Well escrow doesn't work so well in all ICOs.

How long you were messaging him via the GreenBits account before you took possession of the account?

Did you get any kind of signed message or other proof/evidence of ownership of the account you were buying?

I am still not sure the point of the ad hominem attacks.

I think it is good that you were able to recover the money so quickly from the scammer.

There is nothing suspicious about the entire situation

edit: I am very happy that an ICO scammer who was willing to trust escrows who specializes in penny trades with what was hoped to be a half million dollars and who was able to recover the stolen money within days

It looks like you ended up creating this sub. I can't say that I disagree with this decision (double negative).

It also looks like you added a new rule. My question is, how will it be handled when a seller of accounts buys accounts from some third party (here or elsewhere), and is able to resell said accounts at a price that clearly indicates they were obtained via illegitimate means? One example of this is this guy who is selling "lifetime" Netflix accounts for ~$10 when the cheapest netflix subscription costs ~$8 per month. This guy actually has a couple of threads with similar situations and has negative trust for selling hacked PayPal accounts (the thread of which has been trashcanned) -- I think you can do the math as to what this guy is doing. 

It looks like theymos has added a new rule regarding the sale of invites/accounts:

ahhh, the ad hominem attacks have started

1 - this thread is not about me, so any comments about me will not be responded to, despite their inaccuracies, and attempts to distract from the conversation.

2 - I think it is very strange that funds were able to be recovered after the scammer ran away with investor money

3 - It has been said that it is not expected to be able to repay all investors, is this no longer the case?

4 - I think it is very convenient that the scammer's identity is known and that he was so willing to repay what he stole so very quickly. And to top it all off, he lives not far from you

Lauda was recently exposed as being an extortionist that resulted in him being removed from him being staff.

Lauda however is still very heavily using self-moderated threads in order to censor those who are calling him out on failing to fulfill his escrow obligations, and asking for information about a scam that he was involved in.

This is not the first time that Lauda has censored those who are critical of him via the use of self moderated threads, however I now feel that the case for this is stronger to disallow Lauda from deleting posts in self moderated threads now that (a) he has been exposed as an extortionist and (b) that he was involved in a scam in which Lauda was acting as an escrow and some funds were lost.

I would like to request that Lauda be given a hidden scammer tag preventing him from deleting additional posts from self-moderated threads (and ideally from deleting posts and/or editing his posts).

Deleted post in question:

As mentioned, here is evidence that Lauda had censored others who are critical of him in the past, and here is evidence that Lauda was previously involved in a scam via advertising for said scam.

Somewhat unrelated, but it looks like Lauda might have been acting as an escrow in a situation in which a portion of money that the escrow was responsible for is not going to be returned.

Can someone maybe post the tl;dr on this ICO scam?

It looks like the ICO was claiming to be using an escrow, so I am not entirely sure how they were able to get away with any money. Both minerjones and yahoo62278 have left negative trust against what appears to be the account created to represent this altcoin saying they were each one of three acting escrows. Do you know who the third escrow was?

Do you know if any of the three escrows posted any kind of escrow agreement, or any confirmation they are responsible for holding funds? The archived version of the OP links to a PDF that appears to no longer exist on what it purports to be an escrow agreement.

I am also curious to know why exactly a known extortionist (Lauda) has opened a self-moderated thread allowing for people to "file a claim" of having their money stolen, or why this kind of thread is self moderated.

edit: it looks like lauda was the third escrow....I am smelling an escrow scam here...

See Change addresses for more information about why this happens.

If you do not want to use change addresses when using Electrum (this will hurt your privacy, and is generally not a good idea), then go to Tools --> Electrum Preferences --> uncheck Use Change addresses --> Close

You aren't the bitfinex hacker are you? lol

How would it get handled when such a thread is created outside of the proper section, and it needs to get moved to the altcoin announcement sub?

---

I agree that this will create a false sense of security. I would also point out that many of the altcoin ICO scams end up getting well over 1BTC, so a payment to create such a thread would serve little more than a tax to the forum.

I would also point out that even if such a fee was imposed, the forum cannot reasonably prevent people from creating threads discussing a ICO that does not have an [ANN] thread. A lot of the ICO scammers seem to have a large number of sockpuppets, I don't see why these scammers wouldn't simply use some of their sockpuppets to create threads that generate interest in an ICO scam that directs people to some reddit sub or other website.

It would also open up the possibility that many people will direct users to imposter websites to get information about an ICO (intentionally or not) when the devs do not want to pay this fee/tax.

Check your settings on Profile --> Notifications and Email

If you have Receive reply notification only for the first unread reply checked then you will only receive one notification per thread until you read that thread.

If you have For topics and boards I've requested notification on, notify me of set to "nothing at all" then  you probably will not get any notifications.

Since this thread is partially about TMAN, I guess it is appropriate to post this here....

In this thread, TMAN wanted to buy up all of a coin that was offered for sale, then he proceeded to what can only be described as trolling, and eventually backed out of the entire deal ~a day later when nothing really changed.

Just sayin.....

TBH, the results of this thread, and the reaction of many on this thread make me believe that a major overhaul of either the trust system and/or who is in the DT network is in order.

It appears that anyone who questions someone in a certain group of people is called a scammer.

The GunBot ad is much wider than the rest of the ads.

I do not believe that xetsr is a scammer, although something appears to have happened that resulted in him defaulting on a loan to zazarb. I don't disagree with the vast majority of his ratings, including those against you.

Congratulations on being able to rase enough capital to start this project.

I have no doubt that this will end up being a very successful project!

What you (amaclin) wants, and/or will accept really does not matter, you are just a single user who conducts (from what I can tell) very little business when compared to all of the bitcoin related business conducted.

From what I can tell, there are many large bitcoin related businesses that conduct very large amounts of bitcoin related business, and give bitcoin it's value that support a larger maximum block size. The same appears to be true for a large portion of bitcoin users, who also collectively conduct large amounts of bitcoin related business.

There is also a decently sized minority of Bitcoin miners, who provide security to Bitcoin who are very actively supporting a maximum block size increase -- I suspect this minority will increase over time and eventually become a large majority.

OTOH, a minority of miners are actively supporting SegWit (that is a large enough of a change so that it would probably be a bad idea not to upgrade if implemented, making it not unlike a HF). There are many Bitcoin related businesses who are ready for SegWit, but are not necessarily actively supporting SegWit. I have also seen one or two bitcoin related businesses whose political views make me believe that they are opposed to SegWit have had their name massively slandered on what I consider to be SegWit-friendly media sources, for them to subsequently support SegWit and have their name cease being slandered on said media sources -- well I will just leave it at that.