they trade with your shit while they claim "ACH is pending". 7 days for an ACH transfer? takes 3 business days at most.  so lets confront coinbase about it, here is the company line. hmm..  then lying about columbus day.  coinbase, real winners aren't they? |
|
|
|
Haha r3wt, I love how Blazr came back and just left you negative feedback. But you do deserve negative feedback for a variety of things you've done, or failed to do. Any thoughts on if they're behind the phishing sprees a month or so ago? Email me if you do  Nah bro, i received my negative feedback from iGS already. you little bitches just mad  |
|
|
|
just stop smoking. try 5-MeO-DMT or something of value
lol, really? that is a crazy suggestion. |
|
|
|
Yippee - I made it!!I created a 31 character only bitcoin address:
111111i4VTdHkzFqV2a4jntfZkdVk6B
1234567890123456789012345678901
Proof (Format 1, electrum): Message: The person who owns the bitcointalk account "HugoTheSpider" controls the 31 character long bitcoin address "111111i4VTdHkzFqV2a4jntfZkdVk6B" Signature: HEWtl8rKYYQ+1rGQNgFS7Wkj9at17U/5XY6S3csqD2Bbdz8cNiaiealts1CjGk0teGVArrYCenoDlOgcR1vwB3M= Proof (Format 2, brainwallet.org): -----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
The person who owns the bitcointalk account "HugoTheSpider" controls the 31 character long bitcoin address "111111i4VTdHkzFqV2a4jntfZkdVk6B"
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
111111i4VTdHkzFqV2a4jntfZkdVk6B
HEWtl8rKYYQ+1rGQNgFS7Wkj9at17U/5XY6S3csqD2Bbdz8cNiaiealts1CjGk0teGVArrYCenoDlOgcR1vwB3M=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- I ran a SQL command against my local bitcoin database to see how rare 31 character bitcoin addresses really are. If my program code made no errors: Anyone confirm? Full list of 31 char bitcoin addresses (count = 56): 11111111LeonhardEu1er111126nxjP
11111111k111111111111111XV7PT9D
11111111w1111111111111111YyEFv6
11111pFBik2fmivGGRN9LHkpnCjw615
11111111113qcG1Zzhev6zwHkT6KSgz
11111111wkCcmEDqzjQ5Le7PSxa3NPC
11111111114Lju43GJyVnshuEQre15q
1111111112HRvLssPwbQyp19zXZvnEQ
11111osx23iVHAFJK1WfWYvLwyW3xat
11111113QZnEeKSTiEcnykjjmBY9iZb
11111111117uXnx2Dq91CuBa8yZSLjw
111111199ekhTRQBfinaytQkzXFuNR2
1111111D5v7zoNdZp1Qya7jo11XuZpU
11111113RdG935ESipHd5K6NhoJ9Knd
111111111112Dk8JJnSyoANH4Ayc8ht
111111111BgPnqHLsmrfjSAVn8cLCAg
11111113ZHabTS4G6gBXgqj2DbSLgiH
111111BhhauVhysdcVAcTDskuwG7NrK
111111CKu8Cd1avKVX6XrccgoEK5ER7
11111pEUYJnqFWjox7WyAKi3MJ62SYy
11111osKnJFY1rFAoRUKKtq9BH1vCrT
11111113RdGAdFkP9r96vbWvH8UAVDJ
111111Bhh3pU9gLXZiNE2rioEoV4gt7
11111111113UMudt6u3qhLS4bt5pja8
11111pEbmSWqJdBuPagXCTV5VNvvTgU
11111111D9WeSohur9MH23FnaBRBrbC
1111111mPNW4AXMfnH4vXpbMMp38eSf
11111111113oujAkaqx1yoogZirj14K
111111112PtAhKwEsTVjsf34w5CwrNy
11111pEbmSWqJdBuPagXCTV5VDzghL8
111111116fWzSjXSFxtqkTggiTuyKZ5
11111111FAurUHNHjJys9WYXPRtVgok
11111118RaTXhWSpgcPxEV1B6G9s5tb
11111118Fmh6W8LcKPuAKg2u2qohPKL
1111111S11NYahLV3hpApnAHjmtPLsS
111111ZmUg6VnxyTqEJnWbmYCbARsb3
111111112dyNc8CgfGwc4iASFMW1f9k
11111111112J7CHvNXZaUpkd3LKFbyE
11111111113UMudt6u3qhLS4LwRhUDF
1111111116iWLqga1tnmomY5A3W6GpR
111111111BumHKnZ2jXw2mbmHrRwJ3h
111111111BumHKnZ2jXw2mctsAQmjGg
111111111DQ3j83NP3qKjb3dJpgi2N4
11111111RA6syvuJXKHBNcgVwybX3N6
1111111Ad7fCsFmbuUsUUjCMcq84Bu7
11111113SAzjs4PkDUmsKtq5wVkrXmJ
111111CKkQZC38oo9AHkYARP1equmpi
11111111118ADdsekau8vX1NUt6SyhC
111111111XUruorPdUKuXKfFwCjXEvF
11111111gF4bNCy7Ws7Ze6PC3GhPYPw
111111Bd1eZ29F3wP36yhH75YSioTyB
11111osx23iVHGzuWdFrbcNAUXcACyE
11111111114MiiYqMagM5nbPJDrjDvv
111111111YbTdq3229Dox5VjYpgfkhP
111111BcxtWXq5CMZMRBG1bFhzB9RRX
111111i4VTdHkzFqV2a4jntfZkdVk6B Very nice! |
|
|
|
Hyperbolic reply. You take reasonable steps to prevent it such as deleting threads with the same effort that is used to delete what is considered spam or off-topic. Then you warn people that accounts can be sold if it is a problem, you don't publically support account selling. That make this site (and Bitcoin) look ridiculous and irresponsible and possibly even create a legal liability. That is why you don't see this at most other forums.
The reason you dont see account selling at other forums, is because their demographic is different. This isn't the hello kitty fansite forum. We cater to the bitcoin community, all of which knows basic anonymity measures and know how to bypass any measures that we could possibly put in place. Why create laws if we can't enforce them, it just makes us look like jackasses. More hyperbole. You either have a hello Kitty forum or you have a Bitcoin forum. You are right about the demographics part, most other forums are run by responsible adults and this one is run by dumb kids and delusional people.they clearly know what they are doing though, so perhaps they are not dumb or delusional at all.  |
|
|
|
|
Chess is a game requiring patience, but its no fun when your opponent only knows how to play checkers.
|
|
|
|
The government didn't create bitcoin. The cypherpunks created bitcoin in one way or another.
@ jonald_fyookball quote: "But it wasn't until Satoshi invented Bitcoin that it became possible".
*Actually, bitcoin didn't become possible until Hal Finney figured out his "RPOW” could be added on top of Adam Back’s “HashCash” to create the solution for the Byzantine General’s Problem which prevented systems like BitGold/Bitcoin from being a reality.
not that it really matters, but that makes it sound like Finney invented Bitcoin, not Satoshi. Satoshi referend POW in his white paper first, did he not? Whoever Satoshi was he didn't invent Bitcoin alone. It was a collaboration between Satoshi, Hal Finney and Ray Dillinger building on the previous work of Adam Back and others. I wonder how much of it was derived from Hal's work on RPOW? |
|
|
|
EDIT: Ironically it looks like you have just been discovered that you scammed today via a scamcoins
Lol, it's an attempt to discredit me by abusing the trust system(as is your post, obviously). |
|
|
|
|
is it possible the authorities are shutting these places down, and placing the owners under gag orders? i don't think we can rule that possibility out just yet.
|
|
|
|
|
Your argument falls flat, because i provided plenty of proof in the matter which i am referencing, without going into much detail. I have pm logs and screenshots, and i was extorted into removing them, by tactics ranging from death threats, to sending drugs to my house from silk road, to opening a credit card in my name.
|
|
|
|
Ok, now you're just trying to change the subject. my original argument had nothing to do with investing in these sites. It's the simple presence of dooglus in this thread and as an escrow provider in relation to these websites that mysterioulsy vanished. Either he's complicit, gullible, or in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I'm sorry, I understand your point but don't think this is in any way fair. Dooglus knows a lot about probability and how to run a successful and honest dice site, so he is naturally interested in them so he posts in their threads. He posts and discusses them. Sure he signed up for a signature campaign but so have dozens of other bitcointalk users and to his credit he bailed when he realized that some were taking his signature as an endorsement which it was not. By definition escrow suggests a LACK of trust, so him serving as escrow for some of the signature sponsors isn't an endorsement, it's simply him holding their coins. You are correct that dooglus has a lot of credibility here and I appreciate his commentary on sites, especially when he finds problems with them. He himself has said repeatedly that there is no way to guarantee investors that they cannot be exploited by an opportunistic site owner and the obvious risk of running away with the coins. I'm really glad he's around and if your comments discourage him from posting about sites that would bring the community down. How is my point not fair? it's an undeniable truth in human relationships, whether on a forum or in real life. You have to be careful what you endorse, because if it takes a hit, your reputation will likely be called into question, whether you are to blame or not. Your argument attempts to make some points, but they are made moot by one simple fact. You are asking others not to question dooglus' actions/motives, while at the same time you are telling others to stop blindly trusting in hero members with positive trust, which is akin to "Do as i say, not as i do". There is a common pattern here on bitcointalk, and its been going on since the early days of my enrollment here. A hero member attaches their name/reputation to services, and others are quick to follow suit without question, usually with the consequence of losing their coins, whether it be by investing or losing through the service. The hero member eventually gets called into question, and the people who called him into the question are actively discredited, given negative trust and in some cases banned from the forums. I hope that this illustrates my stance on the manner, but if it doesn't let me clarify by summation of the above points my exact position on the matter: I am not suggesting that dooglus is complicit in this scheme, but rather that he should not be immediately ruled out because of his position in the default trust. This does not apply specifically only to dooglus. This applies to all trusted members who attach their name through endorsement, real or implied, to a service that ultimately results in the loss of customer funds. These people should absolutely be called into question, and if they are truly absent of blame, they will have no problem proving it, actively reinforcing their trustworthiness. |
|
|
|
SaltySpitoon, its a good post but we all know that politics relating to the trust system is what runs this community now. You can very easily bring to light the actions of a user not in the default trust, but the posters in the default trust have a pseudo immunity to scam accusations, to where they can do whatever they want and get away with it, because any negative trust they receive won't show up on their profile, and they can easily enlist fellow members in the default trust and use them to discredit their accusors through posting fraudulent trust ratings. its a pretty broken system in this aspect. It is my belief that only moderators and admins should be allowed into the default trust.
If there is a scam accusation against someone on default trust with actual evidence then others (that is credible) then other people on default trust will give negative trust and the people that have previously trusted the account will remove such trust. The people on default trust on not all part of some kind of collation or a gang, and will not necessarily trust or believe others on default trust if there is a reason not to. You've been here 3 months, so you think your opinion holds more weight than mine? i have busted hero members red handed and they are still in the default trust. |
|
|
|
|
SaltySpitoon, its a good post but we all know that politics relating to the trust system is what runs this community now. You can very easily bring to light the actions of a user not in the default trust, but the posters in the default trust have a pseudo immunity to scam accusations, to where they can do whatever they want and get away with it, because any negative trust they receive won't show up on their profile, and they can easily enlist fellow members in the default trust and use them to discredit their accusors through posting fraudulent trust ratings. its a pretty broken system in this aspect. It is my belief that only moderators and admins should be allowed into the default trust.
|
|
|
|
Agree to disagree. In real life, when you endorse a product or service, you are actively putting your reputation on the line. If it turns out great, its just another boost to your already sterling reputation. If it turns out badly your reputation takes a hit. The logical problem with your argument is that you are taking up for a supposedly trusted member with absolutely no reason other than trusted status, and at the same time saying anyone who trusted him enough to invest is, to paraphrase loosely "stupid". so, do you see how you have just discredited your own argument?
No, sorry, I don't. What do you mean by "you are taking up for a supposedly trusted member"? As for investing, I can't see a direct link between trusting dooglus and an investment into DB or DN. I trust dooglus as a casino owner (still wouldn't invest more than I could to lose and neither should anyone), but I have no clue about dooglus as an investment adviser and I don't know if he had ever claimed to be one or had actually provided any advice other than the assumed endorsements. I don't take investment advice from my dentist or from Oprah either although I trust them in other ways (well, maybe not Oprah). Why does common sense have to be different in an interwebs forum? Ok, now you're just trying to change the subject. my original argument had nothing to do with investing in these sites. It's the simple presence of dooglus in this thread and as an escrow provider in relation to these websites that mysterioulsy vanished. Either he's complicit, gullible, or in the wrong place at the wrong time. |
|
|
|
This is the 3rd or 4th time you've been connected with a gambling site that has bit the dust.
I'm not suggesting dooglus is connected to it.
Yes, you are. You're explicitly stating that I'm connected to it. You've promoted, supported, and helped (through escrow or whatever) 2 or 3 dice sites now that have run off with people funds. You have provided those sites indirect trust through your support of them (if Dooglus trusts them, the most trustest gambling owner around, I should trust them < the indirect conclusion here). The one you've been against, PRCDice, is ironically now the only one left standing hasn't run to this point. That is what r3wt is trying to say. I would agree but not to that you're involved or knew they would run. I think you've become gullible as you've become bored. Just-Dice used to occupy all your time, you got your thrills from handling that despite it being so much work. Why is escrow being mentioned in this context as if it's a bad thing? It was to protect signature campaign members against insolvency and it worked, so dooglus did his part in compensating at least a small set of creditors. And yes, making an investment decision based on an imaginary endorsement by a forum personality is as dumb as blaming said personality for the consequences. Doesn't justify the scam in any way, but if anyone really did invest because of dooglus consider that an expensive lesson learned. What's next, should I blame AK that betting using his "strategy" isn't working for me? I am not blaming Dooglus just explaining the situation. Everyone makes their own investment and should understand the risk themselves. None of these <6 months old dice sites are even worth a look at playing at let alone investing in, in my opinion. Sorry, this should have been addressed more towards r3wt. Agree to disagree. In real life, when you endorse a product or service, you are actively putting your reputation on the line. If it turns out great, its just another boost to your already sterling reputation. If it turns out badly your reputation takes a hit. The logical problem with your argument is that you are taking up for a supposedly trusted member with absolutely no reason other than trusted status, and at the same time saying anyone who trusted him enough to invest is, to paraphrase loosely "stupid". so, do you see how you have just discredited your own argument? |
|
|
|
This is the 3rd or 4th time you've been connected with a gambling site that has bit the dust.
I'm not suggesting dooglus is connected to it.
Yes, you are. You're explicitly stating that I'm connected to it. Let me clarify. I am not accusing you of wrong doing, but it does strike me as odd that your name would be associated with these fly by night bitcoin dice sites. What i mean by associated: You acitively promote it. You are listed as the escrow service. Basically what i see happen is this: Either you're complicit in some type of scam, using your trusted status to help them gain trust, or you're just gullible, and allowed some scammers to use your trusted status to gain trust and investments in their site, so they could dissapear with the coins. |
|
|
|
from everything i've read it looks like dooglus finally slipped up and got caught.
What are you talking about? You think dice.ninja was my site? I've not even heard anyone suggest that. It's worth mentioning. This is the 3rd or 4th time you've been connected with a gambling site that has bit the dust. A simple denial of the accusation would suffice. a simple amount of common sense would suffice. he owned a site with 60k btc, returns them, then teams up with some randoms for a few hundred bitcoins after a split? I'm not suggesting dooglus is connected to it. I just read the headlines, so i'm not particularly well versed about all of these situations. |
|
|
|
 Aww, since the account was banned, I can't see the outbox. It's no coincidence that Blazr has logged in to leave me negative feedback, now is it |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
