation, I received many requests from clients who wished to withdraw all of their coins from my service. The deposits that are made into my service are not eligible for early withdrawals because I offer 4/10/20 week terms, however the requests I received influenced me to make the decision to return all original deposits to their rightful owners. I have a few new depositors that I did not get to work with for as long as I wish I could have, and for this I apologize.
Though a large portion of the deposits I received were used to support a large mining operation, I do have many coins that were invested with several other lenders on the forum and many others that were used to buy bonds on GLBSE. In addition to this, I have a large amount of coins that were deposited this past week by two new depositors. About 50% of these coins are liquid and in my possession. That said, the 35% reserve is still intact and will be used to pay back the depositors. Though I have a great deal of personal savings that are invested with pirate, none of the coins deposited to NCKRAZZE's Deposits were used to deposit into BTCST. This said, since pirate's scheme has come to an end and I plan on having a stable source of income from the bitcoin market, I plan on having the mining operation continue to generate coins as I also wish for my investments with other lenders (those that are still continuing their depositing services) as well as my bonds on GLBSE to remain in my possession. By this I mean that I would like to keep these going as personal investments. However, I will liquidate mining hardware and I will also withdraw coins from lenders/sell bonds if needed to fund all of the deposit returns. In fact, my main priority is to liquidate about 15% of the mining operation in order to fund the returns.
With 15% of the mining operation coming from USD to BTC, as well as the coins that are currently in my possession (35% reserve and the recent deposits), I still have a great deal of bitcoins to return. I plan on using my personal funds that were invested with pirate to cover the rest of the coins that will be returned to their owners. I expect pirate to return the funds this week as he stated in his post (8/20/2012-8/27/2012). With coins coming from all of these different sources to fund all of the returns, I will need close to 10 days to be able to return all funds. In the case that pirate is unable to payout, which is highly unlikely, I will be forced to sell all of my assets to fund the returns. This will require the liquidation of all of my mining hardware and will require a larger time frame.
Maybe in the future when the community settles there may be another opportunity...
Thanks for all of the support, Nick
Mostly due to bad planning on my part as well as a large flow of coins at once and the rising difficulty rate, I was unable to continue my mining project and ended up liquidating most of it. Around July 18th, I had completely liquidated all of the mining hardware that belonged to the Deposits Service. I kept a bit over 2000$ worth of hardware for myself (which were my personal assets), to continue generating coins with. My funds remained dormant until August 6th, when I decided that the magnitude of the payouts was too great for the coins to be sitting around for. For this reason, I chose to place all the funds with pirate and continue to payout weekly interest until terms were over. As terms ended, I would not offer term renewals, and would return all of the coins to the depositors. However, in a sequence of unfortunate events, I was unable to withdraw coins from pirate, but continued to payout using the reserve fund, as mentioned (35%). I am at a personal loss now of over 2000 coins, but have liquidated my assets and will begin paying out respectively. I need everyone to understand that this will not be a matter of a few weeks or months, but rather, will be closer to a few years. At this point I cannot give a definite date that I will have returned all principals back by. However, my priority will be to return the principals. Once everyone has their principal amount deposited, I will attempt to pay the remaining interest.
I will return coins proportionately as they become available, but expect payouts on the last Sunday of each month.
So he took everything that he promised was not exposed to pirate, and dumped them with Pirate and lost it all.
|
|
|
Did hashking ever specifically say the lower interest rate accounts weren't exposed to Pirate? He said they were used for other borrowers, which could include Pirate. I did see it was asked a couple times in his thread but he never answered, not publicly anyway, that I can see.
|
|
|
He also had his mod position in Korean forum removed since he can't be trusted.
|
|
|
How about a subforum within gambling?
|
|
|
That's not an alternative to paying out, it's a consequence of not paying out. He still hasn't paid and is still a fraud, untrustworthy, deceitful sack of crap.
|
|
|
Here's a helpful graphic for you.
|
|
|
Thankfully, I escrowed my 40btc bet and have actually received the 80btc from escrow. Thanks Matt The fact that he allowed escrow early on makes me think he intended to make it a real bet until it was clear he was going to lose hehe I didn't know he escrowed some. That's interesting and definitely lends credence to it being a real bet initially.
|
|
|
He has lost respect, trust, and reputation on a large scale in this community.
Yes, definitely. He's on my list of untrustworthy people now. Not many people make it to that list, he's the third now - and I've been involved with bitcoin since mid-2010 when they were 6 cents each. Agreed, I don't trust many people but there's very few people I actively distrust, and he's top of that list now.
|
|
|
My personal opinions, and I don't decide scammer tags: I'll get the easy ones out of the way. 3. Should people be stripped of any special titles - especially titles like "VIP member" which imply credibility even though they are bought - while their obligations to their users are unmet? Yes, should also be removed before scammer tag is applied if there is sufficient cause to do so. Pirate for example (he didn't have one) during the grace period he was given. 4. Should we disallow the promotion of other services by people who have already failed to meet their obligations in respect of one service? No, everybody makes mistakes, screwing up once doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to try again. Many entrepreneurs declare bankruptcy at least once in their life before becoming successful. Besides that's what the scammer tag is for, to warn people. If they don't have a scammer tag for whatever reason, that's what the community is there for. 5. Should we ban people to whom the scammer tag has been applied? Not as a blanket rule, no. There's no reason to remove their ability to express themselves just because they're a scammer. Besides, banning them would remove any incentive for them to repay and ensure they just return under another account (not that they don't anyway). 1. At what point should a "scammer" tag be applied to people who owe members of this community money and who are clearly making no effort to ensure the money owed is paid? I'm not a big fan of policies that dictate x results in scammer tag because that would result in people abusing the system and intentionally falling just short of x in order to avoid the repercussions. Also saying x will not result in a scammer tag will end up with people doing that intentionally. It's also not fair to say that when there may be special circumstances that would make a scammer tag inappropriate. I also don't like answering hypothetical scenarios, because there's a lot of information, words, context, extenuating circumstances, etc. that aren't given. Just results in a bunch of arguing over semantics. Very few things in life are black or white. I think reneging on an agreement is about as clear as it gets, and adding in a bunch of clauses will result in more harm than good. 2. Should we have a separate tag which advises people to be cautious in dealing with people who owe money but who don't yet meet the benchmarks for applying the scammer tag? I don't think it's needed, the community is quite capable of doing that themselves.
|
|
|
|