Um, I am not sure if you are being serious when you say this:

Move your USD balance to your exchange wallet then buy btc on the btcusd pair via an exchange trade.

I think you messed up your above quote.

If you want to add me to your trust list, fee free to do so. If you are wanting to add "me" to your trust list, you are going to have to add my QS account and am unable to provide an alt account to add to your trust list (as a couple of people have asked for).

Sure charing an "escrow fee" may have been less than 100% transparent, however these charges were refunded, and ignoring refunds, customers received an advantage, as they would have paid an amount greater than what they paid plus the escrow fee if they dealt with "QS" directly on any hypothetical trade, so ignoring any refunds, my customers received an advantage using me as escrow. Also, both said they would have been willing to send to me first if they were trading with me directly.

Adding me to your trust list would not change the level of respect I have for you. I leave very little trust (if any) for the few trades that I do engage in here, and spend significantly less time here than I have in the past to investigate (potential) scams. If you prefer, you can review my sent ratings and add your own ratings as you see fit.

Adding me would also not change my expectation that you will do the right thing (especially regardling Lauda).

Is there a reason why vod is declining to address this? Is Vod himself afraid of Lauda? Or is Vod declining to hold Lauda accountable because of their prior relationship?

Owning USDT is essentially the same as owing USD on bitfinex. Ownership of bitfinex and tether has significant overlaps, and more importantly, I believe the management of the two companies have overlaps. Although holders of USDT were unaffected (assuming they were not held on the bitfinex platform) when bitfinex was hacked last August, so one might argue the risk of loss is a subset of the risk of owing USD on bitfinex.

There has been a lot of what I believe to be baseless speculation that USDT is being created 'out of thin air' in recent months, however I don't think this is more more than FUD by who is likely a competitor to bitfinex. This can be largely debunked by looking at market prices of USDT/USD on exchanges that trade this pair, and the xxx/USD price on bitfinex verses xxx/USD on other exchanges. With the xxx/USD prices being generally the same across bitfinex verses other exchanges, it is reasonable to believe withdrawals of USD on being processed off of bitfinex and tether, as if they were not, the lack of this ability would eventually result in arbitrators being unable to sell BTC on bitfinex and the price would be above that of other exchanges.

The risk of owning USDT will need to be multiplied with the risk of how the USDT is being held. For example, if you assume a 1% chance of loss resulting from holding USD on bitfinex, and a 5% chance of loss resulting from holding money on polo, you multiple 0.99 times 0.95, which results in a 5.95% chance of loss of holding USDT on polo.

Many people say it is not a good idea to hold money on an exchange because of the risk of hacks, however holding USDT does hold real benefits, primarily the less violative value than is associated with bitcoin, among others.

You didn't answer my question.

Do you think it would be okay if Lauda had purchased and/or sold accounts in the past? (or is currently doing so).

Do you think it would be okay if Lauda had more than one alt? (he has claimed to have exactly one -- the one that he took the time to delete 3,000+ posts from).

I am curious to know how Vod would feel about Lauda having many accounts (more than 2), and buying and/or selling accounts. Do you think this would be okay?

It is currently trivial to spin up a nearly unlimited number of what appear to be nodes at very little cost. These nodes likely do more harm than good to the network. If nodes earn a monetary reward for being a (fake) node, then this activity will be more prevalent.


The reason why someone should run a node today is because they are receiving payments from someone else prior to them giving something of value in return (ie, the other person is 'sending first'). I don't think it makes sense to give incentives for more people than that to run a node.

The money is effectively lost.

You might be able to work out a deal with a mining pool in which you provide them with a transaction with inputs and no outputs and the pool crediting some account of yours a portion of the value of what was "donated" to the pool, although this would only make sense if the pool owed you money as a result of your normal business activity.

This is a very good reason to advocate for a larger maximum block size.

His case is pending, it has been for quite some time now.

The MtGox brand is more of a liability than an asset. If a group of people wanted to raise this much money to run an exchange, they would start an exchange under their own brand.

Also, the customer of MtGox are unlikely to continue using the MtGox exchange if it were to reopen today for a number of reasons, one of which is that they likely have since moved on to using other (more professional) exchanges.

---

---

I personally think it would make the most sense for the Gox trustee to value the BTC, BCH, and BTG at a certain price point and allow customers to receive each of these assets in amounts up to the value of their claim. Once this is done, remaining claims (if any) can be paid out from the sale of the remaining (if any) BTC, BCH and BTG.

The evidence is that you placed multiple bids to buy an account via auction and asked for a price quote for 10 accounts via an alt that is connected to you via blockchain evidence.

It is too bad I am asking for you to consent to theymos to verify your statement that you only have that one alt and your statement that you have never purchased nor sold accounts.

There is significant evidence that refutes these statements.

It will be awhile. LN is still vapor ware. It probably won’t be safe to use LN for either not-very-small amounts and with those you don’t trust for a while.

If you are sufficiently skilled you can create your own LN-like network client and engage in LN-like transactions with someone you know if they trust you sufficiently.

Is there a statement of mine that you are questing that could be proven/disproven if I did this? There is a statement of yours that could be proven/disproven if you consented to this kind of disclosure.

Like I said above, theymos is more likely to fulfill this request when coming from the person themselves, rather than from a third party.

If you are telling the truth, then you should have no reason asking for this information to be posted? right?

I am not the one who is claiming to never have purchased accounts. I have been open about having many alts in the past, so it would be of no surprise to anyone when he posts many accounts associated with my owning them at one point.

You on the other hand just said that that you used one additional account to post from, and implied that you did not purchase any accounts from said account or otherwise ("to your knowledge"). You asking theymos to post every account that you currently or in the past have owned would help you verify this statement.....or more likely disprove this statement, and confirm you are in fact lying.

This sounds a lot like you are giving yourself an out from being accused of lying when someone finds proof of an actual transaction with an account buyer/seller.

When someone is asking for themselves, theymos is more likely to give up this information because this person is giving up their privacy themselves, rather than someone else requesting that theymos violate the privacy of a third party.

Do you have a reason to not want to ask theymos to provide this information? Would you have a problem with theymos publicly posting all of your current and previous alts?