Quote: "The malleability issue in bitcoin has been known for well over two years now [1]. At the time it seems to have been dismissed as ugly, but not worth bothering about."  Not sure why it was never fixed in those two years. Maybe they thought nobody would be stupid enough to entrust hundreds of millions of dollars to an identifier that everyone knew could be changed, especially after being personally told not to. Most sentences that start "nobody would be stupid enough to. . ." are wrong, though. |
|
|
|
All allegations of Ponzi I'm seeing center around one very clear thread. They confuse "price" with "value" and are convinced that Bitcoin has no inherent value outside of new fiat money coming in. Thus the claim goes that newer adopters become the bag-holders for earlier-adopters.
Once you point out that a Ponzi scheme is a very specific thing where investors are defrauded by a single entity paying older investors with money from mew investors, then the conversation suddenly becomes "whatever, then it's a Pyramid". To a lot of people, "Ponzi scheme" is just a general term for anything economic that they don't like. The good thing about this kind of terminology is you can easily identify idiots whose opinions can be safely ignored. |
|
|
|
Its not legit, this guy is scamming. I sent him bitcoins and did not received anything. Most likely he even DO NOT have any passport scans. Please don´t send him any more bitcoins.
You got what you had coming. |
|
|
|
I'm glad he realized he was out of line and man enough to admit it. I agree with much of what he has otherwise said, but he was really going about it the wrong way. I'm still not convinced either of his targets need to resign from the Board. However, I do think they at least owe the community they claim to champion some explanation of their seeming conflicts of interest. |
|
|
|
Is it not the case that Bitcoin exchanges are unregulated? As such, isn't it the case that their fiduciary duty extends to doing what they see fit to keep customers assets secure? No, a fiduciary duty is determined by the circumstances, not by formalities. Some formalities, such as actually being a banker, have statutorily established financial duties, but whether a fiduciary duty exists is a case by case determination. Service providing bailees have some form of a fiduciary duty, have duties to protect the assets entrusted to them, and are liable for failure to do so. Whether or not Gox was a registered or an illegal operation, it acted as a currency exchanger, and can't really fall back on "but I was lying and I was really running an illegal operation" as a defense. The relationship was that people would deposit money (BTC or fiat) into Gox, which would hold it for them, and charge them for the service of exchanging it for another currency, then allow it to be withdrawn. I.e. that money never belonged to Gox in the first place. They solely held it for the benefit of another, and it was there for the purpose of Gox providing services, for which they were paid, to the real owner of the funds. That establishes a fiduciary duty pretty much anywhere. (Note: I have not read the Mt. Gox TOS or other such documents, and can't seem to find them. They might try to disclaim such a duty in there, which would have been wise considering how they were running their "business.") |
|
|
|
The answer isn't "NO EXCHANGES", instead it's "MORE GOOD EXCHANGES". I'd be interested in seeing at least one good exchange. I suppose one is more than zero. By that, I mean one run like an actual currency exchange. I'd welcome an exchange run by people with actual experience running real currency exchanges. So far, pretty much everything out there is amateur hour bullshit. I'd like to see an existing currency exchange with a proven track record pick up BTC, but the current lengthy spate of scandal after scandal and swindle after swindle is increasingly giving BTC a bad name. A dangerously naive community like the BTC community, that would willingly put money into Gox as it was obviously floundering, is going to contribute to similar swindles in the future, as they don't seem to learn a damn thing. The same idiots defending pirateat40's Ponzi scam were also attacking people pointing out Gox's obvious insolvency. They'll probably be lining up to defend the next crook, while lining up to line his pockets. In any event, it isn't exactly helping BTC's claim to be trying to provide an alternative to the corrupt banking system when most of its "institutions" are already as corrupt right out of the gate. This isn't attacking BTC. The protocol is rock solid. It's the people that are fucked. |
|
|
|
hahhahaaa, you do know we are in a thread titled "Down, down, down, down, down ..."? Yes, a troll thread started by an idiot who didn't even know the difficulty goes down when fewer people are mining. |
|
|
|
This is why this theory isn't plausible, you'd have to be completely retarded to make such a heist.
You'd have to be completely retarded to run a "business" the way Gox was run even given their own story. It's well established that Karpeles is completely retarded. So the issue here isn't whether Mark Karpeles is the biggest fucking idiot in the history of fucking and of idiots, but whether he's also a crook. |
|
|
|
Do you honestly think the ponzi threads posted here are comparable to nigerian email scams and indentity thieves or are you just grasping at straws to try make a point? Yes. Ponzi scams are a felony crime. Knowingly participating in them with the intention of making a profit is also a felony. When they involve real money, people who turn a net profit on Ponzis often have their asssets seized to pay off those who took a loss. They cause incalculable economic damage, and that is why they are illegal. They are as bad, or worse, than Nigerian email scams. Anyone who participates in one knowingly is a criminal himself, whether or not they've gotten around to enforcing the law yet. |
|
|
|
Look, the point is, its a bit like blaming a home owner when there house is left unlocked and subsequently burgled. Just because they made it easier through some inaction, at the end of the day it is the perpetrator of the crime who is the real villain. Bullshit. You have no responsibility to anyone but yourself (and perhaps your family) to lock your own front door. When you take other people's money in trust, you have a fiduciary duty to protect it. Incompetence is a breach of that duty. Outright fraud is an even more unconscionable malfeasance. Karpeles and Gox (if they even are separate) utterly failed to carry out the duty they'd agreed to by accepting deposits. This is assuming, of course, that he isn't actually the thief himself, and frankly, I'd put him at the top of any suspect list. |
|
|
|
Like I said in another thread, the database dump of 500,000 verified customers who uploaded minimum 2 documents ( suppose the average size is 1MB ) would be of 1000 GB size, not 20 GB.
Only if they stored them at full size. You could probably batch process shrinking them all to some standard size. Not saying Gox actually did this, or that this current thing isn't a scam. |
|
|
|
Seriously, does anyone believe that this kind of data is worth anywhere near 100 BTC?
Assuming this is not a scam, which it probably is. Passport scans for people including many millionaires? I'm sure it would be quite valuable in the hands of identity thieves and other criminals. Anyone fool enough to trust their information to Gox is going to have to worry about all kinds of scams being done in their names. Never mind that terrorist organizations often use the stolen passports of other individuals, so they might end up looking at the wrong end of a terror investigation they have nothing to do with, too. Goxed indeed! Even, though, if the current "offer" is someone trying to swindle people who really do deserve to lose their money if they're trying to buy this shit, we have no idea who has all this data, and no reason to believe one of them won't, in fact, eventually sell it, or just publish it for the fuck of it. |
|
|
|
|
Well, I'm certainly not just going to take the word of people who are, if they distributed that archive complete with wallet-stealing malware, are blatant thieves themselves.
|
|
|
|
before you were saying I couldn't prove bumhunting now they are doing it efficiently lmao. You also said it was crazy for people to do that at micro stakes , now your tipping your hat to the 4 people who are bumhunting insta sitting together with new names each session in a day ,but whatever.
I'd just ignore these trolls. They've clearly not seen the action in question, are too dumb to understand it if they did, or are just trolling. |
|
|
|
How does classifying most consensual sex as rape help rape victims? As a lawyer who has handled rape and sexual harassment cases, I have no idea, but this radical result is what some want to happen in California. In endorsing a bill in the California legislature that would require “affirmative consent” before sex can occur on campus, the editorial boards of the Sacramento and Fresno Bee and the Daily Californian advocated that sex be treated as “sexual assault” unless the participants discuss it “out loud” before sex, and “demonstrate they obtained verbal ‘affirmative consent’ before engaging in sexual activity.” Never mind that consent to most sex is non-verbal, and that rape has historically been understood to be an act against someone’s will, rather than simply a non-violent act that they did not consent to in advance. Perhaps in response to the bill, the University of California, on February 25, adopted a policy requiring affirmative consent not just to sex, but to every form of “physical sexual activity” engaged in. [...] The affirmative-consent bill, Senate Bill 967, does not explicitly require verbal permission to demonstrate consent, although it warns that “relying solely on nonverbal communication can lead to misunderstanding.” But supporters of the bill are very clear about their desire to require verbal discussion or haggling prior to sex. The Fresno Bee praised the bill because “it adopts in campus disciplinary cases the ‘affirmative consent standard,’ which means that ‘yes’ only means ‘yes’ if it is said out loud.” The Daily Californian declared that “the proposal’s requirement that defendants in a sexual assault case demonstrate they obtained verbal ‘affirmative consent’ before engaging in sexual activity makes SB 967 a step in the right direction.” Since most couples have engaged in sex without “verbal” consent, supporters of the bill are effectively redefining most people, and most happily-married couples, as rapists. By demanding verbal discussion before sex, they are also meddling in people’s sex lives in a prurient fashion. http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/03/09/california-activists-seek-redefine-quiet-consensual-sex-rape/#TVZrZH60qibb873V.99So basically, the only form of sex that isn't rape is prostitution, since there is verbal discussion of the price beforehand. |
|
|
|
My point is that without showing evidence, you can't claim that there are cheaters. Yes I can, and I just did. Go ahead and play there yourself if you want to. I honestly don't give two shits. I think anyone else watching the same action would conclude the same thing, but knock yourself out. And by "there" I specifically mean 6 seat or short-handed PLO, not anything else at Seals, that is about as up and up as the action on other sites. |
|
|
|
yes, have to be careful with PDF's. Though I don't think that the CV contained a virus.
Most virus scanning software is simple pattern matching. It looks for the signature of known viral code. This isn't going to detect something like wallet stealing software that is custom made for one particular purpose, never released into the wild, and which is not technically a virus but a trojan. A virus gets your computer to replicate it to other media. This kind of thing doesn't. Even AV that uses some kind of heuristic method to detect the kind of code that might be viral, i.e. looking for specific kinds of suspicious behavior, is still probably not going to recognize something aimed at a specific application, like Bitcoin wallet software. |
|
|
|
You guys need to post HHs when you are accusing people of collusion. Bumhunting =/= collusion. I'm not saying that it's not happening, I'm just saying that your proof is inconclusive.
I don't really care enough to collect evidence, which would involve playing against cheaters. My preference is just not to play against cheaters, so I won't. If you want to, go right ahead. |
|
|
|
Someone should probably create another clean torrent without the malware and distribute that instead. I know anyone dumb enough to run an executable in something like this basically has it coming, but there's no good purpose to be served by knowingly distributing malware. |
|
|
|
Who could possibly have predicted that an exe file in an archive distributed by hackers would be a wallet stealer? I bet some idiots ran it, too. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
