The new email address on the bank account (wells fargo online) matches the one Loanoffer40 earlier sent OP to contact them.




And the PM by Loanoffer40 to OP in response:

Hey OP, thanks for leaving me a negative. What was the reason again?
Was it because I've reported your reflink thread about a shop that doesn't even accept BTC?
That's a great reason to leave someone a negative feedback, congratulations OP.

Can you post a screenshot (black out any private info you're not comfortable posting) of the email your bank has sent you about the change of your primary contact address/mail?

So far, everything that OP said checks out with the PMs I've been reading.
If we put aside the practice of providing personal information as "collateral" for a loan, which I find highly careless.

---

OP provided several pictures, including identifiation, proof of address and more to Loanoffer40.
Upon request, because those pictures where "unreadable" or "invalid", OP provided more pictures.
Loanoffer40 promised to send funds to OP several times:

---

I can't verify any other parts, as some parts have been communicated outside of bitcointalk (Loanoffer40 asked OP to switch communication offside):

---

Loanoffer40 seems to be affiliated with a site called surplusresale.com

---

As for the PMs, I can confirm OPs story.
This is of course no confirmation on the accusation against Loanoffer40 about changing the bank details for OPs account.
However, from what I was abled to read in PMs, OP was telling the truth.

OP has granted me access to their account and I'm currently sorting through their PM log.

---

I can verify OP received the following PM from the user Loanoffer40:

PM hilariousandco about any of those.
I've done it a few times and the respective users are no longer part of the campaign.

Something is odd. PMs shouldn't be erased like that.
Would you grant me (or anyone else, who's trusted by you, aswell as by others) access to your account, to check if there are any PMs left, and to verify those, in case there are some?

You're acting shade even without.
Switching to a self moderated thread, trying to get the other thread away,...

Das wäre die einfachste Option, alle Parteien nutzen Electrum, erstellt wird mit den xpub keys.
Wir wollten das ganze auch noch mit anderen Kombinationen testen, sind aber da noch nicht zu gekommen.

Das testen wir dann bei Gelegenheit auch gleich mal.

You don't. The script doesn't come with any included provably fair implementation.

The Crypto-Games.net campaign is over for now and will be paused for an uncertain time.
It might aswell be removed, until we come back in the future.

You can be scammed on any currency exchange, if you are not cautious enough and avoid certain trade partners.
I wouldn't blame it on the coin you're trading, but rather on the person you're trading with.

For the lisk threads, alot of people accumulated those coins in the ICO either by buying or by participating,
it's only natural alot of them want to chash out and bring in their profit, now that the ICO has ended.

Really?
It took me less than 5 minutes to find the reason for all those new threads.
https://blog.lisk.io/lisk-ico-terms-25ca3ecd5a4d#.m4cnjrquv
ICO ended today, guys are trading, nothing surprising.

A few others and I have been testing multi-signature wallets with electrum the last days.
We've tested 2-of-2 and 2-of-3 wallets, and so far, everything worked like a charme.
Sending the partially signed transactions to each other via .txn file or the raw transaction hash was easy and worked quickly.
To me, electrum seems to be one of the best tools for multi-sig wallets right now.

However, the only thing we've not been abled to get to work is the Cosigner Pool plugin.
It's activated in the settings, but regardless of which version of electrum we use (I've tested it with 2.5.4 / 2.6 and 2.6.2),
once we try to send the partially signed transaction via the pool, either electrum crashes or we're getting the following error:
Now our question would be, if this is a known (or general) error or if there is some error on our side, and some troubleshooting we can do.
Thanks for the help in advance.

---

After asking a few questions over at #electrum, we think the problem is, that the server we're connected to doesn't offer the cosigner pool service.
Is there a list of servers which do, or an easy way to check which servers support it?

Or because we've seen enough trolling, and this right here got a smell.

I get the same numbers, but those are just expectations.
There's some factors that could reduce this numbers in reality, like pool luck (ok, maybe for a pool with >51% not that big a factor),
or a fluctuation of your hashrate (were you mining the full 24h with an average of 108Mhs?)
etc.

Both calculators use a network hashrate that is below the current daily average (according to etherscan.io),
which results in higher expectations than the real earnings.

If I adjust the numbers to fit the average daily hashrate, I get 2.03 and 2.31, which are values closer to your real earnings.

Did Next BillGates default on their loan?
That was expectable, and IIRC you have even been warned in this regard when the loan was requested.

Yeah, pretty much this. If you include a ref link in your posts, there's a high chance it gets deleted.
But in signatures and profile information, it's allowed.

---

As for why the link in their sig was removed, that's the signature restriction for newbies, no links allowed.

The commonly used format would be the following:


An example shorena made is this:

The important part is, that you provide the other party with a) the message you signed, b) your bitcoin address and c) the signature.
All those three parts are needed to verify a signed message.

---

Thanks for not suggesting coinig. No one should use that broken tool.