$10,000 is a good amount of money, especially when you are long-term unemployed (his loan listing on BTC-Jam said he was unemployed), or even unemployed at all. Based on the fact that he was trying to take out a very large loan and was trying to start a group buy worth tens of thousands of dollars, I think it is apparent that he was trying to get away with more.
$10,000 is worth closer to $13,000 or $14,000 worth of income after you take into consideration the fact that taxes would not be withheld from any amount of money that he steals/scams. This could easily be 4 or 5 months worth of salary to someone making $35,000 to $45,000 per year.
He will most likely not go to jail over this as it would probably be reasonably implied that the money is a debt obligation of his. I also have heard a report that he was refusing to sign a message agreeing to the terms of trades so it would be possible for him to claim in court that his account was sold/hacked/ect. (however I would doubt this would be true, as if it was then I would think he would come back and claim as much)
I texted with him from may 4 till may 17. With the phone number in his profile: 0017174544274 I got a phone number from him he claimed is his private one. I think its fine at this point to post it: 0017174193511927 I didnt call him on that or get answers to my sms from there. Sounds like you Blazed or your mutual friend might be the key to putting the squeeze on Maidak for some real answers, or to find out if he is really just buying time.
People in the Bitcoin community have been identified and still gotten away with much larger thefts before. There have been many examples but I'm mainly referring to dice sites DiceBitco.in and Dice.ninja. The combined thefts of those 2 sites were multiple millions of USD if I remember correctly.
Why didnt the victims sue? Many scammers were found already. |
|
|
|
How about this proposal:
They actually ask Gavin about it? There is no reason to be waging unneeded wars, hopefully the peaceful method is going to work.
Asking Gavin already happened. He does not react. So that's that. Shouldn't be preceived as 'war'. We're just looking for a consensus which in case it can be found is likely the opposite of war as it would put all this upheaval in the community to rest and we could go back to fight bulls vs bears instead of Gavincoin vs Core which i think everyone prefers. I'm just proposing the most simple and obvious solution to the blocksize debate and i think this proposal should be absolutely included for the options to resolve the "great bitcoin blocksize crisis" 90% are ok with gavins plan. there is already huge consensus. Um... i think thats an incorrect interpretation. 90% is ok with a raise of the blocksize. That surely doesnt mean that 90% are ok with the way Gavin is trying to do what he wants. I think its really not constructive to let it look like there are the one part that is stupid and doesnt see we need a bigger block size. Thats simply not how things are. Personally i think the ideas and way to act of gavin and hearn is something i dont like and will not support. But im still for a higher blocksize. I think someone who acts that way will act so in the future too, or worse. So as long as this doesnt change i think at one point something unfortunate might happen. Its simply me judging about a character and/or the ideas propagated. Read it as you wish but i think practically no one is against a raise of blocksize. How it happened that gavin looks like the one who wants the future and the rest are the dumb people that dont want a raise is beyond me. All the critics are because of the way he tries to enforce it. |
|
|
|
Thanks for your help. You have a habit in this.  So you say its really part of a transaction and can bind the coins that might be owned by a seller then. What i would like to know, cant this be used to scam someone? Its not like a chargeback would be possible. But it sounds dangerous. I mean i surely dont want to receive coins that i find out, cant spend till 2017 or so. Wow... so what happens when this OPCODE is implemented and you receive coins you cant spend?
You won't receive locked coins.  Then when is that opcode implemented? I think opcodes can only be implemented in a transaction. Which means you actually have to send a transaction. Or is there some failsafe that only allows to send to the same address? Would still sound exploitable. Opcodes are added in transaction script. Script decides how the next person wanting to spend the Bitcoins being transferred can gain access to them.* I think I misunderstood your question. I thought you asked what if a user receives locked Bitcoin. No person would receive locked coins. To answer your question: the coins will be locked until preset time has reached. After that, the person will be able to spend those coins. * Line from Bitcoin wiki. -snip-
And what happens when a miner doesnt know this opcode and implements the transaction in a block? Would the block become invalid by the nodes?
-snip-
Transaction is invalid, so the block will be invalid. Sounds like a risk to miners. I believe there are not few miners that dont follow the latest updates so close that it could not be a problem. Majority of miners need to use version that supports this opcode for acceptance and enforcement. If majority uses new version, obviously, others will (eventually) update their clients for incentive. CMIIW. Useful links: • http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/30817/what-is-a-soft-fork • https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide#term-soft-fork • https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Softfork • https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script • https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide#consensus-rule-changes • https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=945977.0 |
|
|
|
So to effectively stake I should invest my CLAMs at Just-Dice? Is there any real downside to that?
I had thought they would constantly stake, but I only have my computer on for a few hours a day, so guess it isn't going to be worth it in the clam wallet.
I updated to the new wallet and now it says I should stake in 1 day! A big difference!
If you invest at Just-dice you will make more money, but you will be contributing to CLAM being centralized. I have read what was written above your post but i still dont get it. Why do you earn more staking on just-dice? As far as i know clams are spread proportionally to the amount of clams on an address. So if you have many you will get stakes more often. On JD- you have a -10% fee. And some plus because of gamblers money whose stakes are added to investors. But besides that it sounds to me like its only like poolmining. Stakes happen more often. There is no difficulty that would make you want to get staked faster too. So at the end it should average out if you stake on jd or in your own wallet. Then why do you earn more on jd? JD orphans blocks of those who don't stake with it due to how many coins are staking there. House edge as addition income on top of the stakes. (this varies... if you invested 2 weeks ago you'd disagree) Say someone only has 10 CLAMS... well staking on their own is a up hill battle with time + orphans and by going just with the Just-dice centralization they get instant returns. Otherwise they may wait a year and never hit a block sucessfully (or maybe they hit one right away... the very base of these cryptocoins is gambling through mining/staking.) I disagree... i invested shortly before the drop.  So let away the -10% fee, the clams from the gamblers that stake for the investors on top and the potential profit from gambling, you say there is an additional income from "JD orphans blocks of those who dont stake with it?" Do you refer to clams that arent in a wallet that is online? I heard those clams dont stake because they dont take part in the network. I did not find info about what orphaned blocks mean for clams. In bitcoin it means a block that is found but another block won. But clams are propagated differently. Does orphan mean that a clam address that isnt online gets theoretically a block but jd finds one a bit later and wins the dispute instantly because of centralization? Wouldnt the solution simply be to make sure to be connected to jd and send the block there as fast as possible? So there is the variance of you staking alone, you might find a block early or later, but overall it should be the same like a big address. It would average out over time. So the advantages of jd are: - wins every dispute because instant confirmation of own found blocks. - is always online so it stakes automatically - gamblers clams stake too. Though dooglus wrote in chat thats not much. Disadvantages: - -10% fee Im not sure but shouldnt the -10% fee already eat up all the advantages when you could stay online all the time too? I doubt orphaned blocks are so many, at least propagating shouldnt happen so fast that jd finds a block more earlier. I now realize that it cant work that way. Staking isnt done by calculating hashes to find a block. So how does orphans happen then? |
|
|
|
Yes, it is a very good idea and helpful in many circumstances, and whether someone can tell what account has been sold is irrelevant, but that's actually another good reason for it. What if someone sells an account that then goes on to attempt to scam? At least this feature then might give people the heads up that something is potentially wrong and can act accordingly. And what's the worse that will happen these days in someone figuring out what account is sold? Not much, but people should be aware of the risks when buying accounts and you can often tell an account has changed hands by many other factors anyway.
Even though i know what you mean, i think its not working the way you say. A scammer who plans a scam will surely wait as long as the notice is gone. Its not so long i believe. And you cant use a password change as a sign for a sold account, so observing all changes would not work too. Though ok, it might gives a little help. |
|
|
|
So what are your thoughts? Is it a good thing to show that the password was changed lately?
Yes. Changing the system to aid people to sell accounts is not a good idea, nor is selling accounts in the first place. I agree that its not a good idea but it happens and it would even happen when it would not be allowed. I dont think its good because it is used to scam, at least trying. Though nowadays there is a valid reason with the signature campaigns. For example instead of saying an account was registered in June 2013, has 252 activity and 1300 posts, a seller can say that the account was created on or before August 2013 (or in the first half of 2013), has 250+ activity and 1,000+ posts.
I know what you mean but it seems that doesnt help in practice in my experience. |
|
|
|
hi
im new to this.. how do these companies monitor your posts to pay you out? do they have to do it manually every day?
Its different, dadice checks all posts manually, most others use bots and look about the posts slightly. |
|
|
|
|
It doesnt make much sense to me. He isnt rich with >10k USD when he still used his old skype account.
Oh... *checking something* no, as long as the phone number in his profile is the same from long ago then he still texted me from his phone. I thought he might have given me another phone number, which he did, but he actually answered with the one in his profile. I thought i need to check because i never was able to reach him, or getting added, on skype. Which might have meant the one owning the account cant access the phone number and he mentioned skype only to let me believe he is the real deal, without ever wanting or being able to add me. Though thats not the case when the profile page didnt change.
So what we have is the same person, the profile wasnt changed in the last months, right?
Why should he do an exit scam for 10k when he knows we know his address and name?
For me its more likely the story he told me is correct. I guess ill write about without going too much into detail. He mentioned mentioned skrill and bank account frozen. He claimed a bad illness in the family which might explain everything happening. He doesnt have enough money to care because of the illness, so he starts to take it where he can in order to safe the one. Loses bank account, job and all. But still takes money from the forum because he would prefer going to jail than not paying the hospital.
Im not sure how valid his story is but at least it makes somewhat sense to me that he will scam for that amount, knowing that he is known in person.
|
|
|
|
A core developer saying that should lay worries to rest. Though even though you say bitcoin is more secure against such potential attacks i wonder if one shouldnt be worried because they claim they perfected stealing pgp-keys. pgp should be really secure too, because of their use cases. Ok, ill believe you on that anyway. Only wondering why PGP is vulnerable. Its a security software. And they sound pretty confident to being able hack private keys. Why would they when they dont see a chance or tested, before they release it to the press, that they work on it? Maybe they mentioning bitcoin private keys is only a help for spreading the news. Read the actual report, in particular http://www.tau.ac.il/~tromer/radioexp/ Q11 and Q8. Ok, strange that they claim a cheap solution is not possible in Q11 but on Q8 the simple solution is a change in software. Sounds like it can be resolved. Thanks for explaining! |
|
|
|
How about not forking Bitcoin at all since this is not an imminent issue.
That's your opinion and you're welcome to it, but that doesn't mean you can stop people from proposing a fork. How about calling off the next general election because I disagree with a policy of one of the candidates? How about closing a restaurant because I don't like one of the dishes on their menu? How about we shut down the internet because I don't like a particular website? Your opinion doesn't trump everyone else's. It just doesn't work that way. At the end of the day, you have to allow people to make their own choices and that's what's going to happen whether you like it or not. The majority of Bitcoin developers agree with this statement, the developer of XT decided to make his own version of Bitcoin so he could control Bitcoin's code without needing consent from anyone else.
Anyone can modify Bitcoin's code without needing permission from the core devs. It's called Open Source and it's one of the fundamental principles behind Bitcoin. Consent comes from the users securing the network, not the developers. If you want a closed source coin where a small number of developers make all the decisions and everyone is forced to use that code and only that code, what the hell are you even doing here? The question is who decides which version gets published. So far i read bitcoin xt has by far not the protection that bitcoin core has. And it only makes sense that gavin is switching there when he thinks he cant get his will on bitcoin core. The only reason he would switch would be because he would know he would get his will with bitcoin xt. So all the theoretical security about bitcoin xt are only theoretical as long as the project can be decided by 2 developers. All the fans download the client and thats it. Im still not sure what will happen when gaving and hearn would implement tainting in their client and many newbs got aware that some coins might be worth less than others. Or if bitcoin xt would really become THE chain. Would a bad thing implemented be possibly made rolled back in any circumstances without leaving bitcoin behind hurt? If Bitcoin XT gets a majority, rest assured that there will be more than 2 developers contributing and reviewing code. Even if it's solely Hearn or Gavin that get commit access, every submission will get reviewed. If something controversial is committed, rest assured there will be a migration away from Bitcoin XT. It doesn't matter if it's Bitcoin Core or XT or some other version - you're getting the same level of review unless developers leave the project and go work on Doge or something. I see what you mean. Review after the release might happen. Though that might mean that already alot of people downloaded the client and made transactions on, maybe a fork. Surely they could switch away but a potential harm might be done already. You dont fear something like that happening at all? On top of that, what do you think if a reasonable high amount of users think the bitcoin xt bitcoins are the one with value and the rest thinks it the unforked bitcoin core? When they are not compatible then you have copied a currency and both chains fans believe their coin is the real deal. Maybe even exchanges are undecided. You simply dont copy a currency and have double the value. So what do you think will happen? Miners take months or more to upgrade and they are really the only ones who can fork the network - aka, create blocks that are rejected by other legitimate nodes. No, I'm not really concerned about the evil software upgrade that gets pushed out overnight and perhaps a few hundred users run. Hell, for a new user it takes nearly a day on modern hardware to get caught up with the full blockchain. There's very little damage that can be done short of a "steal your private keys and send them to FTP site" type of hack - and there's no fixing that. Put a gun to any of the core devs head and they'll push out a hacked version of Bitcoin Core - it's the other devs that review it, warn others and in the case of Core, roll back changes. We're going to know long before we have a forked chain whether or not XT nodes have a clear majority. If they do, I don't imagine that the core devs are going to sit on their hands - they'll capitulate and this larger block controversy will go away. Alternatively, XT could fail to gain attraction and then it's not much of a concern. This is a lot of handwringing over something important but that will ultimately be resolved smoothly. Youre right. Sounds like a big problem wont arise. Only thing that might be possible is that some people might download it and use the old blockchain as base to run the new client. They might send their coins to someone and he doesnt get it because the transaction is only on the wrong chain. Or he might send his coins from the old wallet to the new one. Which might mean having sent their real bitcoins to an address that doesnt have a corresponding on the real chain. Though it should be possible to import the keys from the altchain into the old chain  and get the coins back as long as the private keys system wasnt changed. Does that sound right? If im right then this might mean some bad press or people complaining but youre right, it wont be the big problem most probably. |
|
|
|
Wow... so what happens when this OPCODE is implemented and you receive coins you cant spend?
You won't receive locked coins. Then when is that opcode implemented? I think opcodes can only be implemented in a transaction. Which means you actually have to send a transaction. Or is there some failsafe that only allows to send to the same address? Would still sound exploitable. -snip-
And what happens when a miner doesnt know this opcode and implements the transaction in a block? Would the block become invalid by the nodes?
-snip-
Transaction is invalid, so the block will be invalid. Sounds like a risk to miners. I believe there are not few miners that dont follow the latest updates so close that it could not be a problem. |
|
|
|
TA and counting in blackjack are not even close to the same ballpark.
believing the price is going to go a certain way doesn't mean it's going to happen. TA is BELIEVING that other people will do a certain thing. counting cards is KNOWING what cards have come out, and therefore KNOWING what cards are left in the shoe which can change the optimal strategy/bet size.
If someone had a TA that worked they wouldn't share it with you because you doing the same thing as them would make it harder for them to make money because you both would be trying to buy and sell at the same time cutting into each other's profits. You knowing what cards are left in the shoe has absolutely no impact on the shoe at another table/casino.
As far as i know counting cards works only by guessing and not by knowing which cards are where. And the reason why it works is that you dont have a 50%-50% chance to win or lose, you might have a chance of 51% to win. If you can beat fees or houseadvantage or something like that then you are in the black numbers over time. And for me technical analysis is the same. Its not a 50-50 chance anymore. You are able to slightly guess where it will develop. Simply because other traders believe the same, when they see the same signals, and follow through. Your vision gets reality. The same is with the moving of the masses. Its likely that you can predict how masses move in panic, on news and so on. So no, i would not see it as if technical analysis is like gambling. Of course im not yet at the point where i could say i can proove it. |
|
|
|
So to effectively stake I should invest my CLAMs at Just-Dice? Is there any real downside to that?
I had thought they would constantly stake, but I only have my computer on for a few hours a day, so guess it isn't going to be worth it in the clam wallet.
I updated to the new wallet and now it says I should stake in 1 day! A big difference!
If you invest at Just-dice you will make more money, but you will be contributing to CLAM being centralized. I have read what was written above your post but i still dont get it. Why do you earn more staking on just-dice? As far as i know clams are spread proportionally to the amount of clams on an address. So if you have many you will get stakes more often. On JD- you have a -10% fee. And some plus because of gamblers money whose stakes are added to investors. But besides that it sounds to me like its only like poolmining. Stakes happen more often. There is no difficulty that would make you want to get staked faster too. So at the end it should average out if you stake on jd or in your own wallet. Then why do you earn more on jd? |
|
|
|
Hi guys, I understand why you don't believe that this bot will work long term, I have tried many systems as well that don't work.
If this bot fails, I will be the first to report it here.
I cannot post results as soon as trade taken, because I am busy, but I will try to update daily, if a trade was taken.
Today I got 2 winners, no losses, profit today was 390, so total profit is now 2921.
We might not get many trades for rest of week, because of Greece.
8483087 EUR/USD▲ 29/6/2015 01:49:31 29/6/2015 01:54:31 250.00 445.00 195.00 Details
8485015 EUR/USD▼ 29/6/2015 04:44:30 29/6/2015 04:49:30 250.00 445.00 195.00 Details
Thanks Doug
Did you try to withdraw your funds completely? Its something i read about the broker used. Web of Trust users complained. So you might check if you actually are possible to withdraw your funds. You should be in plus already, so maybe try it. You can depost again later. |
|
|
|
What did you post here? Oo 20 times the same text? I understand the security issues after the recent breach and all, but your bitcoin withdrawal system is totally unreliable and unusable for me at the moment: random 1-6 hours delays really aren't acceptable, I'll have to switch to other exchanges and that's a shame cause I liked you ui and other instruments.
Im not sure but didnt they stresstest guys want to run another test to show how very much we need the higher blocksize next week? Maybe you were caught in such a test? |
|
|
|
yes but some stories about some hard disk that went trash and those bitcoins should be lost forever since no one would go into trash trrying to find those
You wouldn't dig around in some rubbish for a few million? People murder each other for less. The guy did look into a proper excavation but the site was too vast for it to be practical. I already see the future business of wallet discovering. Buying used harddiscs on ebay, recovering the deleted data and searching for all kind of wallets. I guess people that trade harddiscs anyway, might find once in a while something. The chance is low now but maybe in the future? |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for creating the mirror. At least we know who is behind that mirror since such a verifier could be exploited by the owner. Telling a noobie to verify there and in fact have that address whitelisted. Scam might happen.
I found a workaround too. You can enter the details in the second tab and then go to the first tab, then add and delete a space or something and it will check the signature for you.
|
|
|
|
|
I see sometimes that it seems to be that users on bitcointalk can guess pretty good which accounts were sold in an auction that ended. Simply because the forum shows them the accounts with changed passwords. So what i wonder if thats a feature that makes sense. Password changes does happen when the forum was hacked too and when someone is uncertain about if an account was hacked, he can ask for signing an address that was posted some time ago. It would be more important that "Edited" notes would be there, which i lately miss somehow. Might be only because of editing too fast though.
So what are your thoughts? Is it a good thing to show that the password was changed lately?
|
|
|
|
Thanks all. Always a pleasure. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
