The agreement is not alleged, the screenshots posted by bob (who is the accused) document him agreeing to purchase the forum accounts in question upon receipt of a PM, which he received. Bob has confirmed that he had no intention of completing the purchase despite his promise to do so. The account that is "hacked" has not proven to be hacked, nor was it part of the specific agreement bob violated.

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.

So it is more about supermajority. Okay then


That's why only such cases should count, i.e. where every DT1 member agrees

Otherwise, it is not "black and white" as you say yourself, and the verdict should be better left undelivered where such conflict arises (until it gets settled via an "upper hand" or through unanimous decision). The major problem is that DT1 members are part of the game (unlike jury), which can cause potential deadlocks like the one described above. Basically, one DT1 member may request you to do one thing while the other quite the opposite, with no in-between ground, and then you are instantly stuck

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.

...

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.

Probably the same as with Trust feedback? Either never removed or only if used to spam the same user with the same feedback. Korner is a nobody so it's not like his feedback/flags matter at all anyway.

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

We are talking about trying to sell a hacked account.

The claim from the OP was:

I don't understand why is livecoin making a big fuss. Unlock his account, Give his money back, problem solved and everybody is happy. What's so hard about it? Did he steal anything from the exchange? Is his money originating from hackers/terrorists? If that's a "no" then unlock his account.

Also you can't just silence people by weaponizing your ToS, that's not what ToS is for.

I get it, it is there to protect the exchange but what about the customer?

The Customer guarantees not to disclose any information, obtained from the Service support operator, in any channels of communication. Violation of this rule will lead to the account termination without refunding of the remaining balance of the account.

Please note the words in bold. You will notice they are not the same word. What is the difference? One is a multiple and one is an individual. One account also does not equal all accounts, the other accounts were still damaged even if your claim is correct. Regardless of your assertion, considerations were still made forming an agreement. The seller may or may not have known the account was hacked, and was never given the opportunity to rectify the situation. I have seen many account sellers in the past return hacked accounts willingly upon proof of ownership at their own expense. Regardless of ALL OF THIS, bob123 still entered into a contract with intend to defraud the seller of his legal rights. That alone makes the flag valid.

 You people don't seem to get this is not about defending account sellers. It is about defending the rights of everyone here from wanna be internet police vigilantes who think because they intend to do some thing positive they don't have to follow the rules themselves and can pick and choose on their own who can trade, and what they trade.

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....

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.

We do not deny that we worked with Bitsane, but we couldn't predict that this company will become a real scam. Unfortunately, Bitsane deceived us and broken the contract.
Also, you are using the old information. We've been work on our own products for a long time and not hiding from anybody because we have nothing to do with Bitsane.
This is our bounty thread, so please, stop the offtop discussion!

Can someone from AZBIT please comment on this scam accusation ? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5154000.msg51655509#msg51655509

Communication and relationship between client and Exchange is regulated by User agreement, which every user accepts at registration. There is no way to register without accepting the user agreement. However, rarely, some clients ignore and flagrantly breach the User agreement.

For the first time of violation of rules, we just warn client, but in case of repeatedly violations, account may be blocked for verification and further investigation. But, even in this case, we allow to withdraw all funds after the removing of false information and consequences caused by this publication. In some cases, verification may be required by the security team.

This is exactly what happened to the said client. This client created a ticket with a demand to enable withdrawal of MONA for his account, what is absolutely impossible because of the attack on the MONA network and public refusal of the developers to bear responsibility for that. We replied to the client with the explanation regarding MONA asset, but he decided to start spreading false allegations, publicly accusing the Exchange of fraud, and thus misleading the other clients.

The client is clearly provoking a conflict, ignoring all suggested options of settlement. Earlier this client said that all information, violating the user agreement had been removed, but the investigation found out that, on the contrary, there is much more such information now. All further discussions of this issue will be held solely with the client and only after eliminating all negative effects.

More importantly he received that information (consideration) via admittedly intentional deceit with the intent to deny him his legal rights, which is the legal definition of fraud.

One other note, I see a few people here agreeing with my points, but not nutting up to support the flag. If everyone is going to be spineless and only support popular flags this system is going to fail. The trust system can not be a popularity contest or it will fail. Nut up gentlemen.

WTF is going on here? Mindtrust, remove your negative feedback. My account isn't for sale. And I also did not got hacked, but I'm going to change my password right now, just to be sure!

COMPANIES IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION
Update for Cryptopia account holders 3 July 2019
03 Jul 2019
We understand that Cryptopia stakeholders are keen to hear what progress has been made on the liquidation process in the last few weeks. Please find below a summary of what the liquidators have been doing to secure and preserve the crypto-asset holdings for the benefit of those entitled to them.

Securing assets

We have undertaken a significant legal process to further secure the crypto-asset holdings. This is a very positive development.

We have obtained Chapter 15 Bankruptcy Recognition in the United States. Now that the Recognition Order has been entered, certain protections apply to Cryptopia and its property within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. An “automatic stay” is effective and acts as a moratorium in favour of Cryptopia and its property within the territorial limits of the United States concerning pre-petition claims including litigation (whether class action or otherwise), creditor collection efforts with respect to Cryptopia’s assets in the United States, and efforts by contract counterparties to terminate contracts with Cryptopia.

A similar automatic stay against legal action is also in force under New Zealand insolvency law.

Determining customer holdings

These legal processes mean we have now recovered the customer holdings database from Phoenix. Initiatives are now underway to reconcile this with Cryptopia-controlled crypto-asset wallets. This is not a simple task as there are hundreds of thousands of customers and many hold multiple crypto-assets.

We have begun and continue the process of recovering certain wallets which were established after the January hack and moving them into a “safe non-hacked environment”. The requirement to undertake this task is also contributing to the complexity of the process.

We continue to liaise with our legal advisors to determine how crypto-assets could be returned to customers. However, due to the January hack, this is a complex and time-consuming process. For example, an Exchange that has been hacked cannot simply be reopened. We have certain legal requirements and obligations both in New Zealand and internationally that liquidators must meet, such as Anti Money Laundering/Know Your Client (AML/KYC) requirements when considering any repayment or return of assets.

We continue to liaise with the New Zealand Police and other authorities internationally in relation to the January hack and other issues arising in connection with customers’ use of the Exchange. 

Working through the legal process

International law governing crypto-assets is still very much in its infancy. Alongside our legal advisors we are looking to answer questions such as the legal status of crypto-assets, and the legal relationship between Cryptopia and its customers.

Where to go for updates

We appreciate that Cryptopia customers want to know where the process is at and what it means for them and understand the concern they feel. While we are working as fast as we can to resolve the situation as we do not have answers to many customer questions at this stage.

Given the volume of correspondence we regularly receive, we cannot reply to individual correspondence. However, we will continue to provide regular updates via the Cryptopia website, Twitter and Facebook pages.

We have today also updated the frequently asked questions to include answers to questions in relation to transaction listings and creditor claim forms

Yes, we worked together, but we stopped all the cooperations with them in April because they deceived us and broke the terms of our agreements.
Here is a title from Forbes about that https://www.forbes.com/sites/hanktucker/2019/06/27/crypto-exchange-and-xrp-refuge-bitsane-vanishes-scamming-as-many-as-246000-users/#17316d3e77fa

Hello!
Here is the detailed explanation: https://medium.com/azbit-news/official-statement-azbit-has-nothing-to-do-with-bitsane-df62a660b489

Source: https://static.icoholder.com/files/22115/e5051c6d1cb32917c0004f8408a6d05f.pdf





Where is the mistaken link ? Your whitepaper states that there is a link. Bitsane website states there is a partnership. Companies office documents show there is a link.
At least six of your key employees worked for Bitsane. One is listed as co-founder of Bitsane.

It is very hard to believe that the entire Bitsane exchange and staff disappear and no-one at AZbit has a clue where they have gone.



Lets look at director names of Azbit Ltd that was dissolved on 4 June 2019
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/11125557/filing-history



ERMOLITSKI, Sergei

KUZNIETSOVA, Svitlana

PRUDNIKOV, Dmitry











[

[

     By Tryto look. Posts in English to anyone it is clear that I did not write. He writes himself ... Not a single drop, not a single bounty. And suddenly
  

I think you are just misinterpreting TECSHARE's point here.

If Bob123 didn't wanted to go into the contract with the seller or if the seller didn't wanted to engage in the contract with Bob123, this telegram discussion you are implying would just not exist.

Bob123 had a pri-decided intention to engage in the contract with the account seller and than again broke it intentionally after exposing his digital goods.


Yes, there was a risk of no sale before the seller revealed his accounts to Bob123, but when Bob123 agreed to buy the account once the ownership is proved the contract should be automatically formed there after IMO.

I find your way of relating this incident to court judgements interesting, but I don't think we could imply complex court laws here anyways there are too many differences.

An acceptance is a final and unqualified expression of assent to the terms of
an offer. Again, there must be an objective manifestation, by the recipient of
the offer, of an intention to be bound by its terms. An offer must be accepted
in accordance with its precise terms if it is to form an agreement. It must
exactly match the offer and ALL terms must be accepted.

Once an offer has been accepted, the parties have an agreement. That is the
basis for a contract, but is not sufficient in itself to create legal obligations.

In common law, a promise is not, as a general rule, binding as a contract
unless it is supported by consideration (or it is made as a deed).

I can understand your way of logic, but it is a bit flawed for this situation.

Here the same guilty man was trying to still innocent peoples rewards by merit trading and account farming. Letting him walk free would punish and let suffer more innocent peoples than one can think of due to his support from some of the reputed members and DTs. This is an overall harm to the cleaner environment of the forum and prone to abuse if you see.

Anyways the blockchain evidence are already a solid proof to come to a conclusion for both you and me and the OP.

The evidence was already here, but most of the people were trying to avoid it in the whatever way they can including you. But I am glad you got to know the real culprit of this farming cycle. Smartman was shady enough from the first look to me.