Ai chupacabras!

The whole page of his is post history consists of "up!" and nothing else.  20 posts in the last two days, and all in the same thread.

Verified with Electrum

What I'm saying is that nobody in their right mind would (or should) accept PayPal from YOU.

Four reported transactions, all from low ranking accounts, not one TxId, not one feedback left, not one feedback sent, and no proof of any kind.

Are all these your alts vouching for your service?  Most experienced users are quite selective about from whom they accept PayPal.  I certainly wouldn't accept PayPal from a shitposting bounty spammer who just woke up from a 10-month long nap.

[Archive]
 

2 Accounts Connected:

Jenn09,
eifer0910,

Proof:

Quoted here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=996318.msg21016251#msg21016251


Archive: http://archive.fo/HFCrB#selection-5629.13-5629.47



Related Addresses:


Miscellaneous:

Jenn09 recently became active after 10 months and within a day started a thread to buy bitcoin with PayPal.  Prior to this recent activity there were years worth of bounty spamming shit posts.

ETA: Jenn09 has open scam accusations against her here.  Flag created here.

 

It's not libel or slander if it's true.  And even if it was libel or slander, one crime does not justify another.  It's illegal to block, temporarily suspend, or otherwise prevent the client's access to his assets unless you've been instructed to do so by a law enforcement agency, or he has used your platform to commit a crime.  Not only are you breaking the laws of almost every civilized country (and admitting it in your own ToS,) it's also unethical.



Really?  This is your plan to fix your broken image?


So, now that you've gotten the rant about the OP off of your chest, how about you explain why you allowed trading of a hacked fork on your system for THREE WEEKS after suspecting the breach within hours?  Please explain why you think the dev team is responsible for your actions.  Did you earn any commissions while trading the hacked fork?  Did you pocket the commission you earned by trading the hacked fork?

It's not the words of some random disgruntled client on the internet that's ruining your reputation, it's your own words and actions.

Alone, the existence of shitty language in their user agreement isn't enough to label an outfit a scam.  But when they take the shitty language literally and act on it, committing a crime in the process, that changes things.  I'm not saying this happened, but it appears the OP was threatened with this possibility.  Not cool.

Perhaps.  I may have misinterpreted this post:


But that's not something I care to argue.  What I am more concerned about is the words of LiveCoin themselves, which I do not believe I am mistinterpreting:


There is nothing even remotely resembling that in Binance's ToS.  If I post of a message that I received from their customer support on twitter, Binance isn't going to take my money.  LiveCoin will, they said so.

Quite an eloquent use of vague-enough legalese, carefully crafted to protect binance from having done something they shouldn't have either "accidentally" or intentionally due to some "misinformation."  But note the absence of anything resembling "The Customer guarantees not to disclose any information, obtained from the Service support operator," or "Violation of this rule will lead to the account termination without refunding of the remaining balance of the account," and certainly no mention of "causing troubles."  

So, if I were to hypothetically say "Binance tech support told me Changpeng Zhao's second-cousin's crotch is infested with the fleas of 1000 mangy curs," I'll still be able to access my binance account tomorrow, and don't have to worry about them stealing my money.

Both!  Just because they write in their terms of service that they can shit on my lawn every morning doesn't mean it's legal for them to shit on my lawn every morning.  It's my lawn, I signed their user agreement, but there are other laws that govern where they can and cannot shit.

Exchanges are bound by law to freeze assets of known criminals, terrorists, and money launders.  That's the only legal precedent they have for freezing a clients account.  Posting mean things on social media doesn't give them the right to freeze a clients assets.  Not only that, doing so is a violation of the law, and plain old common sense.  Who the fuck does that?  You wouldn't have withheld QS's last sig campaign payment even though he was slandering you.

Not to mention their ToS sounds like it was written by some one who has never used English in daily conversation, and it's full of stupid shit like "causing troubles."  Please define "causing troubles" and explain to me how to avoid it, so as to prevent my account from being locked.  

Please find similar clauses in Coinbase's or Binance's user agreements.

I've laid out the more worrisome phrases in this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5159692.msg51720696#msg51720696
I'm not a lawyer, but it would probably be worth the expense to have one draft a user agreement that doesn't violate the law.



Did you?  As nutildah lays out clearly; on May 15, 2018 LiveCoin notices what they suspect to be a DDoS attack on MONA.  On June 7, 2018 they decide it's time to stop trading MONA and freeze the asset.  Three fucking weeks later?



I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree.  

This is my 1337^th post, and I've only been here a little over a year.  I know, you're thinking that's nothing; some people can publish that many constructive posts in a just a couple of months.  But keep in mind, this is me we're talking about.  This is the most I've posted on any forum, ever.  I've been enrolled in various forums pertaining to firearms, hunting, mountain biking, motorcycles, astronomy... for decades.  One of my favorite firearm forums I've been a member for 14 years, and my post count is still under 1000.

It's just a testament to how much I like you people.  Like it or not, apparently you're stuck with me.

Carry on and stay awesome, bitcointalk.

If LiveCoin is so reputable, and they knew about the MONA attack within a few hours, why did they keep trading the asset?  Why didn't they shut it down?

Reputable exchanges don't keep trading assets they suspect are under 51% DDoS attacks.  Coinbase shuts down assets at the slightest inclining of an attack.  It pisses off their customers to no end, but guess what, nobody loses hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Is LiveCoin responsible for the attack?  No, the hacker is.
Is LiveCoin accountable for continuing to trade an asset they suspected is under attack?  Yes, they are, not their clients who were holding that asset.
Is LiveCoin taking advantage of their (illegal) terms of service to shirk their responsibility to their clients?  Yes, and they admit it.

Businesses suffer losses all the time, there's inherent risk in almost every business.  The biggest risk any business faces is losing all their clients, and ironically this is directly linked to how said business treats those clients.  LiveCoin is far from a "reputable business," just look at how they use their ToS to reject any and all accountability.  Those of us who would like to promote cryptocurrency into the mainstream should be ashamed of businesses such as LiveCoin, and we certainly shouldn't be defending them.

2 Accounts Connected:

Bitraker,
Btcspot

Proof:

[Archive]

[Archive]

Related Addresses:


Miscellaneous:

This member has used his newbie account to ask for loans without collateral, even though he has a Full Member account.  The most striking thing is he thinks every other shitpost he makes is worth a 2-3 bitcoin tip.

I also found it quite amusing that he's offering to buy 5000 bitcoin, but wants the seller to send him 800 to 1000 bitcoin first, as a "check," Lol!

@Timelord2067, I see you are trying to revise your philosophy and leaving retribution out of the equation when considering inclusions and exclusions.  I'm really happy to see it, because I want you in my inclusion list.  You've tagged a whole shit ton of people and those tags are valuable, in my opinion.



@johhnyUA, if you have any issues with my being on DT1 feel free to discuss it here.  I don't speak Russian, and would prefer to not reply to your post in the local board.  Your post seems to be directed at west vs. east, and I'm just used as an example, even though I'm of Palestinian ethnicity, and English is my second language.

I will say this in response; I didn't ask to be on DT1, I don't need to be on DT1, and I don't necessarily want to be on DT1.  I will, however, accept it as an honor and treat the responsibility as such.  This attitude is probably one of the reasons I find myself here.

If you are one of the people who seem to think of DT status a privilege (and less of a responsibility) and the number of green reviews you've collected entitles you to that privilege, you're probably never going to be on DT1.  Just my opinion.  

The way some some people are reacting to this issue is appalling, and those folks will suffer ramifications.  Yes, some are refusing to acknowledge that a scam took place because the amount of money involved wan't enough, or simply ignoring the fact that LiveCoin admitted to the allegations presented by the OP of this thread, or attacking the OP for trusting an exchange to store funds (an exchange they promote.)  It reminds me of the three phases of acceptance: Denial, anger, and finally acceptance.  It's hard for some of us to logically accept a change that will hurt.  Losing income is a hard thing to accept, and some will lash out when faced with the prospect.  None the less, the content of those people's character is being exposed, and I believe the system will reward them accordingly.

As for my actions: For now I'll commend people like Bones261 for making what I believe is the right choice, and refrain from deriding those who continue to participate in the sig campaign.  The decision is mine to make.  You are free to start tagging people for participating, and I'm free to wait.

I think Suchmoon put it quite eloquently; rooting for Hhampuz while not holding her breath.  

I think it's worth giving people some time to come to those conclusions for themselves.  I may change my mind about this in the future, but for now I am not tagging the participants of the sig campaign.  Many have been participating for weeks, and jumping in and tagging them this early in the process would be heartless, and very likely counter productive to the overall health of the community.  It's not my intention to bash people over the head for promoting something that weeks later turns out to be a fraud.

The first step to an amicable resolution is to convince LiveCoin to make things right with their clients, and revise their terms of service to comply with the laws of the countries where they operate.  If LiveCoin refuses to make these concessions then it's time to request that the signature campaign be put to rest.  Only then would it be right to start tagging people who continue to promote known fraudsters.

Lol, Bones' post made me think of a Clash song, and Hh made me think of a Journey song.  I'm good with the Clash, but time out for you, Hhampuz, for shame. 



That ain't gonna happen.  I'm not tagging anyone other livecoin.  I get it, a lot of income is on the line for people who can't afford to lose it.  I empathize, and for that reason I won't be tagging anyone participating the sig campaign.  If anyone gets tagged or flagged for being on the sig campaign I'll oppose it.



Of that I have no doubt.  If anyone is up for the challenge, livecoin has the right guy in their corner.

Their terms of service also break the laws of common sense.


That's illegal in every country with a civilized legal code.



This (presumably) gives them the authority to close your account for any reason or no reason.  Maybe they don't like your username; account closed.  Maybe they think you have too much money in your account; account closed!  WTF, over?



No causing trouble, or... you guessed it; account closed!

[Archive]

---

Another head-scratcher; It seems like livecoin has deleted any mention of MONA from their website, with the exception of their main exchange page.  A google search lists "news" results from livecoin.net, but when searching the linked page all mention of MONA is gone.  One page, which appears to have been the original press release at the time of the 51% attack has been completely deleted, and the link goes to a 404 error.  That link:


A post on github quotes the original message:


The search settings I used:

---

The most troubling thing about this whole event is the number of reputed member who are still supporting this exchange.  A couple of spots opened up on their signature campaign, and several people applied.  This is really disappointing, especially from those whom I respect.  It's pretty obvious livecoin is a shady outfit, hiding in the shadows with a ToS agreement that holds them unaccountable.  

Sure, the evidence of the scam claims is largely circumstantial, but in this very thread they admitted they are treating the victim as he reported.  After several claims of folks being mistreated by livecoin, and their own terms of service full of illegal business practices, I'm baffled anyone can continue to stand behind them.

Post a Tx with a signed message or it didn't happen.