Are you referring to withdrawing USD or crypto?

You can monitor the bitfinex cold storage address, 3D2oetdNuZUqQHPJmcMDDHYoqkyNVsFk9r to see if they are drawing down on BTC held in this address.

I also believe that 3Nxwenay9Z8Lc9JBiywExpnEFiLp6Afp8v is (one of the) cold storage address for xapo.

To get a more broad measure of coins held at exchanges, you can monitor the amount of BTC being held in multisig addresses.

That sounds like a sting operation to me /s

Yea Lauda does not like to preform those kinds of verifications before leaving negative trust.

I am somewhat disappointed that the wall observer thread didn't get moved to a chat room style sub. I think it would have been a great opportunity to test a potential solution to the signature spam problem that we have currently. We could get around the problem with trolls in this kind of thread by requiring users to have a certain small amount of activity before being able to post.

I think this kind of sub might degrade post quality somewhat but would improve quality of conversation and discussion. 

They have had a small number of security incidents in the past however to my knowledge they made their customers whole. I also believe they had issues regarding wallet backups at one point however this was several years ago. There have also been controversy regarding their policy on what transactions to display on their block explorer and have had problems with their block explorer in the past.

IMO, the primary reason why some people say that bc.i is unsafe is because blockchain.info is a supporter of larger blocks (they have a different political position than those giving the warning).

It is possible the thread is BS, but I would not assume that it is.

I don't think the OP is offering attractive loan terms, so I would not personally be interested in dealing with him, however anyone that disagrees with this statement can negotiate terms with the OP, and there should be no harm in doing so.

No one should take any action until all terms have been agreed upon and the escrow has been funded.

I have seen the OP's type of loan request many times in the past, but publicly and privately, however the interest rate being offered has never been sufficient to satisfy the high interest rate/high return expectations of the bitcoin-sphere. 

You have no rebuttals to any of my statements.....didn't think so....

Yea that is not true. If you fail to disclose your net capital gains (provided you have net profits) related to bitcoin, then you will face serious consequences, including garnishing of assets, penalties, and interest payable to the IRS as per current statute and possible jail time, among other things. Further, a $100k sale is likely going to be difficult to hide from the IRS and various financial reports by various financial institutions would likely make it easy for the IRS to spot the lack of reporting of this sale. Further, the OP is offering 7% (per year) for two years, or a total of ~$9,800 in interest over two years, and he presumably would owe significantly more than that much in taxes if he simply sold his BTC -- the penalties and interest resulting from the failure of reporting income amounting to ~$10k in taxes would be substantial.

The amount in question for the OP is over $20k, so I am not sure why you are stating this. If the OP were to sell $100k worth of bitcoin and withdraw to his bank account, the IRS could audit him, and fairly easily figure out how much he earned via capital gains without even issuing a subpoena to coinbase for the OP's specific account (which it could easily issue, and coinbase would comply with if it was for a single account and valid). 

---

---

OP - If your BTC is being held by coinbase then signing a message would be pointless because coinbase will only (possibly) allow you to sign your deposit addresses, not the addresses where your BTC is being held -- your BTC is actually being commingled with the BTC of other coinbase customers. If you want to prove ownership of $100k worth of BTC via a signed message, then you will need to withdraw your BTC to an address whose private keys you control and sign a message -- if you do this and your computer has malware (among other potential attack vectors), then your BTC could get stolen, or if you do this, do not have sufficient backups of your private keys, and your computer crashes, then you may lose access to your BTC.....doing this has risks that are different than leaving your BTC on an exchange (both carry significant risks), however you will ultimately need to do this if someone takes you up on your offer.

I am also not sure if the BTC you claim to have in your screenshot is all the BTC you currently own, however if so, then you may end up having that BTC sold on your behalf if the BTCUSD prices declines too much (which IMO is likely in the coming month), which may effectively cause you to both effectively sell BTC at a lower price than you could have today and potentially trigger capital gains taxes, both depending on your specific situation and the terms you and the lender agree to.

Here is the relevant portion of the response that u/nullc aka gmaxwell sent in response to your inquiry:

It is trivial to change/add an email address to your GPG keys. There is zero verification required to add any email address to a GPG key.

You will probably want to see if you can independently verify the GPG key associated with a signature you are verifying before relying upon that signature. 

What part of my quoted statement do you disagree with?

No.

1) you edited your post after I responded
2) your ad hominem attacks only make it look like you know you have a weak argument (you do)
3) you have a history of engaging in this behavior
4) anyone who has the authority to ban accounts in that manner already has access to that information so posting it would be redundant and asking him to post it would be redundant.

That is exactly what it is. You are implying that you will leave negative ratings for this person's account who is disagreeing with you.

This is what you did to BMB when he asked you tough questions in The Who should be the new owner of the WO thread. This is what you have done other times as well.

Lauda is literally threatening to leave negative trust against anyone who disagrees with him.

Is this the kind of person who should have any kind of power.

*actually blazed and hilariousandco are leaving negative ratings for anyone who disagrees with lauda via lauda

Edit - http://archive.is/H3dPR

It is allowed

/thread

Sure, except for those that who don't want lauda in the default trust network, all of the "DT1" members have a neutral position/s

There are 13 people trusted directly by DefaultTrust, two of them have explicitly excluded lauda and at least one of them fired lauda from being a moderator. Cyrus also used to have lauda on his trust list but removed him after his extortion incident.

That is between 15 and 30% of "DT1" members depending on how you count, which is no trivial percentage.

I really don't think it is appropriate to have an extortionist on the default trust network. Especially one that ignores negative consequences of his actions and solely takes actions based on positive possible outcomes.

This makes me question the judgment of hilariousandco

I would be interested in a postmortem of the incident (if necessary after some amount of time, if additional research is required to determine the root cause). This may help other coin makers avoid similar mistakes in the future.

I think it is a fairly regular practice for buyers of coins to check the first bits and funding when they receive coins, so I think it is reasonable to believe that if this happened on any kind of regular basis that we would hear about it one way or another.