Je crois que tu t'essouffles à troller à un moment bien ennuyeux pour les plus héroïques des spéculateurs :-)

Chacun à ses raison de s'intéresser (ou ne ne plus) à Bitcoin, et le prix suit la réalité et non l'inverse...

Bon, c'est pas très brillant... 

D'un autre côté, on verra si on va vers une stabilisation sur l'année, ou au contraire l'effet de l'inflation en tout cas jusqu'en 2016.

Hello I would like to sell BTC for 70 USD paypal, we have done 1 deal before, my bitcontalk is matt4054 (posting here)

Edit: Trade done, perfect, vouching again for OP, excellent and fast service

Considering the massive dumps still ongoing I think you're right...

At least it can be traded again, before it gets pulled from Cryptsy and then bagholders gonna hodl

So now it's fallen below the cent on a dollar

One more predictable disaster, alas.

Seriously you should stay out of this for the reasons mentioned above...  

Furthermore there should be no good reason to leave any large deposit there

It works for me, transient error / region specific probably.

+1 and link to the service for the readers' convenience

Yes I know that it's already at the bottom of every page but it's easy to overlook it after zillion hours of browsing

Thanks for your contributions!

While most of you already knew about the Monty Hall problem, it's always interesting to discuss, especially how to turn it into something more intuitive. The meta problem of the difference between 'No' and 'It doesn't matter' was an interesting development too

I find them very logical indeed, it's all about the law of excluded middle

I admit that there's an ambiguity in the formulation between something that is not to your advantage and something that is to your disadvantage.

It's one of the most counterintuitive problem I've ever seen.

Some have already given elements of the answer. I will add the following hints:

The game master will always have to open 1 of the 2 doors that you didn't pick. Now you may want to know if he will always open a losing door or not (supposing you didn't pick the winning one in the first place). I will answer that opening the winning door would make the game over instantly, and the switch-or-not question irrelevant. As far as I'm concerned, the key to the explanation was grouping the 2 unpicked doors together when considering probabilities.

Yes he does. His intention is unknown and should be irrelevant.

So, I called them. They are rejecting my chargeback based on the following policy:


About fraud: basically they say they would only consider it as fraud if I didn't willingly initiate the transaction, i.e. if my account was hacked. The fact that the recipient of the money did not fulfil any kind of agreement, contract, deal etc. doesn't qualify as fraud as per their policy above.


Basically because it was too late, the scammer had abandoned his account (not logged in for a long time), and he had already got several negative feedbacks from people in DefaultTrust. But I just did.


Unless I've missed something, the only e-mail that I exposed is his, not mine, but thanks

(on the screenshot above, I'm the buyer, he's the seller)

Actually I didn't have the 'tell the truth' option:



Picking 'Item dispute' here wasn't possible. I can only paraphrase the error message that was given, as trying to reproducing it now gives me another error message because I already filed a dispute for this transaction and my claim was rejected (I can't do it again). The initial error message was something like "this transaction is not eligible for buyer protection". My understanding is that when you choose "family & friends" type of transaction, you can't dispute it, at least not this way.

So the only option left was the second one i.e. unauthorized transaction. This forces you to imply that your account was hacked, to change password etc. I did mention, in the description field, that it wasn't the case and that instead, the receiving account wasn't legit, i.e. Timothy White is not a real person / is a fake identity. It didn't help.




Your point about giving negative feedback ASAP to protect others is valid.  That being said, the scammer used delaying tactics. There was an unfortunate coincidence: scammer pretended that his account was frozen immediately after I sent him the money, because of suspicious activity. At the very same time, I noticed that the credit card that I used for the transaction was blocked by my bank for real (I still don't know why, probably automatic anti-fraud algorithms / patterns). This gave some credibility to his claim.

If you look closely at his trust reports, you will notice that his scamming activity was very short, from 2015-02-16 to 2015-02-19, i.e. 3 days. Lifting the blocking of my credit card and sorting things out took me just about the same time, so it was a bit too late already.

His account was created on November 19, 2013 and a quick review of his posting activity at that time didn't make it suspicious, although by now I would suspect that the account was only bought recently by the scammer. This is why I don't like the forum policy of 'officially' allowing account resale, although I'm aware that prohibiting it by the rules couldn't prevent it entirely.

My point here wasn't to complain about it, otherwise I would have done it in scam accusations. I take responsibility for getting scammed because I didn't protect myself enough, it was a risk that I was willing to take at the moment. My point was rather to ask how PayPal as family & friends payments can be charged back at PayPal level (i.e. not credit card charge back).

Well, I guess it's a bit too much of a classic for those willing to click on brain teasers... gg


Yes, rest assured, funds were escrowed by Monty Hall.

"Stupidity is a talent for misconception." -- Edgar Allan Poe

There are many exchanges around, it depends on the reliability that you expect from them. Getting goxxed all over again isn't worth trading even at zero fee. Most exchanges will require ID verification as a prerequisite, btc-e is the only "major" one without this requirement AFAIK. Fees may also vary depending on your daily/weekly/monthly volume.

Chances are that the mere mention of 'bitcoin' in your PP counterclaim would make you lose the case. This is based on other users' shared experiences, it's not formally documented anywhere AFAIK.

If you already know about the original version of this problem please don't spoil the answer too soon, let's keep it fun, thanks



Suppose that you're given the choice of three closed doors. Behind one door is 1BTC, behind the others, 1 satoshi. You pick a door, say #1, but you can't open it yet. The game master, who knows what's behind the closed doors, opens another door, say #2, which has 1 satoshi.

Then the game master asks you whether you want to pick door #3 instead of door #1.

Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?

I had missed the testnet part of your post, so yeah, I guess so.