i just got scammed for $67
Since you posted in this exact thread, let me ask you a question: Was it by Zeroxal?
Edit:It seems you did not. This has nothing to do here/with this thread, so you might consider keeping it out of it. |
|
|
|
Problem with signature is the people wearing your signature sometimes can cause you issues by overreacting to some one that may be experiencing a issue with your transfers or bonus. Go take a look through FortuneJacks thread,they are in a world of issues and they are not even that bad of a site,just bad optics and getting caught in tight lies.
IIRC the problems with FortuneJack that are currently flying around come from other sources than their campaign participants. At any rate, a decent campaign manager can prevent you getting tied in any problematic situations due to your advertising members. If you are going the signature route anyways,maybe look and see if actual advertising on this forum is cheaper in the long run.
That depends on what kind of campaign you run. Unlike with the ad-spots (which are roughly stable in their weekly costs lately), campaigns can come in various forms for quite different budgets. |
|
|
|
What if I want to use a VPN browser such as CPK on android?
Depending on the units of evil their IPs got, you might have to pay some BTCs at sign up. If you want to find it out, just register an account and see yourself. Afterwards (once your account is registered), the proxyban doesn't affect you anymore, so switching with an existing account to an IP tied to some units of evil is no problem. |
|
|
|
I'm interrested in Euro most since here in Germany it's hard to buy and pay with bitcoin your bills.
Does that mean you won't accept bids in BTC, or only that you would prefer to get fiat bids? |
|
|
|
But the question should be when the account was so called hacked. -snp- So it was not so long ago that he is claiming that it was hacked.
If you check the timestamp on the thread/post I've linked, where he makes the report of being hacked, you can see that it was posted just today (/yesterday, depending on timezones) So yeah, it wasn't "so long ago".
This also fits with seclog (all timestamps are default forum time): May 22, 2016, 06:50:08 PM - Zeroxal - password reset via email (Initial change, here Zeroxal loses control) May 22, 2016, 09:00:35 PM (zeroxal10.1 creates the thread about being hacked)May 22, 2016, 10:35:10 PM - Zeroxal - password reset via email (Zeroxal having control again) May 22, 2016, 10:38:37 PM (Signed message posted in the thread) |
|
|
|
With all that negative trust showing (-11 for me as of now) Why is he not on one of these topics yet?
He reported being hacked ( over here), which is the main reason for the negatives on his account. However, he was abled to regain access to it on his own. Reset the password through my email again and regained access to my account. Please still leave the trust feedback for now.
I just completed a 100€ exchange with him without any issues. Although I can't (for sure) say that the threat is neutralized/over. |
|
|
|
Wouldn't a more efficient way of knowing that people have an active loan is by the lender tagging them, after they funded the loan?
I've been doing that with a few of my past loans. So far, none of the borrowers was disturbed by those feedbacks, but I can totally see that happening. Can't say which one is better, I've been doing both (maybe "both" is the best). Seems most lenders stopped/aren't using this, including me because it is kinda of annoying to create the table thing, and if you have multiple loans going at once it could take up a lot of time.
We've been inactive for quite some time (I don't know much about whywefights current status, yet), and even before (at least at the time I've been part of the ledger), it was only a project of a few lenders. I disagree with the "annoying" part (I don't think BBCode is that hard, been doing it with several threads), but as it's an optional thing, nobody forces you to participate (although it would be nice). If people are tagged with a neutral, everyone will also know they have an active loan, not just the people who come and check here.
Some people don't check untrusted feedback, a single feedback could get lost in the amount of feedbacks some people collect on their account,... I don't think there is a perfect way with this, just do the one you prefer. Seems easier to do, splits up the workload and makes it more decentralized (still relies on the forum not to change stuff though).
More decentralized would also mean, there's no easy way to get a quick, full overview of all the current open loans in this forum, initially, that was supposed to be the purpose of this thread (and yes, I know we're very far from that). |
|
|
|
I've removed those loans I know were repaid, which are all loans by zazarb. I've updated the ledger with the one loan I wanted to list and I've also added another one: [tr]
[td] [url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=158505]roslinpl[/url][/td]
[td] Lutpin [/td]
[td] 0.600[BTC] (0.672[BTC]) [/td]
[td] 1.9M MUE [/td]
[td] 04/06/2016 [/td]
[td][url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1480946.0]Reference[/url][/td]
[td][color=#10D624][b]Active[/b][/color][/td]
[/tr]
|
|
|
|
Thank you Shorena for an escrow service,
and thank you Lutpin for filling up my request. (0.6BTC received)
For public record: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 This is Lutpin confirming a 0.600 BTC loan to roslinpl (u=158505). Today is 05/22/2016 and the txid is: dfb90a2f9c5ee205dd3b2eb051a55278ea6a1cd95d876e7f5fb3e8d86be528b5 0.672 BTC are to be repaid on or before 06/04/2016 to the address 1LutpinPFH8CtNoV5ShL718NA61Vqr6k1X A collateral of 1,900,000 MUE was placed with shorena (u=181801) in the address 7NaARJkPdcsrRQ7WKy6qqyPq5jg9jmWEZE. The txid for the collateral is: 8b4f2de8852dd4f6a9f9f9d94cfebfccdc677c2cb018f0e597ec55b4d2a6a259 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Keybase OpenPGP v2.0.53 Comment: https://keybase.io/cryptowsBcBAABCgAGBQJXQi+LAAoJEA7Kduu367QN7owH/3e/rShnQONie8gXUz3bLo9d FQFnzSAbtktC26jhINZUm2SZI/Hlmq95+FEhOs6gFbUURkm0ggUVsTyZraCsgPty enSpNRsPHKoRhaDL0gtRhULiHfLljtU2TUmU75iFIFZgQgsZKf/0gmU/utNlYaHL cHdqc/0tM/coGuD3aRt5T1KsjgkeXKMUuliH50Ab/1RqavkIWYr5CNNF7hlgPCGG qb9VLs7pfQbvIhMEAlqQtqIKcxVTz7LTEDgnXhLFnVo9HVJ/qf4+Eu0oY465WL5i FrvGOE/1doA8/gjVYSkLSb3mb2UTB6fOKBmlyurFqFbQmQwdigZqJhjLLwv1RPc= =OTIE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
|
|
|
You could blame your government for their restrictive laws, or you just do what encrypted suggested and get a VPN running.
AFAIK there's only faucet in the free version, and deposits/withdrawals are deactivated.
Might even be more restricted and only chat, not sure about that.
|
|
|
|
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- roslinpl - loan req: 0.6btc. repay: Jun 4 interest:12% -----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE----- Version: Bitcoin-qt (1.0) Address: 1DvGssphmu81j1prW1C5ZbnBWx3hpt8kWR IOa0tLZpotSfdbpmbaJ1fkqjj8jV4D+DADsJzQaGgThNb/ai9pPYCwuHmphggWLmr5GaJHrOkj/9V1/4ut+xCNk= -----END BITCOIN SIGNATURE----- (Same address as here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1340758.msg13676737#msg13676737) . Let me know when you've got set up the escrow and I'll be sending the coins. |
|
|
|
|
I can fill this, if you want me to.
Can you provide a signed message and contact an escrow for holding the collateral?
|
|
|
|
|
As proxybans afaik only strike during registration, I have to ask, what's wrong with the account you currently use?
If you are that desperate for an alt account, pay the fee or try registering it from another IP/VPN/exit node.
|
|
|
|
Time to close this thread. So here's the finalization of the mess:
I made a mistake in returning the funds to scammer instead of waiting for the next day. ( I received the email at 1 am and took the decision soon after)
All the pending payments are hereby cleared: b97205dbdda3f7f87ff8817448fb57606553b9b1b4c861c0fb3f8e0054b941d6
Those who were not eligible for payment also received $1 as compensation: 6584f7b04062dd123a3a1dd69226e71e9a27c865e9939566cb976dd940116e0a
Everyone makes mistakes at some point of time. Learning from a mistake is what makes oneself sensible.
And insulting always isn't a perfect solution to a problem.
|
|
|
|
Obviously he would say yes to that since it would cost less.
Obviously, you didn't read what I was saying. The question was whether or not to pay those users that didn't post 2 or 3 times in the official thread. Not paying them would have been a cheaper solution for notaek, but as far as I know, he will opt for paying them anyway. He has no obligation to do so. The campaign manager did set out rules for us
The campaign manager seems to be gone. He abandoned this campaign at the moment the runners called the quit, not caring for you guys left behind. He could have helped us over here, but he chose not to. BTW. What's seems odd is that you would not count post made on 20/5? Wasn't the campaign last to this Sunday?
I stopped counting all posts after the following posts by the campaign manager (who was still acting as one during that time): I'm sorry, you are right. I only found out now that there is a problem.
I'm afraid this means this campaign is also halted until I found out what happened and what the Escrow will do in response. As stated in OP I do not control the funds and I'm just hired to run this campaign. Sorry guys.
It's clear he stopped/paused the campaign at this point (in consent with the advertisers), which is why I don't think there should be an obligation for notaek to pay posts after this (out of his own pocket). So what is fair in this regard? Opinions are good and should be considered but at the end of a project it's not the opinion of third party's that count, but the rules that were set out.
I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone. I'm suggesting how to proceed based on my view from the outside. I don't have a say in this, it's fully up to notaek. 2 Or make a balance today of the post and have a discussion about which rules to follow and which rules not.
I don't think a discussion between participants "which rule to follow" is going to bring us anywhere. |
|
|
|
|
Make it 2 for me aswell, and either untracked shipping or shipped together with the bitcoin pennies (if possible).
|
|
|
|
In my opinion all participants must be paid due to their post's quality not to their poet's number .
If I was to take post quality into account, almost none of you would have made the quota (according to my standards). Since this wasn't my campaign to manage though, I opted for the pure quantity way, as that one is more objective.
Again, my spreadsheet is just a suggestion, based on my views and my thoughts on how to continue. It's up to notaek to decide if he wants to go through with it or go down another path. |
|
|
|
If I'm notaek I would personally apply every single rule in the campaign with a pro rated number as far as posts. Campaign was halted 1 day short of payday. Basically you'd need 2.15 posts on average per day so on 6 days you would need 12.9 posts to qualify and 2 posts in main thread. Anyone who didnt get at least these qualifications would get 0 payment IMO.
Of course this is just how I would do it. Notaek will handle it how he feels is proper.
In my opinion that's honestly the best way to do it. Why pay for people who didn't even get enough posts in the ophion thread in 6 days.Were they just gonna spam 3 posts in the option thread on the last day. For the 13/15 posts minimum, it's not going to make a difference. Those who failed the quota failed with 12 or less posts, hence none of them will switch from unpaid to paid when taking the factor into account (I checked that previously myself). As for the 3 post rule, honestly, I think this was a bullshit rule, that's why I ignored it in my sheet. However, the decision is up to notaek, which I told him when he asked for my advice regarding the rule. You can make a reasonable argument for both sides.
I don't think you have to pay them, although I think it would be nice to.
In the end, it's not my money being spent on this, so that's really a decision up to you.
|
|
|
|
Hello Lutpin. As you are controlling the campaign now.
I'm not. I've created a spreadsheet with what I believe to be the right amounts due for payment to each user. That spreadsheet however is not binding, it's merely an offer I make to notaek. I want to say that I am not satisfied with this spreadsheet.
Neither am I. However, that's not my spreadsheet to start with. It was created by the user laikuf. In this spreadsheet I am not eligible for payment because I didn't wrote any posts in Ophion Thread(Rule No.2)
I chose to ignore that rule in my sheet, however I noted those who wouldn't be eligible by that rule, so notaek can decide how to continue. I am not an spammer or unsubstantial poster. so I think I should get my payment of 22 posts.
It's not my task to evaluate post quality, my sheet is only based on the quantity of posts, not their quality (most of the users here wouldn't have been accepted in one of my campaigns to start with). I've got you noted down wit 17 posts in mine.
I've created a spreadsheet with the payments I think are fair/due/fitting/..., you can find it under the following url: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1i9Ma81rDFodUDbqZhHgGPnSszrijEgpSvtdzbWycpwg/edit?usp=sharingIf payments are made according to this sheet, notaek is to pay 0.537 to 25 different users. I chose to ignore the rule requiring 3 posts in their official thread, however, I noted those down that didn't. However, in the current version, as the sheet is right now, the rules for a minimum of 15 and a maximum of 25 posts stand. I haven't counted any posts made after May 20, 2016, 08:50:28 AM, which is the time BTCat halted the campaign. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
