You seem focused on a small group of those likely to be implicated. I used the word powerful for good reason. The purpose of these large scale trafficking rings is primarily the creation of blackmail material on powerful people in all sectors in order to maintain compliance. This is much bigger than low level thugs like the Clintons. This is something that reaches to the highest levels of organizations globally and people are just barely beginning to realize it.
I prefer to be optimist ! I don't believe it's that wide spread. I do think that the clintons are among the highest level. I mean those people are pretty sick... their victims are children... I mean, something isn't right in their mind... who want to work or even conspire with such deviants individuals? I think it's compliance, trust building and rewards... Think about this for 2 seconds. Once you have this material on an individual in a position of power, you now own a puppet for life. They will destroy their own careers on your command because to refuse means getting raped to death in a prison cell and losing everything (if they are lucky). This is beyond trust, this is how the international level mafia controls its assets without having to trust them. This 100% is bigger than the Clintons. I know it is horrible to even imagine, but that is how these people have existed for so long, because it is so horrible no one wants to look at or think about it, let alone talk about it. One thing I learned years ago, it is a big mistake to think about these people in terms of "if I were them", because they are not like you. Many of them are physically incapable of empathy, and many enjoy creating suffering for others. They only qualify as human on the most technical physical levels. Monsters are real, they just hide in board rooms, parliament, and in Hollywood among other places in stead of under your bed. |
|
|
|
|
He beat a dude in the street of a foreign nation... why shouldn't they hold him? Would you think it was ok if Swedes came here and started beating random people in the street and just got to go home?
|
|
|
|
I think Salty said it pretty accurately the basic definitions of financially harming someone doesn't apply because you don't like them. Thats not how things work, and it speaks very poorly to all of your characters. It feels like I'm in the flat earth thread. I post "did someone lose money as a result of another person's action" and the response is, PROVE THIS PERSON IS ROUND IF THE SUN IS 1000 MILES AWAY.
I agree with what SaltySpitoon said. But I don't believe that applies in this case. He made an agreement for both of us that he will buy the account if we prove ownership and use SebastianJu as an escrow if proved that the accounts is within our hands and we are not scammers by sending a message to him which trustedseller has done but he broke the agreement/contract and compromised a confidential information about our transaction.
The claim for creating the flag by the seller was clear. The parts I higlhighted in red in my opinion contradict what occurred. Theymos made it absolutely clear that the onus of proof is with the person creating the flag and those supporting it - that you cannot create or support a flag containing incorrect fact-statementsBy supporting the flag your are certifying that escrow was arranged with SebastianJu and that the seller is not a scammer. Because that is what the OP claimed when he created the flag....
Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.
If you stretch your narrative any thinner, it is going to pop. Supporting the flag does not mean we support everything the creator ever said, it means that we support the claim of the flag, which is supported by bob123's own admissions. This is pretty cut and dry regardless of how badly you wish to distract from that. The only reason the escrow was not arranged was because bob123 accepted the terms that he would pay a set price up front upon consideration of a PM from the user name (as proven by bob123's submissions). He knowingly entered into a contract he did not intend to honor, with intent to take the legal rights of the seller by causing damages. Just because you think the ends justify the means does not change the facts. |
|
|
|
Well at least I can say that I tried. I am not happy with the response LiveCoin gave in here and I have given them my notice that the Campaign will end after payments have been sent out tomorrow. And as I previously stated, flag me or neg me I really could not be bothered but I'll be damned if I ever succumb to bullying by users who's entire existence appears to be spreading negativity and putting others down. But then I've come to expect nothing short of just that which is why this forum matters less and less with each day passing by.
@OP. Hope your situation gets a resolution, I'm officially done and I'm out of here.
You can stop running. You made the hard choice. It probably doesn't seem like it right now, but long term it is for the best. |
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/P3n361H.pngAbove you can see that bob123 agreed to purchase a legendary account for $600 upon receiving a PM from the account. You can see from the above screenshot of PMs posted by bob123 that a PM was sent from narousberg, which is a legendary account. Further, you can see based on bob123's actions that he did not have any intention of actually buying the accounts up for sale, despite making the representation that he wishes to do so, which is a breach of an implied agreement. I would have to scrutinize the details further to find additional agreements that bob123 broke, however the above more than demonstrates a breach of agreement(s), and as such proves the flag is valid. Is contradicted by this which was posted by the seller. https://i.imgur.com/UYUQ3J0.pngSeller posted the entire chatlog here: http://archive.is/rlBTDThe agreement was to “prove” ownership via sending a PM. Although this would not actually prove ownership, it is stipulated in the agreement that it does. Therefore for purposes of the agreement in hand, the OP held up his end of the agreement.
It was later shown that at least one of the accounts the seller was attempting to sell was stolen. The claim by the seller is: He made an agreement for both of us that he will buy the account if we prove ownership and use SebastianJu as an escrow if proved that the accounts is within our hands and we are not scammers by sending a message to him which trustedseller has done but he broke the agreement/contract and compromised a confidential information about our transaction.
I don't see escrow being used and by trying to sell the stolen / account that was not for sale the seller is by definition a scammer. The claims made by the seller do not pass scrutiny. Theymos made it absolutely clear that the onus of proof is with the person creating the flag and those supporting it....
Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.
You are just repeating yourself now. There is no proof that the seller knew the account was hacked, furthermore, more than one account was damaged. bob123 received considerations under contract which he never intended to honor BY HIS OWN ADMISSION. bob123 provided the proof himself. |
|
|
|
Distraction Intensifies If you were a legitimate exchange you would be spending this attention on you by explaining what happened and how you are going to address it, not by repeating yourself, pointing more fingers, and begging for people to say nice things about you. You are fighting a losing battle. Every move you make exposes your weakness more and more. You clearly don't intend on taking the advice of any of the experienced members of the community here, so enjoy the inevitable failure of your exchange as your reputation rots from the inside out. |
|
|
|
ffs You seem focused on a small group of those likely to be implicated. I used the word powerful for good reason. The purpose of these large scale trafficking rings is primarily the creation of blackmail material on powerful people in all sectors in order to maintain compliance. This is much bigger than low level thugs like the Clintons. This is something that reaches to the highest levels of organizations globally and people are just barely beginning to realize it.
"Jeffrey Epstein Offers To Give Up Names In Exchange For Leniency: Report" https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-08/epstein-indictment-unsealed-accused-sexual-exploitation-and-abuse-dozens-minor |
|
|
|
|
No one owns any land, you just rent it from The Federal Government. Why do you think you need permission to dig on "your own" land? You just rent use of the surface area.
|
|
|
|
|
None of this back and forth matters. The development team is not financially responsible for securing anything short of proving them having been actively engaged in fraud. Everyone invests in these projects at their own risk. Exchanges are responsible for securing assets under its control. The fact that it sat around for months getting robbed is something any halfway competent IT security team would have detected, and is not the responsibility of the development team. As a result of its own negligence it is apparent they are insolvent and do not have the requisite coins to represent its actual token allotment. Given that sorting this out is way more complicated than could be done by such a half assed run company, let alone a team that would have noticed this problem earlier, they are in way over their heads.
Right now I would estimate they are trying to quietly buy into this token and buying time to do so cheaply as they continue to collect trading fees. Holding a customers coins hostage for months is the kind of thing that tends to drive a coins price down. This whole time they are also trying to fumble thru what if any fraudulent accounts are left holding any funds hoping it is significant enough to fill the gap.
Livecoin needs to come clean and stop playing backdoor games. If they don't this is going to be much worse than simply the loss of this one coin holding. Admit fault, issue temporary not withdraw-able tokens to represent the lost funds to be fulfilled over time. Another option would be to "socialize" the losses and give every token holder a haircut for immediate withdrawl. Obviously not going to be popular but being honest about it at least allows people who are not willing to tolerate this response the opportunity to pick other exchanges for future use. Look into the way BTC-E handled it, IMO they did a good job in basically the worst of circumstances. It was a much different cause, but a similar scenario regarding obligations to the customer base but on a larger scale.
|
|
|
|
As I said, that proves nothing because of VPNs. I could do whatever you or anybody else here wants, there will always be somebody saying: "But this is still no evidence, do this and do that!" This will be a
never ending story. I'm the real zackie and this account is not for sale. Believe it or not, I don't care. Have you checked https://bitcointalk.org/myips.php ? You have only 30 days to see the account thief's IP address. Holy crap! Thanks for that link. Here is the result: 2019-06-25 18:52:29 2019-06-25 19:53:15 xx.xxx.xxx.xx XXXXXXXx, Germany 2019-06-24 22:00:53 2019-06-24 22:01:56 xxxx:xx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx XXXXXXXX, Germany 2019-06-24 20:03:48 2019-06-24 20:52:38 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx XXXXXXX, Germany 2019-06-19 09:38:21 2019-06-20 14:02:48 42.201.183.65 Karachi, Pakistan Indeed, somebody from Pakistan used my account! But hey, you know.... I could have used a VPN.... We are talking about trying to sell a hacked account. The claim from the OP was:
He made an agreement for both of us that he will buy the account if we prove ownership and use SebastianJu as an escrow if proved that the accounts is within our hands and we are not scammers by sending a message to him which trustedseller has done but he broke the agreement/contract and compromised a confidential information about our transaction.
If you will notice, you didn't actually reply to anything I said. Furthermore there was no way bob123 could have known this when he committed an act of fraud by entering into a contract he never intended to honor. Perhaps you want to re-read what you just said and consider whether you want to continue supporting the flag. What I read was: " The person who placed the flag was going to scam bob123 but bob123 couldn't have known that at the time of the scam so therefore he should be tagged for not parting with his $." An illegal contract is legally unenforceable. Even if the illegality is found out later. But like I said earlier. There was no implied or express agreement. The PMs posted by the seller do not show that there was such an agreement. From the evidence that I see the OP and associates demonstrated that they were trying to sell an account they did not own.. ...
Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.
Keep in mind that part of the claim by the OP is that they are not scammers. Don't speak for me, I can speak for myself. As I explained before and which you promptly ignored in favor of your next convoluted distraction, was that the seller may or may not have known the account was stolen. Furthermore more than one account was involved. There is no way for you to know the seller's intent based on this information. We can however determine the intent of bob123 here without a doubt, because he said so publicly his intent was to enter into a contract he never intended to keep, then take actions resulting in intentional damages to the seller. The rest of your song and dance is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Doxing now huh?
That's Quicksy's MO. If you weren't busy making shit up you would have noticed that the post you're replying to was addressed to him. Oh, I see, it was my fault you were off topic and conflating his actions with mine. My mistake. |
|
|
|
So in other words
Uhm... nope. If you insist on whataboutism and hypocrisy then we shall also look at your (and TECSHARE's) opposition to tagging for account sales, except when it suits you (or him). I don't know many other users who would resort to doxing and trust system abuse due to disagreements in P&S so you two dipshits really stand out from the crowd here. I see, so I oppose tagging people based on suspicions, and tag one person for admittedly selling their account that is hypocrisy. You advocate tagging people based on suspicions shotgun style, but not your pal Nutilduhh for publicly posting their account for sale, and I am the hypocrite? MMmkay. Doxing now huh? The list of horse shit grows by the minute. Are you sure you aren't a horse instead of a baboon? |
|
|
|
I'm totally not sorry that my pointing out of your petty retaliatory use of the trust system seems like punishment to you. If the shoe fits...
I don't tag anyone on a regular basis, because I don't think this forum needs wanna be internet mall cops. I also don't tag people for disagreeing with me. He left me a negative rating because he was upset with my disagreement with him, at which point I discovered his thread openly advertising his account for sale, then I tagged him for it, including a reference from his own mouth. I never would have bothered looking if he had not abused the trust system to begin with, however that is not the same as tagging him for disagreeing with me. Your endless act of "accuse your opponents of the crimes you yourself are guilty of" never ceases to be entertaining Suchbaboon. Keep it up. |
|
|
|
|
Use script blockers. Only allow the sites you need to in order to have the site function. Problem (mostly) solved.
|
|
|
|
Perhaps you could explain exactly how he is abusing the trust system?
Perhaps I could but TECSHARE will delete it again so I'm not gonna bother. Hopefully this retaliatory feedback will cement his exclusion from DT1. I saw the post he deleted and it is exactly the same as this post. I don't think you can explain how TECSHARE is abusing the trust system because his rating is very similar to those of many people on your direct trust list, and of those whom you support on a regular basis. I don't think whataboutism and lying is helping TECSHARE here, but it's possible that logic works differently for thin-skinned narcissists such as him and yourself. So what is your argument, that you don't support tagging account sellers on a regular basis? "whataboutism" in this case can also be described as hypocrisy. |
|
|
|
|
Epstein has dirt on a lot of very powerful people. This is quite an important event. The chances of him flipping or being shanked are pretty high, but he probably is well secured, law enforcement knowing what he knows. He could end up taking down a lot of well known faces.
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I really have to stress I have no idea how any of this works so perhaps a roll-back for everyone that bought the fake MONA coins would work?
Probably not, it's been trading for a year so surely people have bought and sold and bought something else and withdrew etc... I doubt it could be untangled with a rollback. Livecoin really made in unnecessarily complicated by allowing a known bad coin/fork to be traded for so long. I would argue that if you were buying MONA after the fact, you knew what you were getting yourself into (pure speculation since price was so much lower). Since there apparently was/is a market for it I don't think any of the users that currently trade it have lost anything. But I do agree with you, however nothing can be done about that now so I'm trying. Some things also get lost in translation I feel which makes it increasingly more difficult. I'll keep people in here posted though. If it was bought after the fact then the exchange would have known that they were selling tokens that they did not have possession of. The buyer may not have had such knowledge. As soon as the exchange became aware of the issue they should have frozen the markets for that coin. While an exchange is not responsible for the MONA network and 51% attacks are hard to detect in real time - the exchange should freeze the markets as soon as they become aware of a 51% attack or attacks. Allowing trading to continue is effectively continuing to sell something that you know that you do not have. Normally this would be a situation of he said vs she said, but in this case Livecoin has done SO MANY underhanded and shady things I have seen other failing exchanges do, that I have no question they are largely if not completely at fault here. As I explained before, I have personally witnessed this pattern of behavior from exchanges from the perspective of not just a user but a development team. They are struggling to find any lame half assed excuse they can to cover their asses just a little bit longer. There are no reasonable justifications for these repeated failures which clearly demonstrate negligence if not active fraud. They started making a bunch of money, started getting self assured and sloppy, and didn't put any of it back into security. Now they want to blame everyone under the sun. There is no way this exchange is not insolvent, because if it wasn't they wouldn't be actively cutting their own throats by acting like this. |
|
|
|
no worries whatsoever... sometimes I have to be the proponent of evil to get a little more paint on the picture so to speak.... hopefully nothing was taken personally. Anytime I see some sort of lacking statement/statistic, I take the time to go in and attempt to verify the validity of their statements.... and it kinda rubs me wrong people dismiss things so easily... no matter how farse they can be... not unless you actually know the details about what they are obviously incorrect about. As a prime example; people are all up in arms right now about the citizenship questions on the national census.... You search for census forms, and all the major search engines give you results that seem to back up the claims that they weren't asked in previous years, and that its crazy and racist or whatever the #@$% that the question of citizenship is being asked.... But if you were to find the actual historical forms; you would see all the questions that are omitted from the PDF's that are commonly returned in search results [today] for lets say the year 2000.... these newly drafted 3 page PDF's are presented as original; but they are recently created. I actually have filled out the census form many times in the last 10+ years personally. These questions are indeed on them, and here's the prime example of the real census forms that were sent out and filled out on 2000-2002: https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/methodology/questionnaires/Quest00to02.pdf?# As these are the real forms. Trying to find those actual forms... took me quite a bit of work; which I totally feel for you because that's the exact position he was putting you in to... but it doesn't excuse the need to verify claims regardless of the citations if you are truly intent on understanding the other side and not just pushing your perspectives onto them in a one sided argument/discussion on your end. I enjoy a good debate, but I am not going to put too much energy into it if it is not based in logic. You said you yourself take time to verify the validity of people's statements, but how do you do that without a source? I am not devoting more energy to his argument than he is willing to, to prove HIS point for him. If you can't explain your position in simple terms and provide sources for your claims then you probably don't actually know what you are talking about. Ignoring this fact is just a waste of time and energy. People like Coins4commies often avoid or just neglect completely to make citations, because they know I will actually read and deconstruct them, something they never bothered to do in the first place. They then pretend I am being unreasonable for demanding they support their claims with a source, declare themselves correct, and move on to the next distraction. |
|
|
|
Not distract from this scam accusation, distract from the incoming wave of criticism bound to be directed at you for your involvement with them. I wouldn't know how much my reputation is worth, because mine is not for sale. You be mad at me if you like for pointing this out, but we both know you are doing this to yourself by avoiding the hard choices with little default trust games. More rules for thee but not for me right? Suddenly you see the value in people being left the fuck alone now that it is your turn don't you?
I'm so happy that at this point of my life I can't even be bothered with the forum any longer. All you do, all day long, is twist peoples words to try and make them go mad, perhaps you have succeeded with me Tecshare, as right now all I can do is laugh when I read your posts. I actually think you are quite funny and you provide some quality content around these parts. But let's bring this back on topic and either continue bashing livecoin or try and find a solution  . You go ahead and accuse me and laugh all you want. Contrary to your belief I am not your enemy, I am just one of the few people willing to tell you the hard truth that you are only fucking yourself over here. Just because the truth is painful to look at doesn't mean I am causing the pain by pointing it out. You still have time... don't waste it running from difficult choices, because difficult choices can always run faster and longer than you. |
|
|
|
Perhaps you could explain exactly how he is abusing the trust system?
Perhaps I could but TECSHARE will delete it again so I'm not gonna bother. Hopefully this retaliatory feedback will cement his exclusion from DT1. Normally I would just delete it because this is just another pathetic attempt at retribution for calling out you and your brown nose clan, but I think I am going to leave it up because it is a great example of your hypocritical double standards and desperate compulsion to punish anyone who is critical of you and yours. You keep flailing, it is a good look for you. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
