This is the reason he needs to step in here and explain without listening Lauda. I don't think listening Lauda is bringing anything good for him except not to anger her theory. The latest prove: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5148016.0I have no obligation against Hhampuz, from my account (this is an alt if you are not aware) we have exchanged some good words in the past. I know/believe he is a gentleman.  Although I am sure this matter doesn't really rise to this gravity, a government is party to this matter.... If it were me, I'd be leery to discuss anything involved in this matter even face to face in my own home. Much less, on the open forum for all eyes to see and eventually be able to Google. |
|
|
|
@Hhampuz, you are losing your credibility in the forum if you are really not responding here because Lauda said so. Shame!
Hhampuz should keep his mouth shut regarding this matter whether Lauda advocates for it or not. All Quickseller has established is that the funds used to pay the signature campaign participants was moved. At this time, we really have no idea what the true motives are behind this. All we have is one of Quickseller's conclusions, which more often than not is what I would expect from someone with a jaded/cunning point of view. |
|
|
|
Nobody cares when a SCAMMER like you accusses him. He will not respond.
Although I personally would not say Quickseller is trustworthy (in terms of financials), I would say that he is not a pathological liar, and can come up with logical claims such as this one. Even murderers/rapists are allowed to sue others, their accusations are as valid as any other human being's. That said, Quickseller has provided some solid, tangible proof that goes beyond just his word. I think Hhampuz should give a response, it's interesting where this will go from here. In this particular case, though, Quickseller is far from the ideal whistle blower. One could prescribe that his logic is based on premises biased with angst from him recently being booted from the Livecoin campaign. Just because someone is perfectly logical, doesn't mean that they are absolutely correct. After all, logic stems from certain premises being formed. If the premise is flawed, than everything concluded after that is probably flawed as well. Unfortunately, I cannot read Quickseller's mind. Therefore, I suppose that it is possible that he is doing this as a selfless act to warn the forum of wrongdoing. However, I doubt it. |
|
|
|
I doubt any government would waste time or resources investigating a signature campaign on a forum. They are after the funds that have been mixed (and the people mixing them).
Probably not. However, when any government is involved, it is best to take as much steps as possible to distance yourself from the situation and to keep as quiet as possible. |
|
|
|
If he wants to give some other explanation, he is welcome to do so. I reserved a post under the OP for his response so it will be prominent.
Why would he want to give an explanation? Do you really think that whatever happened(Bestmxixer instructions or not), he'd want the Dutch government hound dogs to catch a whiff of the trail?  You've already done a crackerjack for them for free by pointing the way for them.  Because as it stands now, he is being accused of embezzling money that belongs to BestMixer. It is my belief the available evidence points to this being true. I would also find it unlikely the Dutch government is not already aware of the situation. I don't think they would seize the BestMixer servers and just go home and call it a day. I don't think he's obligated to answer to you. What authority do you have over him? When the government is sniffing around, I think the best policy is to keep quiet or let a lawyer do all of the talking. It certainly isn't prudent to spill the beans on the open forum just to resolve this accusation. What's the worst that can happen to him if he doesn't answer to you? Some dt members actually give your accusation credence and red tag him? BFD. |
|
|
|
If he wants to give some other explanation, he is welcome to do so. I reserved a post under the OP for his response so it will be prominent.
Why would he want to give an explanation? Do you really think that whatever happened(Bestmxixer instructions or not), he'd want the Dutch government hound dogs to catch a whiff of the trail? You've already done a crackerjack for them for free by pointing the way for them. |
|
|
|
AND IN THE USA YOU LOVE LITIGATION AND PUT MASSIVE FIGURES ON CASES.
I'm sure the SEC in the USA will be interested on why you are issuing a security. Are you taking steps to ensure US citizens are not purchasing your tokens? Since your tokens seem to entitle people to a share of some investment scheme, they are securities. Have you cleared this with the SEC in the US? Somehow, I doubt it. |
|
|
|
I HAVE A PRO BONO LAWYER READY TO COMMENCE ACTION BASED ON A % RETURN
A lawyer is not working pro bono if you have a contingency agreement with them. You really should let your attorney do the talking(if you really have one.) At the moment, you are breaking forum rules by posting multiple times in a row. |
|
|
|
Certainly don't need any irrelevant suggestions from you.
How is my suggestion irrelevant? If you retained an attorney, they most certainly would inform you, the client, to stop all communications with the people you are going to sue. Quite frankly, I think you are full of shit and are trying to threaten everyone here to get your way. If you are not full of shit, then you are being a shitty client. The only thing you are accomplishing by continuing to post is making your attorney's job more difficult. |
|
|
|
Shouldn't your attorney be handling any communications between you and bitcointalk, since you are threatening to sue them? (As well as communication between you and ICOethics, and Jollygood.) You really should consult with your attorney, if you really have one, regarding any communications going forward. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the information. However, wwzsocki is not on DT1 or DT2. You are welcome. I know, DT means needs DT for tagging I have distrusted both accounts, for now. I don't think someone giving merit to their alts or positive trust to their alts deserves to be anywhere near DT1 or DT2. I'm on the fence on whether or not I should give red trust as well. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the information. However, wwzsocki is not on DT1 or DT2. |
|
|
|
Is it just me or has there been way less enthusiasm for Lightning in the past 1 or 2 months?
I suspect that a good portion of people involved in BTC are either HODL's or traders. I don't see why a HODLer would think it is a good idea to wrap up much funds in LN, since it involves keeping funds in a hot wallet. Also, I am not aware of any major exchanges coming on board. If a few of them do, I can see lightning as an excellent way to arb. However, I think coming up with an easy way to handle the channels may be a challenge for a major exchange at this time. |
|
|
|
When theymos first recruited me, my original allocation was 50 merits. (I've heard that some start out with much less.) It does not surprise me that he wants to start out people low to test them out. Also, I believe Vod was relieved of his merit source duties at around the same time. Therefore there are 8 new merit sources. I'm not certain how high Vod's merit source allocation was. However, I suspect that his source allocation was at least 250.
Thank you, bones261. I forgot about Vod, so it means 8 new merit sources, with 20 monthly allocated merits for each of them in average. I edited my above post. I believe you need to factor in Vod's merit source to determine how many merits each new merit source got. 250/8 =31.25 additional merits. Therefore, it appears each new merit source on average of a little over 50 source merits/month. It could be more since I suspect Vod's monthly merit source allocation could have been more than 250 per month. |
|
|
|
Interesting... It would seem that sMerit expenditures have stabilized, or are even increasing. I know that theymos added a few merit sources recently... probably won't add any more for a while now.
Total merit sources increased from 123 to 130 with 7 more newly added merit sources, but total allocated merits to merit sources only increased 160 merits (from 20735 to 20895). It means that each of 7 new merit sources received around 160/7 ~ 23 merit per 30 days, that is not significant amount, in my opinion. Maybe, theymos wanted to test effectiveness of new merit sources, before giving them more allocated merits, or it is theymos' intention to keep merit inflation at lows.
New merit sources do receive too many merits: There are 130 merit sources with a total merit generation of up to 20895 sMerit per 30 days
When theymos first recruited me, my original allocation was 50 merits. (I've heard that some start out with much less.) It does not surprise me that he wants to start out people low to test them out. Also, I believe Vod was relieved of his merit source duties at around the same time. Therefore there are 8 new merit sources. I'm not certain how high Vod's merit source allocation was. However, I suspect that his source allocation was at least 250. |
|
|
|
Jbear will be along shortly to explain why 51% attacks are an important feature of BCH Yes, it's not an 51% attack. It's Nakamoto Consensus in action. Interesting that from the brief read that I did, they need Nakamoto consensus to overcome a bug in the code? |
|
|
|
If you are a miner and make sure that transaction is only in the blocks you mine, you always get your transaction fee back. (This does not remove the possibility that someone just fat-fingered it using very unrestricted wallet software.) The address associated with this account has had a high volume of transactions associated with it since April. https://blockchair.com/litecoin/address/LQzZk5X5nBbDjbiexp5cVDczEXrNUdHzzQ My guess is that it is some kind of exchange. |
|
|
|
Hey, thank you guys so much for the responses, all is helpful.
So, Mr. Fish, thank you for the enlightening 3 steps there, very insightful. Interesting about the transaction fees...
So, what I ended up doing was Changing the transaction fees, it's Method: ETA and I changed the target to within 5 blocks (or as you said fish, 122.8 sat/byte), to
within 10 blocks (75.4 sat/byte) and it seemed to go through..
However, if i'm understanding you correctly Neurotic fish, by changing that I may have just made the sending of my btc confirmation way longer than instant?
If i'm deducing this properly, the transaction fee was more than 9$? And by changing that target to 10 blocks instead of "Within 5" that my btc may take longer to confirm, if they do at all??
Still unconfirmed as of now.
And, I apologize for any redundancy or noobishness, very welcoming community and I appreciate you guys.
You can go here to find out approximately where your transaction stands in priority. https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/bfdabd5f95a760798e0cc32179d5c822c67f5ade8e243e7aa56dc1ea8132b173Edit: It appears that your transaction now has 1 confirmation. |
|
|
|
If you're willing to give your identity, Western Union can be a good collateral as it's irreversible, maybe you should add it to the list?
And what about bank transfers?
Bank transfers are reversible. Also, I am not certain if any trusted escrow on this forum is going to accept cash for safekeeping. Also, what is nice about most altcoins is that I can verify that my collateral funds are still in safekeeping and not being moved around. P.S. I'm not the OP, so I can't add anything to the list. |
|
|
|
Is Western Union reversible?!
I didn't think about that. No, once you pick up the cash, Western Union is not reversible. However, you will need to give the person you are lending your personal information, because to pick up the cash, you need an ID. If you have the funds transferred to a bank account, than it is reversible. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
