You show you are trustworthy over time by acting in a trustworthy way, or at least in a way in which others view you as trustworthy.
Yeah, which explains the current trust rating that is being portrayed in digaran's account. The negative trust that DT members have left him are only because of digaran's behavior. Had he been straightforward from start, who knows things would have been different. I would not put that much trust in the "system". Especially considering the lack of willingness to even discuss trust ratings by those in DT, and the lack of consideration of verifiable facts and the opinion of the community of a whole of those in DT when handing out ratings. I'm not going to remove my feedback.
|
|
|
|
|
Would you be willing to accept the argument that he does not trust you and therefore the negative rating he has against you is valid?
|
|
|
|
|
I would say this situation is almost certainly multiple people using exchange deposit addresses.
|
|
|
|
That interview is most probably fake. How can thebitcoinstrip find out and contact Hufflepuff when stunna himself couldn't even after putting a bounty on him? In theory, hufflepuff would have reached out to a member of the media who would interview him. I am not sure why hufflepuff would have reached out to someone at that website though. It would be very unethical for a journalist to leak information he agreed to keep confidential with a source. The author of that article should have received some kind of proof the person he was speaking to was in fact hufflepuff before he published that article. A signed message would have been most appropriate. |
|
|
|
|
It is not possible to have 1649 activity and have more posts than activity.
|
|
|
|
MICRO, is the OP a famous person that most people in the bitcoin community for the past several years would know?
quick seller at least fight for justice on this case. Trust me, I very much think justice should always be served. This however doesn’t mean that you deserve to be paid out if you otherwise defrauded PD. If you stole a fairly small amount from PD, then they should deduct what they lost, plus some amount to deter future attempts to defraud and for compensation for their time in investigating the fraud, and pay out the balance of what is in your account if anything. If you defrauded PD for more than what is in your account then they should pay you out nothing. Your attempts to provide fake KYC information and using a cutout when speaking with them via phone is a fairly good indication you know you were doing something you shouldn’t have been.
if they say this user defraud (illegally obtain money from (someone) by deception.) then pd should go legally for it and they should also provide solid proof. how one could beat the provably fair? so you mean pd has flaws?
I haven’t seen anything posted by PD about “zanazan, monsterAss”. Who are these people? I suspect PD intended on pursuing legal action against you when they asked for KYC information from you, however they received what they believe to be fake information. |
|
|
|
There must be a better way to display this information in a more meaningful way. Could you share the raw data, maybe masking the ip addresses if the information itself is considered 'sensible'?
I have my doubts that you will do anything with the raw data, however instructions on how to convert the images to raw data were posted in the OP. See this link, you would reverse engineer the process. |
|
|
|
I'd like to stop this right here and make clear that this is not a matter of money but rather a matter of principle. I'm happy to donate at minimum the funds involved in this claim to a charity of the community's choosing. The trust of this community is not something we take for granted and is why we elected to post here to further explain this unusual situation. If you are clever, donate to Game Protect. That would not be a charity.... |
|
|
|
|
no. Those who gambled knew very well they had a risk of loss when they well gambled.
|
|
|
|
|
It looks like there are a fairly decent number of spammer “groups” that utilize blocks of IP addresses.
It might be useful to remove what is likely isolated incidents of “evil”, look for patterns and then apply those types of patterns to IP address blocks that have growing amounts of “evil”.
Interestingly, it looks like the number of spammers is growing at a fairly decent clip.
|
|
|
|
MICRO, is the OP a famous person that most people in the bitcoin community for the past several years would know?
quick seller at least fight for justice on this case. Trust me, I very much think justice should always be served. This however doesn’t mean that you deserve to be paid out if you otherwise defrauded PD. If you stole a fairly small amount from PD, then they should deduct what they lost, plus some amount to deter future attempts to defraud and for compensation for their time in investigating the fraud, and pay out the balance of what is in your account if anything. If you defrauded PD for more than what is in your account then they should pay you out nothing. Your attempts to provide fake KYC information and using a cutout when speaking with them via phone is a fairly good indication you know you were doing something you shouldn’t have been. |
|
|
|
|
MICRO, is the OP a famous person that most people in the bitcoin community for the past several years would know?
|
|
|
|
This user in question was linked by fingerprint to a user who defrauded PD out of a significant sum of money.
Robinhood? |
|
|
|
|
When someone deposits $1 into the bank accounts of tether, one USDT will be created and sent to the USDT address of the person who send the dollar.
Most frequently someone will deposit $1 into their Bitfinex account, either by wiring $1 to Bitfinex or depositing $1 worth of bitcoin and subsequently selling it, and withdrawing one USDT from Bitfinex; when Bitfinex runs out of USDT to send to customers, they will buy USDT from tether in sufficient amount to cover withdrawal requests.
|
|
|
|
The other exchanges don’t have any of my personal identification, just an email address. So no, other exchanges are not reporting anything b cause they have nothing to report
You must not be using a major exchange if that is the case. |
|
|
|
It is not Bitfinex’s fault this law was passed. They really don’t have any way of not following the law, otherwise they are at risk of much worse things happening.
Bitfinex is really the last reputable exchange that allows anything close to anon registrations and if you don’t want this type of information reported, you really don’t have much of a choice. Other exchanges share similar information with global tax authorities, they might not tell you though.
Not sure what you’re talking about, this is the first exchange to report users to there countries tax departments. I have used many exchanges. This is way over the top You are mistaken. This is the first exchange I have heard of that is *publicly* reporting information to tax departments. I would fairly confidently say other exchanges are doing the same. To me it sounds like Bitfinex is warning their customers to make sure their taxes are in order in case information released results in an audit. |
|
|
|
|
You show you are trustworthy over time by acting in a trustworthy way, or at least in a way in which others view you as trustworthy.
I would not say the OP doesn’t know what he is doing. Not every case is winnable. Everyone has the right for their side to be heard though.
|
|
|
|
|
It is not Bitfinex’s fault this law was passed. They really don’t have any way of not following the law, otherwise they are at risk of much worse things happening.
Bitfinex is really the last reputable exchange that allows anything close to anon registrations and if you don’t want this type of information reported, you really don’t have much of a choice. Other exchanges share similar information with global tax authorities, they might not tell you though.
|
|
|
|
As you can see,
Vod started a discussion with me about the ratings. Vod noticed my red rating towards him would affect him (while he thought I was on the default trust list.)
Vod suggested that ratings to be changed.
Tone changed after he realized I was not on the Default trust list.
Vod admits that he doesn't think I did anything wrong. ("I'm sad though that you keep that up there, even after I decided what you did wasn't untrustworthy to me and removed the comment.")
I proposed that we both remove our ratings then, because Vod apparently doesn't see my actions as untrustworthy anymore and I don't necessarily have the need to announce the world how much I trust Vod.
I guess this pissed him off. (After all, I did tell him that I don't trust him.) After this, he changed his rating towards me as red and blocked me.
I was willing to keep it as a neutral, but when you admitted via PM that the feedback was retaliatory and you actually DID trust me, I had to act on the dishonesty. The new dishonestly, in addition to the old dishonesty, is what led to the fresh trust. This logic is a good example of your intelligence and ability to apply morals to situations. Or lack thereof. Bidding on your own auction is different from having a hidden reserve because the potential to bid on the auction was not previously disclosed. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Again, ALU has nothing to do with this; you continually spread malicious lies, thus none of your words can be trusted anymore. Tagging your shill account is worthless; you should be removed from the forum. Putting some of the more creative conspiracy theories aside, I think its fair to say aTriz did represent ALU in at least some capacity. Is it not reasonable that by adding the ALU banner to the bottom of the bounties he managed (Moonlite, etc.), aTriz implied that they were in some way related to ALU? This is what I assume when I see that anyway. I think it is insulting to infer that I should believe lauda had nothing to do with this campaign. Especially when aTriz was called out on running shady campaigns in the past and no action was taken. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
