OK. So you acknowledged it's his money, that's some progress.
Did he refuse, or did you ask for the address from that old wallet he no longer has access to?

Where did you get that from? Can you post sources for your claims?


Says who? Nothing in this thread suggests that btc-e were not happy with whatever Steven009 provided them as 'notarized documents' and nothing says what they actually want him to provide in order to release his funds. Are you affiliated with btc-e and have some inside info or just trolling?


Well, that's the problem you're missing, the account (together with the funds) is locked. So whoever the real owner is, he will face the same issues. The original email address associated with the account is closed by google (emails bounce back as undelivered), and (from the screenshots) it looks like btc-e consider test transaction from old wallet and memory of some 3-year old conversation as a legal proofs of identity (which is laughable) and values them more than officially recognised proofs of id/address.

There's always a possibility that OP is trying to pull a scam, but it's pretty trivial for btc-e to come to this thread, clarify and disprove the accusation. I can't see why wouldn't they do that. They've already shown they: 1) can communicate in English and 2) they care about the accusation and negative trust rating. So what's the problem? Your low-tier shilling posts don't do much good for them.

FUDsters gonna FUD either way, they'll just focus on something else.
The problem is the PBOC's action took away the 'fake' trade but also huge part of genuine trade activity (high-volume-low-profit bots and margin trading). This has rather negative short-term impact on Bitcoin. Higher volume makes the value more stable and makes it harder to manipulate the price.

Hopefully in the longer run, Chinese traders will accept the fees and no margin trading (or they'll find their way to western exchanges) and the volume will pick up.

Didn't expect that. I wonder whether he was removed or stepped down himself.

Anyhow, if the 'victim' - Zeroxal considers the case settled, then I see no point in debating the issue any further.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1761133.msg17603873#msg17603873

Looks like they all agreed to sort the issue privately between themselves, since all the threads were locked and edited with 'TBC'. Zeroxal is still active on the forum and he could unlock his own accusation thread if he wished to, so I don't see why would you create this one.

I haven't gone to deep in the details, but am of opinion that the intentions were good and genuine, but the entire idea of playing self-made law enforcers and performing sting operation was indeed pretty fucking stupid (and likely illegal).

Has Lauda stated what he would actually do with the money if Zeroxal decided to pay?

The way I see it, previous volumes from China weren't exactly 'fake'.

- if you trade with yourself just to artificially pump your volume in order to get lower-tier withdrawal fees - then it's certainly fake.
- if you take advantage of zero trading fees to day-trade (or run a bot) with very low profit margin and capitalise on even tiny price movements (no longer possible with 0.2% fees) - then I don't see how it's fake. Such activities made it very hard to get a clear picture of geographical volume breakdown, but there was nothing 'fake' about that.

Refreshing design is a good idea, you could use a bit brighter/livelier colours, or provide different modes (day mode/night mode) like some other sites do.

Few improvement suggestions from the top of my head would be:

• Prompt users to set up usernames/passwords. Maybe allow everyone to access the site with temporary username to check the site, but tell them to set a password/2FA when they click 'deposit'?
• Jackpot feature. Only bets of 1000 sats (or above) counted. This should increase the volume, attract/retain more players, give more profit for you, investors, referrers, but occasionally (when jackpot pool goes very high) players will get mathematical advantage (EV+) making things more interesting. This imo would be the best addition, but it probably will require you to change the commission structure, either by charging more than 10% or reducing referral rates.
• Implement Shapeshift for deposits (and maybe for withdrawals), so players can deposit with altcoins.
• Discourage self-referrals. Either by blocking same ip addresses, or (probably simpler) by introducing requirements for registering for referral program. i.e. You need to wager min X amount to have the option unblocked, alternatively (if you own a popular website etc) email admin to register.
• On referral page, add 'share on twitter/facebook' buttons (with ref links embedded). + share few banners of different sizes
• Add 'permanent' leaderboard(s), i.e. top 10 players with all time highest wagered, top 10 highest profit, top 10 biggest losses etc
• Bring back the chatbot, as a permanent feature (if possible).

Awesome. Feel free to shoot me a pm when the sale goes live.


So same price in USD and GBP? That's over 25% penalty for living in UK...
Can't you do the same price for everyone?

Ps will you be sending by standard 1st class or tracked/recorded? You could go for normal, cheaper 1st class and keep dispatch receipts to protect yourselves from refund claims etc

OK, that's what I thought/remembered but got confused by Mitchell reserving one with you.

---

Just in case, if possible, calling dibs on the lowest serial number available for the Europe batch 

@minerjones - are you doing distribution for US/Canada only? If so, who's distributing in Europe? Will it be possible to buy on website?

Hi Juicey. Are there any concrete plans to revise the current site design and introduce new features/improvements, or are you just asking generic question? In other words, what are the chances that good suggestions will actually be implemented in near future?



+1

Looks like another case of blockchain.info glitch. Transaction was initially included in an orphaned block (#449695) but later included and confirmed in a valid one (#449761), and for some reason BC shows it as a double-spend. All looks fine on other explorer sites.


Congrats on your 4th place. Well done

Just learnt that ViaBtc have a nice tool you can use to push low fees txs through (min 0.0001/kb): https://www.viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator/

Tried and tested. They would include submitted txs in the next block found by them.

Not really, they already have loads of negative trust ratings, but those have no effect on the trust-score visible under the name. But one/few more from DT listed member(s) could be helpful. Where's Vod when you need him most...

Not bad overall, but I'd definitely re-word it a little bit. I'd go for a short intro under in each paragraph and do a bullet points for major risks, so it's easier to read/comprehend.

Quick comments:

In the "Risk warning for normal bitcoin users/consumers" - there's potentially a lot to add. "Don't download wallet from unreliable source" and "always secure the back-up files/passphrases" would be worth to mention. Also, some info about sending BTC with sufficient tx fees would be useful.

"Do they have contact details or are they completely anonymous?" - consider removing this one. Having a registered company (especially in the UK) and contact details doesn't mean much, a lot of recent scam sites have this.

The "Arbitrage" info in the "Risk warning for bitcoin investors" para doesn't really belong there, as it hardly falls within definition of 'investing'. Or you could just add: "...for bitcoin investors/traders"?

It's understandable when you look at the wider context. It's not limited to Bitcoin in any way, it applies to all kind of forex. They just protect their currency (Krone) from speculators after the 2008 banking system collapse.

But if you run a mining-farm and sell your bitcoins outside of the country, that doesn't have any impact on Krone, so that's why it's not disallowed.


Sell abroad (ie for EUR) --> convert EUR to Krone (within allowad limits) to cover mining expenses.

The problem is not so much about Chinese pools conspiring together (but bear in mind that all major operators probably know each other pretty well), but more about Chinese gov being able to take over the majority of hash-power, or just force pool operators to attack the network if they ever see Bitcoin as a major threat.

Don't mine directly to Polo address if you're solo-miner or using a pool that sends out your share of mining profit automatically. Just use a pool that allows you to initiate withdrawals manually (ie Minergate) after you accumulate some decent amount.

Poloniex can change deposit addresses with very short notice and also (afaik) wouldn't show dust-amounts deposits.

https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/823146829701259264

Apparently 3 major Chinese exchanges: OKCoin, Huobi and BTCC announced charging trading fees (0.2%), effective from 24th January.

This must be a result of the Government's probe that happened earlier this month, which also resulted in suspension of margin trading.

That's a dangerous logic. Not adding a particular campaign because of it being likely a scam creates a precedent. Now (if you want to be fair and consistent), before adding any new campaign, you'd have to research every company and evaluate whether it's legit or scam. That, in turn, would create impression that every position on the list is filtered and vouched by Mitchell as being legit.

So it's best to keep it purely informative and keep the judgements outside the table (or maybe red-star the obvious scams).