Bitcoin is *not* "anti-fragile" as many people say. Its decentralized/transparent/secure nature provides a lot of inherent strength, but in the end it relies on the people who use Bitcoin to behave at least somewhat correctly. Hmmm, makes sense, this Theymos chappie could go a long way.... |
|
|
|
Also, every time a person buy/sell an account, child pr0n, drugs, personal dox, guns he/she is in fact doing a trade with bitcoin, and hence increase its usage.
FTFY. Every time an account gets sold and bought on Bitcointalk, Theymos gets another pineapple shoved up his ass in hell.
 Harsh. |
|
|
|
I said a while back that, seeing as Quickseller was effectively Tomatocage's hitman (whether or not you believe they are different people), then when TC reluctantly removed QS from his trust, I believe he had an obligation to the forum to address the effect of that action and personally revisit the accounts which have benefited from QS's downgrading, reconfirming (or not) trust on a case by case basis. He doesn't appear to have done that. ....without increasing Trust during the months or whatever however we should only allow Senior member or Hero members (with 1500 posts or above for example) and above to give that otherwise their would be a lot of abuse .
All that would do would increase the value of those enabled accounts. The crux of all these problems is the transferability of accounts, giving them a value. The official line is that it can't be stopped, so it's allowed. Until that changes, nothing else will. |
|
|
|
where is the winning of our investment when we only get 99 % back   But....think of the children! |
|
|
|
To cut it short. Minimum investment : 0.1 BTCMaximum investment : 2 BTCAddress in my profile. How it works? After 1 to 10 days (set your time) I will send a whopping 99% of your money back to your address. Ok, game is now live.  Good to see some proper investment opportunities available at last. Can you also do a longer term one, say 30 days and return 98% of the original deposit? I'm sure that would be popular too....I'd be happy to escrow.  |
|
|
|
you have reported 1,234,724 posts with 99.9% accuracy see my previous post. |
|
|
|
Its not ponzi scheme
if you looking to red rep to me please talk to me
Go on then, talk, explain how it is legit...........I look into my crystal ball, I see your future....I see red..... |
|
|
|
What's the point of bumping this thread? He can NEVER be a MOD now (atleast if the forum needs to be in a TRUSTWORTHY member's hands then he won't be appointed as one).
Maybe it's a useful bump just to remind us that, as the man/woman/child says him/herself: You shouldn't believe everything that others tell you on the internet
|
|
|
|
You will get two different answers to that question. You will get one answer from the handful of shills who promote it with the slogan "It pays so it must be legit". These alt accounts, led by German Giant, will also, if you are lucky, post a link to a meaningless HYIP monitor site as further "proof". The other answer is from actual real people who were unfortunately suckered into "investing" in this opaque ponzi, similar to this This is talking about average output. Where did you get that it must be the output of everyday? Are you trying to say that he is receiving $0.13 on average per day from you CMW, not $5.63 as predicted by the calculator, because of luck? I'm awaiting for the space ship with which I reached this green planet.
Hopefully it will come and get you soon. Your shilling is embarassing now. Another .14 cents today, woohoo! There's 113 days left in 2015. Because we don't know future difficulty, let's say my 2.57 TH consistently pay out an average of $5.63. I can expect the following: CMW: 113 * .14 = $15.82 What I should have been earning: 113 * 5.63 = $636.19 CMW's share of my 2.57 TH investment: 97.52% of earnings
My share: 2.48% of earnings
Now, if someone was taking 97.52% of your earnings, wouldn't you be upset too?Similar calculations for me.. To get ROI i need around 3 years more! (contract from November 2014)
|
|
|
|
And what do you expect to achieve by posting retaliatory accusations before you've even tried to get him to reconsider feedback he may have left mistakenly? Or was it just easier to go off into that red ink rant? You shouldn't believe everything that others tell you on the internet yeah they could be a 17 year old girl who doesn't know the first thing about professional escrow. |
|
|
|
You shouldn't believe everything that others tell you on the internet yeah they could be a 17 year old girl who doesn't know the first thing about professional escrow. This guy is an account farmer, don't trust him. Which guy would that be? Seeing as everyone is being accused of something around here, you have to be clear with your finger pointing or everything just gets confusing and goes to shit: we may end up lynching the wrong person, that would never do. |
|
|
|
<snip> If the person sponsoring the sold account still trusts the ratings of that account then there would be no reason to remove them.
You do this a lot: type in English but make no sense. |
|
|
|
Who is Dmitry Semenov? Bitcoin Trade Limited was founded by a group of enthusiastic, professional traders and skilled market analysts. Which of these things is he? Your limited company is registered at a virtual office. Where does your group of enthusiastic etcetcetc work? Why is your English crap? What is Russian for "Ponzi"? |
|
|
|
Come on Bitcointalk, where's your research face? snip<lots of interesting stuff>snip http://regex.info/exif.cgi?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.coinwallet.eu%2Fassets%2Fimg%2Flogo.pngWe bust out the EXIF viewer, and find that their logo was created 3 months 17 days ago, using Adobe Photoshop CC on Windows. Most importantly, we now know the creators timezone is GMT+1. This timezone appears to suggest the person who created the logo was located in Algeria, Angola, Benin, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea, Niger or Nigeria. Thanks for spending your time looking into these people. Please make one thing clearer for me: why would you assume that GMT +1 only applies to the African nations you list and not to the European nations also in the same 15 degrees of longitude? |
|
|
|
Right. Looking at your trust. You have left feedback without solid proof and just an assumption many times. So whats the difference here?
It says "Strong belief" not "solid proof". My feedback is left on that basis. |
|
|
|
Everyone thinks this is shady yet QS has only 2 negatives for it.....
As you know, Mr. first post newbie/alt "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer"is the criteria for leaving negative trust. I voted no in this poll like most people, but that doesn't mean that I strongly believe QS is a scammer. What about you? Why not leave him negative with your main account, if you believe it's appropriate. Or maybe you have? |
|
|
|
When was it "the overall consensus was that self escrowing was no big deal"? In what place was this establised?
Right before the forum got full of all these shitposts by a bunch of scammers. (I do escrow seomtimes but never for myself, however I do not see how self escrowing alone constitutes a scam. The scam happens when the escrow and buyer/seller collude, that can happen if they are the same person or not.) I didn't say it was a scam, I've said that I believe that it is a "big deal" when the supposed third party in a deal turns out to be the person you are dealing with. Why do you find that a difficult viewpoint for someone to sincerely hold? Why does me thinking that make me a shitposting scammer in your eyes? |
|
|
|
It is certainly very concerning as to how many accounts I have suspected of being scammers (yet have no proof) have posted in this thread.
It is also unfortunate that as of when I had faked my ban, the overall consensus was that self escrowing was no big deal and that you should assume this is going to happen.....however once it was discovered that I was in fact Panthers (and was self escrowing), all the vultures moved in saying that this is such a horrible thing to do......
When was it "the overall consensus was that self escrowing was no big deal"? In what place was this establised? The only people that I've read who think it's "no big deal" are you, TC (because roommate?) and TradeFortress. Now, anyone who holds the incredibly-difficult-to-understand view that an escrow should be a third party, is implied by you to be a vulture and/or likely to be a scammer. This complete inability you have to see the validity of any criticism of yourself, to accept that your behavior can possibly be seen as unacceptable by members of a community out of which you have made a lot of money, is the most important revelation in this drama. |
|
|
|
[snip]
Is this the way it would work?
No, because it would not fail. It's solid information, guaranteed. This isn't a "tip". It's a fact of what will happen. Yeah ok, you guaranteeing the future and QS implying that guaranteed wins exist is beside the point: what I'm asking you is, is that the mechanics of the proposed transaction? |
|
|
|
You should care, these people are influential and they define the rules.
Let me rephrase. I don't care for a strangers' opinion on ethics, which is essentially what getting a negative trust rating from somebody would be. If that were to happen, so be it. Let's say you have information on a fixed match.
How do I know that the match is indeed rigged, or you are lying?
You don't. But consider that I gain nothing from lying to you. You pay me (or a trusted escrow), I provide the pick, you win, and when I get the next tip-off I hope for your repeat business. So I pay the agreed price for this information into an escrow account. When that is confirmed as done, you give me the tip and I bet on it. If the tip wins, the escrow releases the purchase price of the tip to you; if the tip fails, then I get my money back from the escrow, but stand the staked money loss myself. Is this the way it would work? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
