I never bump any thread but I feel it is my responsibility to keep bounty participants updated thats why I post on those threads.
And it's also your responsibility to start new bounty threads while being banned? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4492377.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4477491.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4462726.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4453171.0There might be more, those are only the ones since June 10th (I assume WBP has been banned in the first week of June, correct?) Why post ANN threads on behalf of others while your WBP account is banned? Someone else (who is currently not banned) could have posted that. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4457817.0If you were only evading the ban for the sake of keeping already started bounties updated and doing the right thing for your current participants, then why accept new offers and start new threads while you are banned? You could simply refuse the position, saying that you are currently unable to start new campaigns/accept management positions. Who are the people that have shared access to WBP? What reason did it get banned for, and who was the one in control of the account that caused the ban?
Question for the moderator that eventually reads this thread: How are ban evasions handled with shared accounts. In a regular ban scenario, a user is banned (as a person) and thus all their accounts are banned. If an account with shared access from users X gets banned, are all users affected by this ban, or is just the user that caused the ban (thus violated forum rules) banned together with their shared account. If so, how is it determined which user is affected by/included in the ban. tl;dr: Does Wapinter get a free pass to evade their ban here due to the fact they gave access to their bounty account to other users or are they held responsible for the actions made in their name? |
|
|
|
|
Wapinter told me in PM that the bounty thread is unlocked to give the Coinect team a chance to reply to accusations.
I am unsure why they cannot respond to eg this Scam Accusation thread if the bounty thread is locked.
Imo the thread should be locked and the bounty should be paused until all valid concerns are cleared (or be locked/stopped forever if they fail to do so).
Prolonging the bounty, continuing to lure people into advertising/investing while there is reasonable doubt about the service, with the sole reason of giving them a "chance to respond", is super reckless in my book.
|
|
|
|
It is worth pointing out that Wapinter is currently evading a forum ban they have gotten with their alt account Wapinter Bounty Portal. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4486093.0
I don't think campaign managers have a duty to research the project in as much depth as you suggest. They're just taking on a job, and when any of us apply for a job we usually assume good faith on the part of the employer. It also assumes the manager is capable of and has the time to delve into detective work. I think what you're saying shifts the blame way too much onto the campaign manager's shoulders. What if there's a critical detail that the manager misses?
I am not sure why a Bounty manager has to be taken responsible for a scammy ICO, I mean before you invest in an ICO you are advised by mostly everyone to do your due diligence, to investigate whether the project is a scam or not, in other words, I hereby advise you all who assimilate SCAM ICOs with good intended and hardworking managers to do your research before participating in a Bounty.
Managers should do a minimum of research before they accept a position. Participants should do their research before they start advertising a project. Investors should do extended research before sending their money anywhere. Just because the managers do research, doesn't mean participants should not do their own research anymore ( I have discussed that recently with mdayonliner). Likewise, a manager cannot take themselves out of responsibility by claiming all research has to be done by participants, they should do their own due diligence as well, as they put their reputation on the line with the positions they take on. If all three groups (mangers, participants, investors) of people do sufficient and independent research, scams can be found and stopped way earlier than right now, because the more people check a project, the more likely bad apples like these get found both quickly and reliably. Currently, third parties that have nothing to do with either group have to point out problems to the managers which then only react, at a point it might already be too late for participants/investors. |
|
|
|
A wheel? That looks wrong, you faked that picture, coinlocket. Here is the original:  |
|
|
|
|
So Wapinter once again has been caught in a scam accusation by managing the bounty campaign for such an obvious scam.
This is the second time within a week they missed to do any kind of research before starting a campaign and luring people into advertising/investing into such a clear scam.
|
|
|
|
<you'll laugh once you realize what's missing in the pic>
I wanna solve, the lady in the front is not wearing a hidschāb. |
|
|
|
Looks like BitSler employees and Crypto-Games employees are also going "rouge"
Just for the record, CG is useless when it comes to mixing, do not attempt to mix your coins via crypto.games I much prefer bitblender.io for that purpose. (I'm taking a piss here, in case it wasn't obvious. gamble wherever you want and mix your coins where you feel comfortable doing so)You pointed out decent possibilities however if his email address was hacked we will cover his 16 bitcoins lost.
We took a huge risk only for this specific deposit since chipmixer employee went rouge on us.
Can we stop dismissing valid concerns and provable points by the fact they are being pointed out by person X or person Y. What is said should be more important than who it is that says it.
So, once again: - Why did you claim to have not received the 16 BTC, when clearly you did? - What verification have you received to agree to change the receiving address for $100k worth of BTC? - Do you really believe bitcoin signed messages can be easily faked? If so, can you give us an example, eg sign a message from an address I give you? |
|
|
|
The user has told us to deposit to other address via email, for security reasons we wont reveal this address.
What kind of verification did you ask from the user before you were willing to change their destination address for $100k worth of bitcoin? If I send BTC to you for the purpose of mixing them, I expect them to reach their destination specified in the letter of guarantee, not be intercepted during the mixing and be rerouted. With changing the destination you did break your own letter of guarantee. I hope you are aware of what a dangerous precedence you are setting here. What if for example their email was hacked and you were not communicating with the user that had originally deposited those funds to your mixer? You're taking a huge risk by letting users change from addresses which you have signed.
Disclaimer: I have a working relationship with bitblender.io, my opinions are my own, and you can insult me for either of those two things as much as you like. |
|
|
|
As zazarb is no longer escrowing funds on your behalf, you need to update your original post to reflect there are NO funds escrowed for user protection right now. The way it is, you are giving a false sense of security where there is none, as the escrow was returned to you. Yes, you've posted an update, but just remove the section about the escrow completely, as it doesn't apply anymore.
I am missing coins too. I have sent my letter of guarantee to LoyceV to verify.
You can forward it to me as well, to eliminate the claim of bitmixcoin that this is an attack by a "chipmixer employee" on their reputation. |
|
|
|
We fixed everything with the user,
We haven't received those 16 bitcoins.
I don't get it. You fixed everything even thought you didn't receive 16 bitcoins. Nah, I still don't get it. Did you or did you not receive 16 bitcoins from user? They did, according to the letter of guarantee I have been forwarded. I've verified said letter (was expecting a PGP, but apparently they only use bitcoin signed messages, meh), and the deposit address signed in that letter has received a ~16 BTC transaction over a week before bitmixcoin.io claimed to NOT have received the btc.
I can confirm, the user deposited 16 BTC to an address signed by bitmixcoin.io and the funds have not yet reached to target destination also signed by bitmixcoin.io |
|
|
|
We fixed everything with the user
It's easy for you to say, but would you provide some proof of that, or ideally have the user themselves confirm that? Please publish the letter of guarantee, which pretty easily can be manipulated or faked.
Sorry, you're saying it is easy to spoof/fake PGP (or in your case bitcoin) signed messages?
If the above statement by bitmixcoin.io is wrong and you still need someone to tag their account, forward the letter of guarantee to me. Little piece of advice here, btw: You are not building a strong image for your brand with the way you talk. I'd expect something better from a public representative for a service supposedly trusted with several thousand btc each week.
Disclaimer: I have a working relationship with bitblender.io, my opinions are my own, and you can insult me for either of those two things as much as you like. |
|
|
|
|
It would be fairly easy for Arbitao to prove you wrong. That is, of course, only if they are actually trading as they claim.
They'd just have to show us accounts on the regarding exchanges with significant trade history,
or say if given one of their "arbitrage transaction ID"s, show the two trades they have made in order to execute the arbitrage.
|
|
|
|
No, you were right, I'm pretty sure it looks like it's in the north AND high in the sky, meaning around noon.
I think there are two probable explanations here, ether those two fine gentleman are vampires and they did have no other option than staging the picture, because they would burst into flames if they were out in direct sunlight, or they actually aren't based out of London/the UK and they were to cheap to fly to London in order to make a few business pictures. |
|
|
|
The worse case could be like ARBITAO, without prior knowledge I may join but then when I will be well aware of the scam and if I know that the account got hacked then I will leave the campaign without even informing the yahoo account owner (the hacked owner). And if I know for certain that yahoo account indeed is yahoo's then again I will inform him that I am going to leave his campaign after x amount of time or immediately. All depends on the situation.
So you'd join, advertise a scam, until someone else does the research you should be doing and points it out to you, at which point you'd leave after having advertised a scam for time X, which could have been completely avoided if you had done your part before joining. |
|
|
|
No mate, I did not even bother to see the whole project since yahoo was the signature manager.
So if yahoo was starting a campaign that promotes killing puppies, you would join that based on the fact it is managed by yahoo? Wrong! I care that's why when I pick up a campaign I try to go with manager who have good reputation. This way, I do not need to do much study before picking up a campaign. A good manager does the job for me. I could do that for myself but it just I don't spend much time on picking up a campaign. Is there anything wrong trusting a manager who has good reputation already in the community?
Well, yes. Let's take the off chance that yahoo's account gets hacked and it isn't noticed (while the chance might be very low since yahoo uses a strong password and doesn't do stupid things, it does exist). Now the hacker (prentending to be yahoo) launches a campaign that promotes, say a phishing version of WalletingServices (used to reclaim forked coins, currently running a forum ad, thus reputable service), that phishing version pretends to be WalletingServices, but is only set up to steal private keys from users. Would you, based on the fact that this campaign is managed by whom you believe to be yahoo, join the phishing campaign without doing any kind of research? At that point, you'd be an accessory to the scam due to sheer stupidity and lazyness. |
|
|
|
What a shame really, I got tagged by you when I was in the process of reapplying, really such a waste of talent and time, I should be out there meriting people instead I got tagged and forced to focus on DT members and their tagging habits, it's not too late you know? please un-tag me and let me to bump my application, maybe theymos changes his mind and accept me just to stop me from poking my nose in his little cute trust system.
Though if I become a source again, I'd have no other choice other than starting to poke my nose into other sources businesses like before, guys whatever you do I am not going to stop. you'll have to deal with me one way or another.
As a DT merit source, I'm so intimidated. Not. |
|
|
|
User: phamvietptcC&P post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3681257.msg40436031#msg40436031A blockchain is a decentralized, distributed and public digital ledger that is used to record transactions across many computers so that the record cannot be altered retroactively without the alteration of all subsequent blocks and the consensus of the network. This allows the participants to verify and audit transactions inexpensively. A blockchain database is managed autonomously using a peer-to-peer network and a distributed timestamping server. They are authenticated by mass collaboration powered by collective self-interests. The result is a robust workflow where participants' uncertainty regarding data security is marginal. The use of a blockchain removes the characteristic of infinite reproducibility from a digital asset. It confirms that each unit of value was transferred only once, solving the long-standing problem of double spending. Blockchains have been described as a value-exchange protocol. This blockchain-based exchange of value can be completed quicker, safer and cheaper than with traditional systems. A blockchain can assign title rights because, when properly set up to detail the exchange agreement, it provides a record that compels offer and acceptance.
Original: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain#Structure |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
