In theory, someone could be a reseller from those who buys KYC accounts from real people, but the rule says unless an explanation is given it is *assumed* they are hacked. There has been no explanation given.

Thank you for the help. I don't tagging will do much good. I think the buyers mostly know what they are buying. The more pressing question is if we want these type of people whose business is selling hacked KYC accounts to even be here. I think the answer is NO. Having these people here will only cause problems for other forum users.

I agree.

I have not followed the case closely, but this particular part does not make sense to me.

The BTC that was (most probably) mined by satoshi in BTC's early days is "untouched" as in has not moved since receiving the block rewards. In other words, satoshi's coins have not moved since they were mined.

The term "misappropriated" would imply the coins were moved to addresses whose private keys are exclusively controlled by CSW. If CSW does have access to the private keys, he would logically move the coins in case Kleiman's wife finds backups of the keys and moves the coins herself. CSW could also create a signed message to "prove" or at least provide strong circumstantial evidence that he is satoshi. To my knowledge, CSW has done neither.

Without either of Klieman's wife or CSW having access to the private keys, any court ruling will be generally worthless because the coins will remain inaccessible, and unencumberable.

I have been uninterested in the Digital goods sub, and the Invites sub for this very reason, but did not realize this is against the rules until now.

I don't agree with this and I will explain why:

If you can provide a signature of a signed message, you are only proving you have seen the signature in the past. A well known example of this is CSW providing a signature of one of satoshi's early transaction as a "signed message" to prove he is satoshi. Does this signature prove CSW is satoshi, no it absolutely does not because the signature he provided is public information. Is CSW actually satoshi, I would keep an open mind if presented with additional credible evidence, but in my opinion he is in no way satoshi.

The above is an extreme example. Another example is someone can trick the "real" owner into signing a vague message and presenting that vague signed message as your own. If "Bob" were to be tricked into giving "Jack" the signature to the following message: "This is Bobs address and it is 2:45 PM" then Jack could present himself as being "Bob, and could present this signed message anytime it is shortly after 2:45 PM.

Using similar names, Jack could be willing to help Bob trick others into believing that Bob owns a particular "address" or UTXO, and could provide Bob with a specific signed message that makes others believe the UTXO belongs to Bob.

You could alleviate a lot of the above risk by asking Bob to sign a specific message that contains random data that you ask to be included in the signed message, and you are personally present when Bob receives the specific message you provide up until he provides the message. This will still not 100% guarantee Bob controls the private key associated with the address in question because he could still be communicating with Jack electronically, and would be risky for Bob if he does control the private key because he could be vulnerable to a "$5 wrench" attack.

In short, all providing a signed message will do is prove you have seen the associated signature.

I found two articles to be about what I presume you are referring to.

Bitfinex had to borrow $700M from tether, out of the $850M that is unaccounted for. It would not be unreasonable to say Bitfinex had $150M in reserves.

If the $370M is in fact part of the $850M, Bitfinex's ability to recover the money will depend largely on if they were properly served with the seizure notice, and what they did to that customer's account.

Worse case scenario, if Bitfinex was properly served, but they eventually successfully processed a withdrawal for the customer despite the seizure notice, they will be on the hook for the entire $370M, and this money is in fact gone. If the customer for example withdrew bitcoin, deposited the bitcoin to binance for example, and binance properly froze access to the money, Bitfinex *might* be able to get the $370M back, but I am not an expert in this area, and am not explicitly sure.

A best case scenario is Bitfinex froze this customer's account and the account is currently containing at least $370M. In this case, Bitfinex could simply administratively debit the customer's account to cover the difference, and the customer could try to recover the money from Poland themselves if they have a legitimate claim to it.

If Bitfinex was not properly served with a seizure notice, and let the customer withdraw, the case becomes more complicated, and potentially will be drawn out.

It is "tomorrow" everywhere in the world, but you have not posted a thread about your getting scammed.

When I read your post *yesterday* I considered offering to lend you the 0.5 ETH if you could sign a message that sent 0.25 ETH in the 48 hours prior to the date you posted your comment, but after some consideration, I decided against doing so because there would be no benefit to me when I am proven right

Losing 0.25 ETH, only accounts for half of the difference between 0.005 ETH and the 0.5 ETH you are now asking for. You also do not have a long history in your signature campaign, and this makes me have doubts you will be able to "earn" your way to repay your loan this way.

What is a "BOMB" token?

It looks like he is trying to get whatever he can get

The rule is that if you are selling something you obtained illegally, you will be banned, and this rule does not appear to be enforced.

In the ~2 days since this thread has been opened, it does not anyone cares about the 15 threads cited in the OP, and AFAICT, no action has been taken against any of them.

After I read this thread (before I posted the first time), I reviewed the Invites & Accounts section, and this rule, and I saw many threads on the first couple pages breaking this rule. I created a thread about the problem but it doesn't appear anyone cares, I think because so few people actually read the Invites & Accounts sub.

Moving threads to their own subs would make it so most of the uninteresting threads would be mostly "hidden" from view to the majority of people who is not interested in these obvious scams/illegal activity. This would clear the way for more legitimate threads, in which actual non-illegal, non-scam attempt business can be conducted on the first couple of pages.

The rules do not say you need to prove how they are obtained legally, they say you only need to give an explanation.

None of the threads I listed above have given any kind of explanation regarding how they were obtained.

The rule I cited is sellers are *assumed* to be selling cracked/hacked accounts if the accounts require KYC and no explanation is given. 

Thanks. I have updated my signature, and I currently have 124 posts (prior to this one).

The NYAG say Bitfinex believes the cash was stolen. Bitfinex in their statement say "we have been informed that these Crypto Capital amounts are not lost but have been, in fact, seized and safeguarded". These two statements conflict with one another.

At the end of the day, if Bitfinex does not get this money back, I don't believe they will be an ongoing concern. They made an estimated $6 million in the past 30 days in operating profits, but half that will need to go to interest for the Line of Credit. At this rate, it will be years before the losses are recuperated.

The Obama administration will be known as the administration with zero scandals.

All of the major institutions that can create a narrative share an ideology friendly to Obama -- most of the Press, most of higher education, Hollywood.

What actually happened, or the truth does not matter.

What changed in 24 hours that made you go from needing 0.005 ETH to 0.5 ETH?

I recently was reviewing the rules of Invites & Accounts, and I saw this rule:


I looked on the first three pages of Invites & Accounts and I found a lot of threads that clearly meet this criteria. I am not sure if so few people frequent this sub that no one bothers reporting these kinds of threads, or if this rule is ignored by moderators. Some examples of threads that appear to be breaking the above rule, based on my knowledge of various services, and is limited to threads I was willing to click on based on the title indicating they might be breaking the rule:

Want to sell Wirex verifed accounts - they are described as "verified" (implied as having gone through KYC), and there are many old "bumps" needing deletion, including multiple within a 24 hour period

Selling Coinbase Coingate Cryptopay and many other verifed accounts - coinbase requires KYC and the description "verified" implies KYC was completed

Us Vba | Usa Virtual Bank account | USA Paypal Accounts Full Verified( No Hold ) - PayPal requires KYC to be "verified". I am not familiar with how a VCC or VBA works, but I believe KYC is probably required to get these. There are many old "bumps" needing deletion in this thread

No 21 Days Hold Aged-Verified PayPal Accounts - China, Australia, USA, CANADA - the topic says the accounts are KYC verified

SELL)Verified Google Cloud Acc - the topic says the accounts are KYC verified with "ID documents"

Escrow Available - Full verified personal PayPal - this is described as "verified" which implies KYC was done. The topic says the seller will "make" a new account, which may be an "explanation" but if these are not hacked, it looks a lot like identity theft, and I don't think it is good for identity theives to be transacting here

[WTS] Bitstamp/Huobi verified accounts - described as "verified" implies KYC completed, and these businesses require KYC

☆☆☆ USA / UK : BANK ACCOUNT'S ☆☆☆ [USE IN STRIPE,PAYPAL,VENMO,ETC] [🔥SALE🔥]
 - KYC is required to open a bank account in the US and UK

selling verified bet365 and skrill/neteller from UK,irl - the "verified" description implies KYC. I have not used skrill or neteller, and do not know for sure if KYC is required to use these services

selling neteller, coinbase and movo account from UK - coinbase requires KYC

PayPal stealth account USA - PayPal requires KYC, and card information is being sold

Stealth Poloniex account Verification status: Verified - Poloniex requires KYC, and "verified" description implies KYC

Selling verifed BitPanda accounts - I do not know what BitPanda is, but the "verified" description implies KYC

★ 100% SSN Verif. Paypal accs with transactions and access to Bank acc + docs! ★ - "SSN verified" means KYC was done

{WTS}USA Debit Cards with Bank Accounts - this looks like either hacked accounts or identity theft. KYC is required to get a debit card

---

Can a moderator look at the above threads,  ban these users, and lock these threads if they are found to be breaking the rules? The main part of the rule is:

I do not frequent this sub very frequently, but did so because of a complaint about the Digital Good sub I was reading.

This is already against the rules:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1785577.0

I have noticed the Digital Goods, and the Invites subsection is almost entirely made up of transparent scams, or illegal items such as probable money laundering ("Dangerous Thread"). I checked several weeks ago and found nearly every thread in digital goods to be a Dangerous Thread on the first several pages.

I would be interested to see additional child boards such as: "gift cards" "domains" "betting/gambling bots (scripts)" "website templates (scripts)". I don't predict many interesting deals showing up even if the above types of threads are removed from the Digital Goods sub.

Link to Profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2561166
Bitcointalk Rank: Member
Current number of posts: 118
Bitcoin Address to send the payment: bc1q06jrn9cak09n24spn4jtp2grs05chfgpflqj9t

Will update signature upon acceptance. Thanks.

For those who are suggesting to not store private keys on an online machine, for most bitcoin and crypto businesses, this is not an option. The marketplace demands quick withdrawals in most instances with exceptions for large withdrawals.

An online business will, by design, need to store SSL keys online, and this in some ways is similar to storing even cold storage keys online, to an extent, because a hacker can potentially impersonate your website and display deposit addresses for customers that belong to the hacker. In order for this attack to be successful, more than just the SSL keys will need to be compromised.

I generally agree with bob123's comments with regards to only storing limited amounts of coins on your server, and to top off your "hot" wallet when necessary. I would also warn that if your database server is compromised, a hacker may trick you into believing a certain user has a larger balance available for withdrawal than is actually true. This means you will need to independently verify the integrity of your database each time you remove coins from your "cold" wallet; this is true even if you do not keep any coins on an online server.

A good rule of thumb is to not keep more than 1-2 months expected earnings worth of crypto in your online storage so in case your server does get hacked, you can easily "earn" your way out of the losses.

I do not wish to give you specific advice or suggestions on how to protect your customer's money, in large part because I cannot ensure you will hear any of my ongoing advice, and will not be in a position to ensure you are correctly implementing what I am suggesting.

If you do not personally know how to protect your private keys and the integrity of your DB, I would suggest you hire someone who has experience doing this job function who you can independently verify to be an "expert"

The OP of the thread you posted in created the thread in December 2016.

Your answer included the ".com" domain and BLOCKCHAIN LUXEMBOURG S.A. (the owner of blockchain.info) changed their domain to the .com after the middle of June 2018.

You posted in a thread that was at least two years old.

If this spot is still open, I would like to take it:

my BTC address: bc1q06jrn9cak09n24spn4jtp2grs05chfgpflqj9t

Thanks.

The specific prohibition of signatures was:
If you look at the BB Code of his signature, he has a link to a picture that says "fuck you idiot"

---

I am a supporter of free markets and freedom of speech, but I am glad the trash associated with all the YoBit advertising campaign has been stopped. YoBit management did a poor job of rolling out their advertising.