I think there needs to be a serious discussion regarding aTriz's very shady business dealings:

Vouch of fake gambling "script":

aTriz claimed to have received a "vouch" copy of a gambling "script" that was being sold for over $10,000 by someone who has recently been exposed as a scammer:

archive of the above quote that is unedited as of prior to when the person who was selling this script was exposed as being a scammer.

Claims by the seller included "you cannot go wrong with it" and "is also able to indicate, in a way, the coming games' outcomes based on immediately preceding games", among others, which were debunked prior to aTriz posting his "vouch" (same reference).

I would speculate that either aTriz did not receive the script being sold in the referenced thread, and/or aTriz did not perform sufficient due diligence prior to posting his 'vouch' and/or received undisclosed consideration in exchange for the 'vouch' and/or there were other conflicts of interests in giving this 'vouch' and/or was actively conspiring with the seller of this script in order to defraud potential buyers

---

---

Entering into shady 'custom' signature campaign deals:
aTriz confirmed the terms of a signature deal with a person, who at the time has claimed to be a forum member for less than 30 days, that was for a duration of 3 years. The terms of this deal were that this person was going to receive payment in the amount of roughly $300 per month in exchange for '30-100' posts per month. The lower bound of the cost per post of the agreement was above the upper bound of signature campaign rates currently available to legendary members currently on an effective per post basis.

aTriz entered into this agreement with the same person he 'vouched' for above.

I believe a best case scenario is that aTriz is a very poor businessman and poor negotiator, although I believe it is very well possible that something much more shady was going on in relation to this deal.

---

---

Managing advertising campaign of probable ICO scam:
aTriz managed the advertising campaign of what I believe to be a shady ICO, called Ice Rock Mining, and given gives this as a reference of his past work.

If you look at their website, you will see they are promising that investors in their ICO will earn more than 400% return on their investment. Although this is unlikely, it is possible those behind the ICO are very good managers, and are very generous. However if you look at various archives, you will see the calculator currently lists potential returns over 3 years (which is also displayed on the live version of the website), however the FAQ section of an archive from October 2017 talks about two year contracts. The pre-sale of the ICO apparently started September 25, 2017.

To me, this is something that was fairly clearly a scam for a number of reasons, however aTriz nevertheless managed the advertising campaign of this ICO, yet aTriz did nothing to call this out to warn potential investors. I would speculate that aTriz either was personally involved in this likely scam, and/or deliberately turned a blind eye to this probable scam because of this business relationship and/or attempted to legitimize this probable scam as a result of his business relationship (and of course the payments he was receiving).

---

Based on the above, I believe it is likely that 'trust' from aTriz is likely for sale, either directly via trust ratings, or from other actions that appear to make other entities look more trustworthy than they are.

---

---

Self moderated thread. I will be aggressive in deleting posts that are either off topic, or have the effect of (starting to) derail this thread. I will allow both alia and Ice Rock mining to each make a single post in this post (which I will quote and post in the OP) refuting the allegations above, however will otherwise be disallowed from posting in this thread.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

I have seen you try to sell this for a while now without success, and will make you an offer that is quite frankly almost certainly going to be better than you will get from anyone else around here, and will allow you to liquidate the XRP you have been trying to sell for a long time at roughly market rates.

You have had a bad experience with an exchange in the past, and it is entirely understandable you do not want to use an exchange to convert your XRP into BTC (and potentially eventually USD). In order to address this, I will personally guarantee against losses resulting from you using the following exchanges resulting from the exchange not processing a withdrawal immidiately following (within 24 hours) you exchanging your XRP for BTC at then market rates on that exchange, which you must do immidiately following (within 24 hours) receiving credit for depositing said XRP to said exchange:
*bitfinex.com
*poloinex.com
*shapshift.io

For the purposes of this offer, the term "losses" is defined as the exchange failing to process a withdrawal request within 7 calendar days of requesting a withdrawal.

In the event I am required to cover losses, you must agree to assign claims against the relevant exchange to me (in other words, if there are recoveries from the exchange after I cover the losses, you must forward recoveries to me, at my expense).

If this signed message is insufficient to accept this guarantee, I am willing to deposit $50,000 worth of bitcoin to a mutually agreed upon escrow agent (at your expense) that will guarantee my performance in this offer. I am willing to accept OgNasty, blazed, tomatocage and theymos as an escrow agent, although I may consider escrow agents preferred by you (TheButterZone). If you wish for me to deposit this amount of bitcoin with an escrow agent, I will need up to 48 hours from your acceptance of this offer to deposit sufficient bitcoin to our agreed upon escrow agent.

In exchange for this guarantee, I will require a fee in the amount of 1.5% of the bitcoin successfully withdrawn as a result of the conversion of the 50,000 XRP into bitcoin, payable to an address to be provided, and signed by this same GPG key upon your acceptance of this offer.

This offer will expire as of when block    512363 is found on the Bitcoin blockchain.

If you feel any of the above terms are unfair, or otherwise undesirable, I am willing to further discuss these (or other) terms, so we can try to come to an agreement.

Please let me know.
QS
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=QaAS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I am not sure why you think this is true. The IP address of the forum is currently very clearly associated with cloudflare

Ahhh, I am sure this is true

The forum should develop a written policy on disclosing information to government entities.

Regardless of the above, I would encourage the forum to do the following:

• publish a transparency report periodically, disclosing the number of requests, and requests fulfilled (generalized, if necessary) about various types of requests for information
• Notifying any subject of a government request for information (if allowed by law) of request for information before the providing of information, so the subject can attempt to fight these types of requests -- this should not preclude the forum from disclosing information voluntarily if in its sole judgment, providing said information would be a net benefit to the community

If you exclude freebitco.in, then neither transaction can be linked to any gambling site, using walletexplorer.com

Here is what he said regarding the txids of alia gambling nullic's money

The transaction back to nullic from alia can somewhat be linked to freebitco.in by way of the change address, although there are a couple of transactions between the transaction from alia and when the coins make their way to a known freebitco.in address.

I updated the OP to add more conspirators.

It appears this is a much more serious situation than I had previously realized.

I would point out that it was recently pointed out that lauda[1] and the rest of his conspirators called zeroxal's family members to harass their extortion victim according to a post recently made. Lauda responded to this post, but failed to address this issue.



[1]In a conspiracy, the criminal action of one conspirator is the actions of all other conspirators.

I have updated my QS key to have an expiration date of 2019. Please do not encrypt anything to the acctseller key, it is unlikely it will be able to be decrypted.

My updated expiration has been sent to the key servers and should update in due time. [/list]

I am surprised it took this long to upgrade.

As a general rule, there is no need to consolidate these inputs in a transaction you send to yourself, unless you are moving funds to cold storage, or are otherwise protecting against a (potential) compromise of your private keys. You will generally save on transaction fees (and total block space) if you waited until you needed to pay someone ~0.094BTC and used the same inputs you used in txid ea631de...4937f341 to pay that person. Now if you need to pay someone ~0.094BTC, you can use that output, however, you will now be paying a second transaction fee for a one input, one output transaction. One might argue that necessary to confirm transaction fee rates are lower now than they will likely be in the future, so consolidating inputs will allow you to buy up block space at low rates now, so you can spend that money with a lower total fee later with a lower total fee (between the two transactions) later when transaction fees increase, however this probably will make less sense when you are spending that output a day or two later, like you could have done in 5998550...2a3f5351fe
the day after you consolidated inputs with 5942d70103a...2b3970b17, earlier that day.

If you operate under the presumption that a person believes there are benefits to using SegWit, I would advise them to start receiving bitcoin to SW addresses, to start sending change to SW addresses, and to send bitcoin from non-SW unspent outputs when doing so would not make their transactions unnecessarily large. This will result in this person to, overtime accumulate their bitcoin in SW addresses, and will not result in unnecessary transactions stored on the blockchain.

There does not yet appear to be a largely accepted standard for doing this yet. If you want to verify ownership/control over a SegWit address, you will need to be somewhat flexible in what you are willing to accept.

The only major wallet software supporting 'bc1....' addresses that I am aware of is electrum.

I have already shown lauda to be guilty of extortion....

This might be viewed as unsolicited advertising spam if done via PM, which is not allowed.

Trying to get business from your competition is normally part of doing business, and this alone is not unethical. Their actions might cross the line into being unethical depending on the specifics of the messages sent, and if they are misrepresenting anything.


maybe, maybe not. If their work is not good, then when new perspective customers evaluate them, they are unlikely to get hired. Also, if you get fired, your client hires this other person, and the other person does a poor job and gets fired, then if your (now) former clients approach you to resume work, then you will be in a position to either ask for more money, or ask that you receive payment as if you were working the entire time. 

Actually you are quoting a nonsense post by lauda

So you are saying that you have evidence and believe that shdvb is not hacked?

When people make a point to say this, more often then not, they are not. There is often a specific reason why they want everyone else to think they are new

Which one of the circle jerkers that have made a hobby of extorting people and smearing OgNasty are you? (This doesn’t mention the other shady and scammy behavior you are are involved in).

Assuming you and I have an open LN channel, we will need to exchange a total of 6(iirc) partially (each by one party) transactions in a very specific order. It is more complex if a transaction needs to be routed through other LN nodes.

When you trade with someone and that person knows specifically how to connect to the full node you will use to verify the transaction you are receiving, your security will marginally decrease.

If you are dealing with sufficiently large amounts, your trading partner can connect to your node via many other nodes so that they are the only entity you are connected to and can then broadcast a transaction to only your node (perform a Sybil attack). (If you are dealing in smaller amounts the cost of this will probably outweigh the expected gain).

You can publish the identity of a node you are running for fun and/or so others can use data you publish for research, however if you do this, I would use another full node (including possibly an electrum server) to verify transactions sent to you, especially when the other party sends first and when dealing with larger amounts.

That would not explain why lauda has failed to leave negative trust against these accounts.

The only explanation I can give is that these belong to lauda....

Is anyone able to give an explanation as to why lauda is unable to give negative trust to so many clearly purchased accounts besides that these are his sockpuppets?