Except he explicitly made an agreement, received considerations, which is when the contract becomes binding. Just because he changed the terms after reviving considerations does not mean he can unilaterally change the agreement. That is not how contracts work. If I order a pizza and the delivery guy gets here and I decide I don't want it any more, I am still legally obligated to pay for it because I ordered it and resources were expended getting it delivered. I can't offer to pay him 25% to make the contract go away for example.

You are simply cherry picking statements and ignoring the explicit agreement which I quoted above, including mutually agreed upon terms, as well as consideration, all the parts necessary to form a legal contract. The argument about an agreement over confidentiality is clearly implied, but also totally moot. The seller clearly made considerations. bob123 clearly agreed upon terms, and agreed to pay once the PM was sent. The moment the PM was sent the requirement for consideration was met, then furthermore later losses were accrued as a direct result of this fraudulently obtained consideration. I don't care how many other people oppose the flag. They are wrong. I don't make decisions based on what is popular. The ends do not justify the means. bob123's actions were fraud by any definition.

I also asked them about this on their new IEO ANN thread a couple weeks back. Despite their claims that "Azbit has nothing to do with Bitsane," a large portion of their team also worked with Bitsane.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5114152.msg51450827#msg51450827

I wouldn't trust Azbit at all. Their big selling point is they shelled out enough money to hire Roger Ver as an advisor -- pretty much the entirety of their project rests on this point.

This isn't true. A lot of your team members worked for Bitsane or still work for them, including Bitsane

-co founder
-head of marketing
-business development director
-head of statistics
-senior analyst
-technical director

In your white paper it sounds like the two companies are completely tied together:



Most of the comments on the Bitsane twitter page are from customers who are getting locked out of their accounts and/or can't withdraw their coins.

Here's another recent tweet:


I read through a lot of Bitsane reviews and for the most part it seems like an OK operation, however, if this is how you leave your customers hanging, what would stop you from doing the same thing to Azbit customers once you close that operation?

What comes before is irrelevant because they both later agreed on $280. bob123 accepted consideration after the contract was formed. They both also agreed to use escrow. The seller made the consideration to bob123 in good faith (and under contractual agreement) that a certain price would be paid once this consideration (PM from account) was made.

You will also see later in that same conversation about 2/3 of the way down:

bob123 (18:52): "OK send me a message from this account and we have a deal"

He explicitly accepts the terms discussed, and accepts further consideration from the seller in the form of a PM which is then delivered just after as you can see in the conversation. Also once again prices are discussed and agreed upon.

bob123 himself admitted they had a deal, signaling his willingness to contract, and that contract was activated upon consideration (the PM). Just because bob123 backed out of his agreement, and the seller realized he would not complete it at that time does not invalidate the contract bob123 formed. To argue this doesn't meet the terms of even an implied agreement is asinine and disingenuous on your part.

Yep. Asking for proof of possession for someone who has ZERO feedback is not too much to ask.

$356 with free shipping on Amazon also.

http://www.amazon.com/Intel-Boxed-I7-6700K-Processor-BX80662I76700K/dp/B012M8LXQW

'Breaking' the 'agreement' did not do any damage. Therefore the flag is not valid.

I don't understand why you are trying everything you can to convince others to support this flag.
It simply doesn't make sense to me.

It seems that the majority of voters also thinks that this flag is not appropriate.
Supporting: 1
Opposing: 7

What comes before and after the highlighted agreement is irrelevant. What you say before and after a contract does not invalidate a contract made some time between those two periods because further discussion or terms were had. A contract was technically formed, by your own clearly stated metrics, and by the information bob123 himself provided as I covered above. The instant the seller PMed bob123 a contract was formed because that act was the first act of stipulated consideration after terms were discussed and mutually agreed to.

A more proper analogy would be that some one who sells the precursor chemicals to manufacture cocaine getting their lab burned down by a vigilante after he gains access by pretending to be a customer. Selling accounts is not criminal, and even if it was burning down his property using a fraudulent agreement is still not acceptable.

There are plenty of words that have alternative common use meanings which do not hold to the technical and originally intended definition of the word. Fraud is a legal term and as such it has very structured metrics by which an act of fraud is determined. Let us look at the legal definition of fraud.

"Fraud

A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury."

Clearly what bob123 did falls under this definition. Just because account sales fall under the more loose, casual, and colloquial use of the word is meaningless. One falls under the technical legal definition, one doesn't.

Regarding your argument that a contract was not formed, first of all the language in the flag says:

"SeW900 alleges: bob123 violated a casual or implied agreement, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. bob123 did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around June 2019. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance."

So, even if your argument was correct that it was not technically a contract, an agreement was most certainly implied by any metric. However an actual technical contract was formed and documented here by bob123 himself.

Seller: "280$ ok,? !!"
Bob123: "Yes, 280 is good"
Seller: "ok" "do you pay me after PM" "?!"
Bob123: "Yes with escrow"

As you can see the three terms of a technical contract were in fact met.

Offer - The seller made an offer at a specific price point.

Acceptance of identical terms of the offer - Bob123 agreed to the price point on the stipulation his consideration of revealing the name/ownership of the account and they both agreed to identical terms.

Consideration - The seller provided consideration under this contract bringing it into effect.

I appreciate your genuine and civil discussion of the issues, but you are incorrect by your own metrics.

I do not agree the ends justify the means

You did in fact destroy the value of the other user's property. Normally if you just found this information out via investigation that wouldn't be an issue. The problem is you explicitly used deception and violated an agreement with the user in order to obtain the information to do so. Just calling it "non-confidential information" is meaningless. Rights end where the rights of another begin. Just because you don't like people selling accounts doesn't give you carte blanche to commit fraud to do so.

Account selling is not necessarily fraud. Please familiarize yourself with the definition of fraud.

a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.

You used deceit to obtain this information, you made an agreement, then you destroyed his property which he has a legal right to. That is fraud.

You were given clearly confidential information based on the agreement you would make a purchase if you were made privy to that information. Your "rescinding" talk is just you wishing you could modify the terms after the fact, that is not how contracts work. The accounts now are valueless to the seller, which was the entire intent of you exposing them. You intentionally caused him loss of property value. This is by your own admission, now you are trying to use semantics to cover up this fact.

The problem here is you made an agreement to gain this information. Just because you claim you had good intents is meaningless. You aren't some how special and allowed to have your own set of rules because you think your intent was well meaning. You want to get rid of this flag? Pay the man for the accounts you destroyed, ask for forgiveness from the seller, and I will advocate for you as you have remedied the damage you have caused.

All your double talk right now is just making you look more like you are full of shit. You fucked up, next time don't make agreements you don't intend to uphold. The fidelity of the trust system is more important than your compulsion to abuse it to punish people trading in goods you do not approve of.

Ireland-based cryptocurrency exchange Bitsane disappeared without a trace last week, likely taking hundreds of thousands of users’ assets with it.

Forbes

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

Do you think experienced users are unable to perform their own research and come to their own conclusions?

Or, are you unhappy that you can no longer impose your opinions on everyone else?

Anyone who's been here long enough to not have the newbie flags shown to them (7 days of log in time), is knowledgeable enough to visit a given user's Trust page before doing business with them.


What do you mean by 'verified'? KYC?

Thanks for this comprehensive summary.


I hadn't been keeping tabs on the "what Coingeek has to say" aspect recently, but its just as ridiculous as I would have imagined. Their idea of what constitutes a victory for BSV is so flimsy. The entire lawsuit is predicated on the idea that Craig had a hand in inventing bitcoin. So, of course Kleiman's attorney isn't going to object to Craig saying he is Satoshi. Does that mean he is Satoshi? Of course not, yet Coingeek would have us believe that it does.

Wright filed a motion with an Australian court saying he had no connections to Florida or W&K. He then supported these claims with a sworn declaration stating he was never a shareholder, member, agent, employee, or representative of W&K.

However, it was found that Wright submitted an affidavit to the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where he confirmed that he owned 50 percent of W&K Info Defense LLC, while Kleiman owned the other 50 percent.

He then doubled down, saying that “W&K Info Defense LLC was an incorporated partnership” and that “all shares are held jointly.” According to the court documents, Wright also said he called a “shareholders meeting” in 2013, where he was the sole vote that nominated the director of the company.

The affidavit directly contradicts sworn statements Wright had made to the court in Florida, where he asserted that he had never been a shareholder or a member of W&K and that he never exercised any authority or control over the company.

Documents which Wright signed as the “authorized representative” of W&K were revealed, as well as multiple occasions on which he identified himself as the lead researcher of the company.

Amid the revelations coming from West Palm Beach on Friday, court attendees were also greeted to some theatrics. As well as breaking down in tears at the thought of this invention being used by criminals, Wright threw court documents across the room, prompting the judge to threaten him with immediate arrest.

To my understanding, you can get banned for either plagiarism or ban evasion. I went through his posts (the ones written in English) and couldn't find anything that seems copy-pasted. But I did find this little topic started by hilariousetc. Again, I'm not an alts expert, but there are a few newbie accounts (connected to a banned account) that used his twitter and facebook handles. I'm not sure if it's true or someone's just trying to set up/destroy tvplus006 account.^[1]

As Coolcryptovator said, I would like mods to at least state the reason for his ban (plagiarism or ban evasion). I don't want to go over 90 pages again looking for plagiarized posts.

Edit;

I'm going through his posts again, he seems to have quoted bounty manager's post without referencing it. He was trying to help someone, at least that's how I see it. (can't say if this is the reported post or not).



Edit2;

[1] - According to this post - “probably due to spam or plagiarism”.

They diligently avoid discussing the facts ... all because I am bad?
I don't care what they call me (troll, liar, etc.), but I would like to hear their statements on specific issues.

The information that served as the beginning of my investigation was published on february 04, 2019. Everyone in local ignored this information. There was no action or comment.
When additional evidence was published (on June 08, 2019), some DT members (taikuri13, chimk, Alex_Sr) began to aggressively protect the scamer.
And as you can see from the first post, I found a lot of scamers and additional evidence, but none of the listed DT members are interested in it, they only continue to protect the scamer.
I think this is an important issue for the entire forum and should be resolved at a high level.