-snip-
Even if you could show that its the first time they ever cared about the forum or ban evaders, it still could be explained by happenstance and Im not going to neg rep them for it.
^^You don't find it anything wrong if one member is an alt of a user who has been banned from this forum?
Not in terms of trust not. Its for mods/admins to decide how to handle this. I actually know at least one user that came back after a perma ban and did solid contributions to the forum. AFAICT it was at least known to one global mod. I dont want to derail this any further as I currently have little time to keep up with all PMs and read up on the needed threads. All Im saying is: it wouldnt be the first time that admins are lenient with someone perma-banned in the past. It all depends how they behave I guess.
I have a question here and anyone wanting to clarify this would be much appreciated. I have read this entire matter over and over before to take a clear stance. To my opinion, Lauda was and is someone with a good level of contribution to this forum, but it is my opinion.
I agree. There are a few questionable points, and there are some that are not (again IMO):
1.- Was it an "extortion" attempt or a "sting operation" attempt?
I dont see a difference between the two, in terms of wrongness. Esp. considering extortion and 'gathering information'. See the lengthy post by QS above as to why the information gained is unlikely to be reliable. As far as I can understand, it was a failed sting operation which is, in many law enforcement jurisdictions, allowed, legal and ethical. Here in Italy where I live, for example, there are even some interesting TV shows recording "sting operations" (failed or succeed depending on the luck) and people simply approve those sting operations eating popcorns while they watch at criminal being caught. See i.e. "Striscia la Notizia" or "Le Iene" movies which are very popular and both broadcasted on national TVs. Here you can see sting operations against any crimes: tax evaders, drug dealers, money laundering and counterfeit, prostitution and so on. I don't think Italy is so far away from other forum member's jurisdictions, isn't it?
Its illegal in germany and it can even lead to lower sentence for the criminal. Police may try to convince someone to do a crime though under certain circumstances. It would never happen, indeed, that people would believe or mix up the real criminal with the sting operation team (sorry Zeroxal I'm talking in general as I don't know you, nor I have facts that would bring me to understand you committed any crime, nor I'm interested in). How is it possible to turn the sting operation team into the actual criminals if they fail?
I dont think of Lauda nor TMAN as criminals, but they still did something wrong. In fact its a level of wrong that deserves a punishment, hence the rating. Based on the good intention Im willing to change it to neutral after some time has passed. Without me knowing Lauda good enough to understand why they did it there would be little discussion at all, as anyone else in their situation could use their 'get out of jail'-pgp message or not if successful. Again: was it an extortion attempt or a sting operation attempt? (Have I asked it enough already?)
I know, though, there are some countries sting operations are not legal, not allowed. Reading from Wikipedia Sweden should be one of them.
The only exception a sting operation would become a crime is the case the "victim" would not have committed any crime without being solicited: I am not a drug dealer, but if you offer me 10M dollars I might become...
I am open to any discussion about this point, and I'm not trying to defend Lauda at any cost. Also: I'm putting all my efforts to ignore the fact that out of the latest ten threads open in the last week on this matter, ten were open by Qs (feel free to correct me if these stats are wrong). I'd just appreciate a transparent, fair and honest discussion over this point, without personal grunges.
Shorena is the one that apparently took a stance on this so, an answer from him would be an appreciated priority: "Part of a failed/faked extortion in order to gather information about a possible scammer."
What is exactly in your opinion a "failed/faked extortion in order to gather information about a possible scammer":
1.- An extortion
2.- An attempt to spot a possible scammer
I am confused by this rating because people like me rely on you DT members to ponder about our stance on many matters on this forum: if you think it was an extortion in the attempt to gather money from Zeroxal, please provide me evidence of this and I will change my rating on Lauda too. If it was an attempt to spot a possible scammer, why you consider that a neg rep worth?
I dont think Lauda wanted money, no. It was still an extortion though. I could probably improve the wording of the rating, but I also dont want to change it to keep track of the time. If you are unsure about a DT rating, follow the reference and see if it makes sense to you. These lead here and its the thread I will discuss this in, for exactly that reason. Whether or not zeroxal is a scammer is yet to be seen, I have not seen any convincing evidence yet. They did run a ponzi, yes, but they also used escrow and covered all loses. My stance vs. ponzis is probably well known, but I think its a stretch to leave a neg for this. All the 'hacker' accusations to me sounds like a teenager, beeing a teenager. DDoS your own school, sure thats illegal, but Im not going to make a big fuss about it. Similar to the tax evasion, thats nothing I condone, but I also have no way to tell whether its actually true or whether they are just asking a hypothetical question. We probably get one thread a month about how to use bitcoin to evade paying taxes in germany. Most just mock the questioner. Whenever I ask for more convincing evidence I get no answers, so unless this changes I cant leave a neg for zeroxal. From what I read, zeroxal showed proof to several people that they didnt evade taxes and their dox is known to the same people. If they had anything solid, they could just contact police. |
|
|
|
Hi guys,pls I came across a software on the forum and websites selling bitcoin, perfect money generator or adder,what IG means is that the software add bitcoin, skrill or PayPal into your account when you buy and instae them.does such things exist as anybody use it before or it is s scam
Its usually malware and will do nothing but show you a progress bar while scanning for your wallet file(s). |
|
|
|
Hi guys and girls, I apologize if this query is too basic but I haven't been able to find any info on it. In short, I have an Electrum wallet in which I would like to withdraw all of the funds and then delete it. However, Electrum will not allow me to make a complete withdrawal. Any help is greatly appreciated.
Why not? Any error message? Did you maybe forget that you have to pay a fee? Did you use "!" as amount? |
|
|
|
The account of Lauda might have been sold recently
No. -snip-
How is QS a scammer?
-snip-
Please stay on topic. |
|
|
|
Damn, OP should change the thread name as; How much of a snitch are you?
Lol, snitch? Most reports are about threads started in the wrong section. If anything the question should be how high is your compulsive orderliness? S.O. to people who report the scams tho.
S.O.? Significant other? Scams are not handled by staff so reporting them would do nothing. |
|
|
|
|
About the red asterisk in the overview thread. IIRC someone wanted some campaign to get it for delayed payment, thus it was added. Someone else said Coinroll should get one as well and I agreed. The campaign did have its troubles (wrong calculations, etc.) and fair share of dalys which is all the asterisk stands for. Its been a while since my last payout so I cant tell whether or not they are late.
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I am having trouble uploading the screenshot here.
You cant, feel free to upload it to e.g. https://imgur.com/ and link it here. Why I got confused on the whole thing was that after downloading the bitcoin app I wasn't asked to tender my information for registration to acquire a wallet
Bitcoin needs none of your information, but you also cant go to someone if you lose access to your wallet. Make sure you have a backup and its well secured. If it looks like this, it should be the correct one by Andreas Schildbach. -> https://i.imgur.com/odLwtjD.png |
|
|
|
Hey,
i always wondered where the additional fees when sending a transaction come from?
It is 0.0005BTC on top for me, while the regular dynamic fee right now is something about 0.0007.
Blocks are currently limited to hold up to 1 MB worth of transactions. The more bitcoin is used the more demand for this space is created and thus its price increases. Additionally some people tend to overpay when their wallet has no dynamic fee options so they can remember a fixed amount, which over time increases the price as well. |
|
|
|
I knew I should have written a statement yesterday, but well, it was late. I know you all are busy so Ill try to keep this short. #1 TMAN, as I said in PM I will reconsider your rating at the end of february (~1 month from now). Please remind me via PM. #2 Lauda, I am may be willing to reconsider your rating further in the future. #3 I left no rating to minifrij because the connection is not strong enough for it. The timing is odd and Im wary, but its not enough for a rating IMHO. The reason I am willing to reconsider at all is that you both seem to think you have done something that is allowed (TMAN) or at least justified by its ends (Lauda). I strongly disagree. Extortion is evil[1][2] and should be punished. If everyone else can let this slide, I cant. In regards to the Enland and Wales law, an extortion or blackmail is no proper means and the demand was money which has no reasonable grounds in this case. I think this was put into place to allow e.g. "blackmailing" someone into self-indictment with the threat of a report to police. Im less lenient with Lauda because we discussed how the end does (or does not in my view) justifies the means for quite some time now and because I think my rating will have less impact on them due to their connections and past ratings. [1] In a similar sense as is torture, a lesser one though. See e.g. the remarks by Terry Karney here -> http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/002951.html [2] QS also send me a well constructed argument as to why no information gained this way can be reliable. Maybe they are willing to repost this here for everyone to read. |
|
|
|
The fee has nothing to do with the amount you transfer, but with the size in byte the transaction needs in the blockchain. Electrum usually does a good job at giving you an estimate that will result in a timely confirmation. You can also double check with e.g. cointape[1] (old name). If your fee was unusually high, it might be because the transaction was bigger than normal. This might be because it required more inputs[2] for the amount you wanted to send. [1] https://bitcoinfees.21.co/[2] Chunks of bitcoin you have received in the past. The bigger the chunks the cheaper (in terms of fee) you can send large (in terms of BTC) amounts. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Bitcoin is not anonymous, if it would be the question by OP could not be answered. Its pseudonymous, like e-mail.
Why is bitcoin not anonymous? What personal information can they access? You are asking the wrong question. What personal information can you get from the e-mail address " shor3na@gmail.com"? None, but when you send a mail to it you know it will always end up with the same person. Thats what pseudonymous means. There is an alias which masks my personal information, yet you can still know you send information to the same person using the same alias. Bitcoin Addresses have the same property. A fully anonymous system has no aliases. Everything would look identical or like random noise without any way to distinguish one person (behind an alias) from the other.
Why is bitcoin not anonymous? What personal information can they access?
Bitcoin may be quite anonymous if you use mixers, exhanges etc You are funny, using exchanges would very likely blow your pseudonym as well as you need to identify yourself to the exchange. A mixer can help to avoid connections between addresses, thus keeping your pseudonyms apart from eachother. It does not make you anonymous. It just helps you to maintain your privacy. see also e.g. here -> https://bitcoin.org/en/you-need-to-know#anonymous |
|
|
|
Hello All, I have received bitcoin on 2013 in my Bitcoin Core Wallet and in between from 2013 till today I have formatted my system. I have reinstalled the windows and Bitcoin Core Wallet but I didn't found my bitcoin balance in newly installed Bitcoin Core Wallet (I have synced it till date) but still there is no balance in my Wallet  As per my knowledge, The private key, which is what gives you access to my Bitcoin, is kept in wallet.dat. That is correct. If the addresses that I have in my new wallet.dat are different then it will not showing my balance.
Is there any way that I can get my Bitcoin to my Bitcoin Core Wallet?
Yes, close bitcoin core. Open its data folder (e.g. on Windows its in %APPDATA%\Bitcoin ). Rename the existing wallet.dat to wallet.dat.new (or similar). Copy your backup wallet.dat into the folder and rename it to wallet.dat (if needed). I really appreciate your quick help!
Thanks
If you dont have a backup, you might want to read up on this thread -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1728263.0and stop using your disk right now. |
|
|
|
Hi, did you read this thread?-> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1629118.0How to start earn some bitcoin.All of us need bitcoins to start but my only advise you should start making wallet Like coins.ph,blockchain there's An applications for that in plastore and site.
I personally would suggest begginers to use a light wallet on a local machine like Electrum (PC/Android), Multibit HD (PC) or Mycelium (Android/iOS). To start earn some bitcoin we have some Faucet.So what is faucet?
There is a faucet section here -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=212.0 faucet is a free to earn bitcoins and how you gonna get faucet you must read in this forum others of this site share faucet sites you must learn about in this forum and faucet is a slow earning but if you work it you will earn satoshi/Bitcoins otherwise we have investment plans to invest your bitcoins/money many of investments are DOUBLER bicoin but all of doublers are scams.
That was a very long and hard to understand sentence. If english is not your natice language and you feel uncomfortable writing it, try the local sections for other languages. So be careful if you like a fast to earn some bitcoins you need to cash in.On bitcoins near you and if u like to trade on peoples or on facebook like that but on facebook all peoples are not legit others of facebook users they have dummy accounts.If you are willing to earn bitcoins you must use your brain also.There's a gambling sites also to earn or lose your money gamblings sites are the biggest way to earn bitcoins you are first biggining in gambling sites you must learn how to earn in that you have a strategy to earn you must read or watch in youtube so you can understand it. For now this is my only advise for you hope u earn and hope u will earn.  I dont think this is good advice at all. Faucets are mostly a waste of time and there are already good threads about how to start from nothing. I suggest you spend more time reading before you give out advice. |
|
|
|
Ich habe gerade folgendes aus dem englischen Forum gefischt: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2016-November/000648.htmlEs geht um Angriffs-Szenarien, in denen der Angreifer mit Transaktionen über viele Nodes hinweg einen DOS auf das Netzwerk auslösen kann. Als Lösung wird die Zahlung einer recht hohen Gebühr durch den Sender einer Lightning-Transaktion vorgeschlagen. Das wäre natürlich wieder ein Nachteil bei Micropayments. Den Link habe ich allerdings von einem bekannten Gegner von Segwit/Lightning, und hundertprozentig verstehe ich das technische Prinzip dahinter nicht. Wenn jemand sich auskennt: Ist das nur Propaganda bzw. das Problem schon gelöst oder tatsächlich ein möglicher Nachteil? Franky ist - vermute ich - nicht unbedingt gegen SegWit (+LN) sondern gegen die Art und Weise wie es umgesetzt wird. Zum Angriff. Die höheren Gebühren fall nur beim öffnen eines Channels an, micro payments sind davon also nur indirekt betroffen. Es erzeugt aber einen (weiteren) Anreiz einen Channel möglichst lange offen zu halten. Ob das überhaupt eine brauchbare Lösung ist scheint weiterhin noch gar nicht klar zu sein.[1] Die Verteilung der Extra-Fee Bedarf zusätzlicher Informationen die wohl so erstmal gar nicht anfallen würden. [1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2016-November/000650.html |
|
|
|
-snip- A crime requires not only an unlawful act but also what is called "mens rea"[1] an intent to do something criminal. The written, signed and timestamped statement in advance clearly shows that mens rea is not given in Laudas case. Whether or not this should be a right DT or Staff should have when investigating I have no opinion on yet. My frist gut instict tells me it would not be a good idea to make this common practice. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_reaI have to disagree with you on this point. Lauda posted an encrypted message onto two pastbins and included the hash of a recently found block in the message. The pastbins would theoretically prove that the message was created on or before a certain time, and the hash of the recent block proves that the message was created on or after a certain time. The message however was encrypted to Lauda's GPG key only, so one could argue that message would only be shown if the extortion attempt was unsuccessful and was called out about it. It is also unclear if the message was actually signed, all I know is that it was encrypted. Yeah, we can ditch the signed part, it also was a bad move to encrypt it to their own key as this leaves only the two pages to confirm the integrity of the message. For all we know the encrypted message is a cookie recipe. There is also evidence that the extortion continued after Lauda was called out on it. For example this shows that Zeroxal received a threat that his mother would receive a phone call, this post shows that TMAN was giving Zeroxal more reasons to avoid a police report being filed against him by paying the extortion, and this post is evidence that Zeroxal was given a reason to pay up, or else he would not be able to continue doing business on the forum. I would also point out that this thread was opened, yet Zeroxal was never given negative trust (as of the time of this post). Well TMAN did not prepare a similar message as Lauda, which means I cant simply argue mens rea. Further I dont think I know the person so I cant judge their character based on a past. There is no time given by Zeroxal, so when the call took place is not clear. Might have been yesterday for all we know, both speak in past tense so I think its unlikely that it was moments before the posts. "the hole is getting deeper. " does not sound like there is still a way out of this. This was also posted in public. Thus I cant follow your argument that it was another extortion attempt. Looks more like scorn to me. Good job securing the archive btw. The fact that both Zeroxal closed his thread against Lauda, and TMAN and minifrij closed their threads against Zeroxal at roughly the same time makes me believe that Zeroxal ended up paying the extortion payment. I have not seen any evidence that Lauda has not profited from this apparent payment.
I think they talk or talked on slack. I dont approve of this, but asssuming a extortion payment was made is just that, an assumption. I don't think that a signed message is sufficient to remove Mens rea from what Lauda did, if anything it shows that Lauda knew in advance that what he was doing was wrong. I don't think any court would accept this kind of statement as a defense to a crime.
Probably not, but I dont think this will end up in front of a court either. Unless we consider this forums scam accusation section its court. Also the payment of extortion is not evidence of guilt. The fact that someone does not want whatever the extortionist is threatening to do to happen is why an extortion payment would be paid. The fact that zeroxal (probably) paid the extortion payment could mean that he does not want the police to investigate him. If you were to threaten to tell my wife that I am having an affair (despite this being untrue) unless I pay you 1 BTC, then I might pay you because my wife might already have trust issues, we are having some problems, or I might think that my wife receiving this kind of message would make her feel threatened, among other reasons. Or, if you were to threaten to tell the IRS that I was lying on my taxes, (even though the fact that I overreport income and underreport expenses/losses would likely result in me receiving a refund at the completion of an audit), I might still pay the extortion payment because the cost of an audit would be greater then the extortion payment.
True, I have not seen any evidence that Zeroxal actually did what he is accused off. Well, the alt accounts are solidly connected, but ban evasion seemed like a side point to me and should IMHO have been handled by a PM to an admin or global. Ross Ulbright's lawyer tried to get the whole case against him thrown out because there was a corrupt FBI agent who had extorted him. IIRC correctly, the reason why it was not thrown out is because all of the evidence used against Ross was gather by another field office.
Im still undecided whether I approve of the method or not. No, actually a simple kant makes me strongly disagree with this method. Which seems a common theme with me and Lauda. |
|
|
|
I'm not sure if Addy Yeow is still following this thread, but I noticed an important change. My Bitcoin testnet nodes started getting incoming connections from clients calling themselves /bitnodes.21.co/ . This is a standard signature that was used on Bitcoin mainnet monitoring tools available via https://bitnodes.21.co/ . Does anyone know the URL to access the equivalent testnet website? Its a config option[1], did you happen to log the IP? The crawler maintained by Bitnodes connects from these IP addresses: 136.243.139.96, 136.243.139.120, 2a01:4f8:212:3b1f::2
[1] https://github.com/ayeowch/bitnodes/blob/cb23696fa355c2cddf2fc32a6933e00aabe13e5f/crawl.conf.default#L6 |
|
|
|
I like it, Ill see what I can add to it. |
|
|
|
|
I usually suggest KeePass as its open source and available for almost all platforms.
|
|
|
|
Just curious,who has the power to remove a member from DT list?is that admin/mod?
Those on DT2 (e.g. yahoo or me) can be removed by those on DT1 (for yahoo that would be Blazed, in my case BadBear and recently(?) Cyrus) that put them on their trust list. Those from DT1 can be removed by theymos, which would also include everyone on DT2 below the person on DT1. You can however modify your personal view on the trust network by adding or removing people for your personal list. Off topic:
What is full meaning of SMAS?where i can get more info?
Sorry just asked from my personal interest.
-> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1545652.0 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
