But a LOT of coins were attacked with 51% double spend attacks that led to losses.
Very few coins are immune from 51% attacks and a lot of the coins that were attacked kept it quiet.
A large majority of POW alt coins are guilty of the same.
This is correct, but is also the reason why I have used this as 1 reason along with a couple others to show just how risky it is. There are many coins of similar nature, thread TBA. This thread I have created primarily for the purpose of having a proper reference to flag BTG for their various schemes. ~ snip ~ Better late than never, thank you for starting this thread. It needed to be highlighted and people who might not be aware of the facts can at least learn about them. Thanks. I think more thread are coming in this style as long as I find the time. |
|
|
|
I took a look at OP's trust page, and this looks like another example of leaving a neg for what essentially comes down to a difference of opinion or interpretation of facts.
Libel / defamation / slander =/= "difference of opinion" or any "difference in interpretation of facts". We do not live in the forking UK, do we? It is harming innocent people out of envy, spite, and similar. OP removed his negative trust from FortuneJack, which renders the "trust abuse" portion of Lauda's negative trust no longer relevant. They are a decent quality poster and don't deserve to have this negative.
Silently removing after making a thread which I am not involved in and not notifying me is convenient. Removed that part and rating is on-point again. Is there anything else? I believe if you break down all the sentences each is trivially proven true. |
|
|
|
This thread I have created primarily for the purpose of having a proper reference to flag BTG for their various schemes. Please note that they already have a flag type-2 warning due to this: - If the number of pre-flags-system negative trust ratings is greater than the number of all positive trust ratings, a warning banner is shown for guests & low-login-time newbies.
It is still very advisable to create a flag type-1 if there is a reason to do so.
The first two reasons are based on the rating left by Michail1 for which they have received a negative from him in 2017: 1) OP has a link to a Windows wallet which is NOT passing the hash from bitcoingol
2) OP has link(s) to KNOWN scammer website defrauding people of not only Bitcoin Gold, but also BTC, BCH, LTC, etc. - https://mybtgwallet.org - SCAM wallet/website Additional reference: https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/7drv3v/scam_warningbitcoin_gold_wallet_stole_all_my/. 3) Hidden premine as "bonus to developers" (clarified as this later). Reference: https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-gold-clarifies-premine-endowment. 4) 51% attacked - succeeded and therefore delisted from Bittrex. This currency is easy to attack this way (i.e. financially easy). Reference: https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/09/03/bittrex-delists-bitcoin-gold/. Reference 2 (according for which you need to spend $500 to attack it for 1 hour): https://www.crypto51.app/5) Modified hashing algorithm which is advertised as "Equihash-BTG". AFAIK this customization has not been peer-reviewed by cryptographers albeit quite dangerous, problem #4 is of more importance. Reference: https://bitcoingold.org/equihash-btg/. If others have more, I can add it but this is already sufficient.
Conclusion: Outright scam coin created solely to enrich the developers and poses a enormous risk to anybody who may consider buying it (Bittrex has already lost a lot of money due to this).
Flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1408. |
|
|
|
This is long overdue I am afraid, or the very least we need to raise the voting requirement for DT 1. Those that can be seen alongside them sharing the same trust and exclusions (in what can be deemed as being probably planned to manipulate the system) should be banned from being DT too. What would be your views?
Try sending an inquiry to one of the local forum DT groups in case you have a rating you disagree with, you have been rated by them or you have been excluded. You are unlikely to receive a response unless you position high i.e. present a danger to them - this indicates behind the scenes collusion. |
|
|
|
I have voted negative in this topic’s poll and tagged #131361 “Timelord2067” accordingly, with OP as my reference link. A formerly productive member of the community, who has degenerated into a crackpot with a chip on his shoulder. Randomly attacks others with bizarre accusations so nonsensical that they would be beneath notice, were they not haloed in a false credibility from the good forum work that he did years ago. As it is, a bright red warning is warranted: Distrust this user and *anything whatsoever* that he says or does. Seems fair. I do not understand what happened to him and it makes it even worse when he makes statements such as this: (and he also removed one of the two negative trust feedbacks he'd previously left for me the same day he's telling others to ~Timelord2067 - Lauda is becoming increasingly confused about what he's saying and doing)
Something in your brain no longer ticks proper and I do not know what caused it.  |
|
|
|
Lauda 2020-02-26 Reference " Dishonest. Hypocritical. Malicious. Shows no remorse for any misdeeds. This rating has nothing to do with anybody's opinions. Consistent deceptive behavior. See reference links for summary." I heard this community removed people from the default trust when it is abused to silence others and it is used as a retaliatory tool. So when exactly is that going to happen? I guess as long as you say "This rating has nothing to do with anyboy's opinions" you can leave ratings for peoples opinions and it makes it ok. How much longer is this community going to tolerate being ripped apart by people like this? Until its gone? FYI, this is the 6th time Lauda has removed and replaced a negative rating for me to manipulate the trust system to make sure it is the first thing anyone sees when they view my trust history. If your actions create more references and behavior that I must document, then I will indeed do this however many times I need to. Unless of course you prefer the alternative: Having 6 (at the time being) individual negatives from me and more if you create reasons for newer ratings. I think a single new rating is always better, but I am willing to let you choose which way you want it out of kindness. Let me know.  Until you, Og, and Vod start seriously working towards deescalation I can't be bothered to care about it anymore. Five minutes of being adults is all it takes. Look at Lauda+Quicksy = ♡. You can do it too, I believe in you, don't let me down.
Stupid life is, is it not? Not being able to show any remorse is a major character flaw..  |
|
|
|
|
I will be raising a flag type-1 against this user[1] in the near future on similar reasoning that was used for the flag type-1 against Quickseller. If somebody has any objections, please state so.
[1] And on any and all of his alt accounts.
|
|
|
|
Because if they decide to play they are allowed to do so and they should know it since the beginning. Because those players waste their time and resources on your site.
Again, I highly advise you to educate yourself on running a business or ask successful business owners about it. You are making statements that are completely backwards. Economically, anything other than reviewing when necessary is a mistake unless regulation requires otherwise. Or people that lose and therefore are unable to cause an action that breaks the TOS (the relevant part here) to begin with? You need to learn a thing or two about running a business.
This question contains a wrong statement ( the bolded part). Their TOS clearly state : "You are allowed to register only one Account. Registering and operating multiple Accounts (more than one) is strictly prohibited." You are right, I was wrong. I am glad I put a question mark there as I was not fully sure/misread that quickly. However I find putting all your strength into play only when the player wins is a bit unethical way to run a business.
What are you blabbing on about? You are obligated to run a business this way, especially if you are a public limited company (not the case here). You have a duty to investors to make profit, not a duty to satisfy customers (not that this isn't a requirement for a successful business). Every single exchange will make it a nightmare for you when you try to withdraw, and not a single one will ask you anything when you deposit (maybe a couple basic KYC). Are you stating all these exchanges are unethical? If so, I do not see you going after them - therefore no case. I believe you and others will be safe if you create your account at home, then go to public Wifi to bet. There are other FJ's users bet on the public wifi but if they don't find any prove of same betting behaviours, you will be safe.
The number of false positives is very minuscule and can be trivially resolved if the only factor is the same IP. People who bring forth these claims usually have triggered several other risk-factors and many gullible members fall for their cases. The best way to prevent this is to not play on FJ!
You are free to play somewhere else, and leave this thread if it is of no interest to you. |
|
|
|
After all this, uou know whats gonna happen now, do not try to play with MOBILE, only with u IPs home, because with mobile if they see that there are 2 IPS (public wifi) at same time login or playing with FJ,, now FJ has a great excuse to avoid pay the withdrawals.
This is incorrect - will not lead to problems either. FJ does not need to change their TOS. It is very simple if you want to be honest: Register -> KYC -> play from this account. Even in cases where new users for whatever reason have the same IP as you, your winnings will not be affected by their accounts being frozen or deleted. This is what happen with Vodds or Betinasia as example = First KYC, and later you can deposit and play. But do this in crypto gambling... its impossible I think. Crypto Players want to be anonymous. You can't have it both ways. Either you get anonymity and such a TOS and state of things, or you lose anonymity and submit KYC to secure yourself. Either one argues that all casinos change their ways, or one should not argue at all (especially if there may be conflict bias - I do not know about other people's hiring requirements). |
|
|
|
After all this, uou know whats gonna happen now, do not try to play with MOBILE, only with u IPs home, because with mobile if they see that there are 2 IPS (public wifi) at same time login or playing with FJ,, now FJ has a great excuse to avoid pay the withdrawals.
This is incorrect - will not lead to problems either. FJ does not need to change their TOS. It is very simple if you want to be honest: Register -> KYC -> play from this account. Even in cases where new users for whatever reason have the same IP as you, your winnings will not be affected by their accounts being frozen or deleted. |
|
|
|
@2double0 Apparently it's Standard industry practice. I have been reading about William hill and how they handle cases of a user having multiple accounts. In most cases, they do a standard KYC and detect multi-account users from that. Having the same home address and so on, they don't solely rely on IPs but in this case, it seems like KYC doesn't do the trick... Even if you will provide 2 separate KYCs, FJ still counts that as multi-accounting according to their TOS. @am
1) KYC is useless and does not work. You can buy full KYC for $50 - $150. Note: Do not tell me about the need of photos or videos with a piece of paper with today's date or anything similar. The $150 price range includes a person wearing a pink suit, standing on their left leg and writing whatever you want for this procedure. KYC does not work as a replacement for IP-analysis or fingerprinting. 2) The TOS does not "kind of protect them", the TOS gives them full protection.
People need to be educated to read the TOS before using service, rather than blaming services for whatever TOS they use (in this particular case, you may want to start going after almost every single company in existence). Also add to these scenarios an important aspect : all of these eventual bans you described would only take place if either Bob or Alice are winning something because all the controls seem to take place onle when players are winning and everything is allowed until you register, deposit and lose to the casino....and unfortunately it seems to be industry tandard in crypot gambling.
Why would you waste time and resources on people who may not even play? Or people that lose and therefore are unable to cause an action that breaks the TOS (the relevant part here) to begin with? You need to learn a thing or two about running a business. For company to "reserve right to qualify accounts as multiaccounts", company has to perform KYC check prior to customer depositing funds. Other practices are very...questionable.
Even a more regulated part of our ecosystem, i.e. that of exchanges, does not do this (albeit they "do not confiscate all funds", they just freeze them or delay ad naseum). It is not uncommon that people have funds locked up for months until public pressure makes them return the initially deposited funds. Also deposited funds =/= winnings. Note: I feel like I have to leave this here, I have nothing against the signature campaign members of FJ or FJ altogether. I believe a better environment can be made for the punters. From learning from these cases and embracing the technology which is publicly available. Also, I'm not getting paid by or am I linked with @amelik2. All of what I have said are my genuine concerns. I never take part in dramas, I let the big boys do that but if this is the industry standard then people are literally burning their money away as if they weren't going to anyway. With that being said I'm gonna hit the sidelines and see how this situation develops.
If you want to improve the industry without just cherry picking and damaging certain service providers, you can do the following: 1) Make a thread about the importance of reading TOS before using something and keep promoting it to educate the masses. 2) Make a thread that will encourage and demand "all" gambling providers around here to have a clearer and fixed set of rules for this. e.g. KYC before deposits, which I would strongly argue against. e.g. Additional clauses for these multi-account scenarios, where some of the money is still given to the user and then banned for good - This I would argue for (albeit I am leaving the details of this example to others - it is just a very abstract idea). |
|
|
|
You have no proof where the funds went after OG received them, this is a fact. For all you know it could have been a refund, and you have no evidence to demonstrate otherwise, only speculation of where it went. This is not proof, this is speculation. Lauda's rating, according to what was left, has nothing to do with this, but of course based on the timing of the rating, it is obviously retribution for posting here and dismantling their efforts trying to target OGnasty with accusation after accusation based on speculation. This is just more proof these systems are merely tools you and your mob buddies use to punish people with ideas you don't like, and protecting people from fraud is merely an afterthought if it is considered at all. I don't think I will go anywhere. I think I will keep doing what I am doing and continually draw attention to the malignant behavior of you and your pals.
I have no idea who is right or wrong here, neither do I care. Reading up made it evident that you are dishonest, a hypocrite and are intentionally trying to distract away from the users that are actually willing to objectively look into this (and apparently attack those as well). I couldn't reference this thread as it might be misinterpreted as you being involved in the original ponzi-case, which you are not. This was one of the clearest ratings[1] that I have ever handed out to anyone here. With that, I also will not address whatever you reply/distract to this, or to your attacks against the "accusers" or whatever it is that you're doing. I don't always agree with Lauda's ratings but in this case I absolutely do.
Thanks. Sometimes I wonder whether some people are doing stuff like this purely to test where the limits are of different individuals here.
[1] Even the write-up is concise, and clean. Totally unlike me!
I'm not even involved in the thread that you're distracting away, nor involved with anyone that is objectively trying to figure out the history of it all, thus any points that you have against me in relation to that case are instantly invalidated. You should actually be thanking me for not flagging you, because there is more than enough grounds for it (given a reasonable thread summarizing it). You're not worth my time to do this, but maybe you are to someone else or they just feel generous.
See also: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182530.msg52385837#msg52385837. See also 2: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5210651.msg53466749#msg53466749. See also 3: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5214377.0. See also 4: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4736673.msg54169273#msg54169273. See also 5: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53919541#msg53919541. Dishonest. Hypocritical. Malicious. Shows no remorse for any misdeeds. This rating has nothing to do with anybody's opinions. Consistent deceptive behaviour. See reference links for summary.
|
|
|
|
Negative ratings essentially do not do anything other than warn those who are interested nowadays. This is because ratings were weakened. Many people with negatives are in campaigns. The flag states: Lauda alleges: Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with rosezionjohn is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions.
The factors were given by you, i.e. the proof. Service providers, campaigns and more are at risk at losing money by dealing this people who abuse their offers as these users have. I believe I have applied appropriate use of the flag system, especially if you consider the response that theymos have me on the inquiry regarding flags for account sales. |
|
|
|
Does this intentional trolling make sense for flag type-1? I can easily argue that people who fall for his "advice" are at financial risk because they may not buy any Bitcoin at all (most recommendations are shifting to buying at least some).
I am not going to comment anything related to tagging/flagging trolls, nop Not asking you to, but it is a thin line and making a no-flagging-at-all or a flag-everyone decision is a mistake. This isn't somebody trolling at somebody else, nor is it somebody making substantial lies about Bitcoin. It is just repetitive malicious trolling with zero substance. Here is a test flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1401. If there is consensus, I am leaving it as is. If there isn't I will retract support. |
|
|
|
|
Does this intentional trolling make sense for flag type-1? I can easily argue that people who fall for his "advice" are at financial risk because they may not buy any Bitcoin at all (most recommendations are shifting to buying at least some).
|
|
|
|
Amelik just don't care about what others said, sites like these are forced to prove you are having an another account not otherwise, they have the resources which you don't.
As I am a person that travels a lot, for me it's normal and usual to connect from a public mcdonalds or starbucks when I am away to check what games are on. When I am being asked by bet365 my last public ip's, it's not my job nor obligation to provide them with such things. Each time after 1 rush call speaking with the manager, he gets soft and things get back to normal.
Crossing at a moment an IP with someone can be so easily, more if you live in a state where online gambling is not legal yet and maybe you're using a VPN.
I am advising FJ that no further time needs to be wasted on this. If you break the ToS, then you can go home. |
|
|
|
I've been gambling for the better part of my life and sometimes this is just how it goes. When I lived at home me and my brother played at a casino once (different PC same IP), we both used the welcome bonus and while I lost and he won they wouldn't let him withdraw due to multi accounting abuse. If you accept any type of bonus and you are on the same IP (whether it's home or work) you've fucked up. There is no other way around it, their terms and their rules state this when you make an account.
OP withdraw your claim and read the ToS again. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
