The point is you don't give a shit about account sales unless if you can use it as a weapon against somebody who you feel slighted you. You dredged up a 3 year old incident 15 minutes after I caused you some sort of grief on P&S, and then you expect people to believe the two events are unrelated. You obviously wouldn't give a shit about this person's account sales if they hadn't red trusted you.

I've received plenty of unjust red feedbacks but I don't feel the need to investigate each account and post about it in Reputation, nor do I feel the need to leave them a retaliatory feedback.

At the very least (in both instances) provide Livecoin with some kind of bug bounty reward.


The difference between zero and 1 confirmations is almost infinite. Anybody can create a doublespend with zero confirmations yet very, very few people can pull it off with 1 confirmation. A transaction is not at all secure without at least a single confirmation.


You should read about what actually happened:

https://www.reddit.com/r/monacoin/comments/8k7640/51_attack_on_monacoin/

What they _could_ have done is had some sort of warning system to notify them that 5-6 blocks were created in 1 minute instead of the usual 1.5 minute block time, then either frozen withdrawals at that time or else upped the confirmations required for a deposit. It wasn't until a week later that the Monacoin developer came up with the suggestion of requiring 100 confirmations for a deposit. Both Livecoin and Bittrex had ceased deposits and withdrawals well before then.


Its been back up for at least a couple of hours.


Your flag has an overwhelming amount of support. You don't have to keep advertising it when everybody sees it at the top of every page in this thread. Even if they did unlock your account, you'd just go back to bitching at them about not being to withdraw your MONA.

They've been around since 2014 -- 5 years is a long time to build up an epic exit scam by crypto standards.


Its true, this is what happened -- they have permanently disabled 2 wallets, and that's not good. However, its not because they felt like selectively scamming MONA and XMR holders. They were the victims of thieves who took advantage of weaknesses in the coins' respective code to steal coins from Livecoin. It is Livecoin's philosophy that this is the fault of the coin developers and not their own. You don't have to agree with it, and there's no doubt they should have tighter security measures in place, but they are not just going around scamming people at random.


Yeah because nobody in the history of the forum has ever created a second account 


People just shut down their critical thinking skills when they are out for blood I guess.

How does sending a bunch of merits to an already Legendary member aid sockpuppeting? Or are you suggesting The Pharmacist is funneling merits to sockpuppets?


I agree with you here. I can't see any rational reason why Quickseller should be a merit source.

I always thought that was a bit of an odd feature of the whole DT system. Being on DT2 has more power than being on DT1 but being voted off. Excluded DT1 votes don't even count for flags.

Yeah, you are 100% right about that: your statement is genuinely crazy. Whose good were you looking out for when you opened the insane, totally unfounded embezzlement threat about him?

Whoa, you were fast on detecting that. Is there any official reason why? I do agree with your previous statement in that making the process more democratic a step forward.

My guess is he has a well-funded staff of lawyers at his disposal who are coaching him on his every move. They're telling him exactly what he can and can't get away with in whatever legal system he's dealing with.

Eventually the house of cards will collapse, but when is anybody's guess. I'm kind of measuring the whole thing by the market cap of BSV.

Unfortunately I have to agree with you here and will be removing my signature at the end of the day. We tried to steer them in the right direction, but it does not appear they want to be steered.

Wow, you guys are epic readers. In college and graduate school I had to read so many god damn textbooks and journal articles that I completely gave up on fiction. Felt like I simply didn't have time for it, and that sentiment ingrained itself into my life and has continued until now, even though its not applicable anymore.

Should probably try reading fiction again to widen the breadth of my vocabulary a bit.

Dune reference spotted.



That movie had an interesting premise, and a great video game series developed around it, but much like the book, was a little bit too long for me to make it all the way through it. I do remember that Sting was in it.

Oh man. Projects are resorting to using mugshot pictures for team members now? 

Now I've seen everything.

- Dead people
- Celebrities
- Cartoon characters
- Porn stars
- People that don't exist
- Drug dealer mugshots

Yep, that's everything. Good thing they've only raised $14.33 so far. I think their website is a template for pumping out scams as their "Wallet" link leads to a page with instructions on how to buy their tokens.

I'm making a new ICO. Here are a few of my team members.


Paulo Yeyo, CEO


Batholomew Oakmont Ledwell III, Ph.D., J.D., MABsC, MSNBC, COO


Majorie Inkings, Graphic Designer


Harry Connecks Jr., Expert NXT Developer

I think that the flag holds some merit AND Quickseller is using the situation to exact his revenge.

And as stated by the criteria for opposing a flag: I believe that it is at least partially false, which is why I am in opposition to it. I can break down the ways in which it is "partially false" for you if you'd like, but I think everybody's said everything they have to say by this point.

I still hold out out hope that izooomrud and Livecoin can eventually reach some kind of resolution.

Stop claiming things you don't know to be fact. You don't know they aren't able to pay their debts. If anything it sounds like they don't want to because they don't feel obligated to. I'm not saying that's the best way to go about the situation, but you are just assuming they are insolvent -- that's your assumption, and only an assumption.


The difference is Bitfinex got hacked for $72 million. That was explicitly their fault. Livecoin didn't get hacked, they got taken advantage of through a flaw in Monacoin's Lyre algorithm. BTW, Bitfinex didn't actually repay their customers, a new incoming, particularly gullible class of "shareholders" did.


I'm not denying that this is the case. However, without constant monitoring of the blockchain and looking for blocks mined too quickly, its impossible to know that an attack is underway, and therefore the number of confirmations needs to be increased. Its worth nothing that they stopped deposits as soon as they learned of the attack. Like with Monero, Livecoin are the ones who informed the developers about vulnerabilities in their software. They caught wind of the attack and ceased deposits and withdrawals a full 6 days before the Monacoin dev recommended increasing the number of confirmations before accepting a deposit to 100.


What do you mean "did nothing"? They were the first to figure out what was going on and shut down deposits and withdrawals immediately thereafter. They immediately reached out to the Monacoin developers and told them about the issue.


This is a disingenuous comparison by the very nature of how cryptocurrency works. Its of course not nearly the same thing.


Bittrex apparently lost no funds in the incident so there wasn't anything to "steal." I agree that Livecoin could have handled things better, but given the fact that there is only 1 user complaining about this issue on the forum, the entire thing seems way overblown.

Yes and conjecturing means making assumptions based on incomplete information. You are conjecturing that Livecoin is insolvent. That is simply your guess, wholly unsupported by any _actual_ evidence.


Livecoin only lost $90k to the Monacoin attack. If you add in XMR, the total is still less than $1.9 million.... Not exactly "millions of dollars." Semantics aside, sounds like Livecoin also is blaming Monero devs for a "double counting bug" that was a part of the Monero wallet software. From the Monero reddit:


Giving their customers a chance to exit their "trash asset" holdings (fake MONA and XMR) for BTC could be construed as a "haircut."

Other exchanges that have given haircuts to funds of all or some of their customers include:

- Bitfinex
- Poloniex
- OKEx
- Coincheck
- DragonEX
- Cryptopia (before its hack)

Its not a great policy but its a pretty widespread one.

One thing I'd like to know that izooomrud never disclosed was when he bought the MONA.

He says the following:


0.3 BTC / 750 = 0.0004 BTC. If this was approximately the price he paid for it, it means he bought the coins around June 18th, 2018. This was the first day of 2018 where MONA sank to this price. If the coins were already trading at a discount (impossible to verify because Livecoin's MONA trading history doesn't go back that far), it may have been a week or so earlier, but still well after the attack, and after Livecoin had halted deposits and withdrawals for MONA. Technically he never bought MONA at all, but the "trash asset," non-chain version. So they could NEVER "return" them to him as withdrawals had been suspended the entire time. Admittedly I don't know why they would continue allowing it to be traded other than:

- they wanted to give their holders the ability to exit it for BTC
- they held out hope that they would someday have the MONA to fill user accounts.

As I can't read Russian I also can't figure out the date OP was locked out of his account. Was it very recently? Did he just let the MONA sit in his account the whole time while the Livecoin MONA wallet remained offline?


Despite you being an uppity, nightmare-type customer, no, I don't think they should lock you out of your funds. But you have to understand they simply can't give you MONA to withdraw, because they don't have it. Sounds like you harped on them for months about this issue, refusing to understand you couldn't withdrawal the MONA - you never could at any point - until they finally became fed up with you.

Who else here feels "robbed" by Livecoin? Anyone? This is the point I've been trying to make all along -- this remains an isolated incident which has received far more attention than it should.

One can conjecture about anything they choose to all day long, as some are doing in this thread. Doesn't mean anything, doesn't help anything, doesn't change anything.

The entire issue still revolves around 1 person's complaints against Livecoin. Insolvency would likely involve limiting withdrawals across several other coins than just the 2 they have issues with. You can bet far more than one customer would be complaining about it here. Who else commenting in this thread besides OP has been negatively affected by Livecoin?

As I mentioned earlier the BiteBTC scam accusation thread has literally hundreds of people reporting being ripped off by them, yet there had never been any DT action taken against them until I tagged them several months ago, and after the flag system was introduced, encouraged people who had been scammed to create a flag.

Despite BiteBTC being a much more clear cut example of an exchange engaging in persistent, habitual wrongdoing, only 3 DTs have supported their flag, meanwhile 16 DTs have supported this one...

I'm not saying what Livecoin did was cool, and I hope they reimburse OP with 0.08 BTC or the PPC he had purchased with it (not sure whats actually in his balance), plus the BTC worth of his current MONA stash at Livecoin prices. Exchanges that suffer losses take customer funds all the time by means of "haircuts," which they also justify in their user terms. Its not a great policy, but it does happen.

The only winner here is Quickseller. This is exactly what he hoped would happen. Is there any doubt that he wouldn't give two shits about OP's problem if he hadn't been kicked from the Livecoin campaign? He's had this long-running, stupid smear campaign against Hhampuz for quite some time now; I bet he's enjoying every minute of this.


The term "trash asset" is being used by Livecoin to refer to coins created by the fraudulent version of the MONA chain, and whatever b.s. it was that created the extra XMR coins. It is not referring to the actual coins themselves.

For a number of years you've been one of the biggest trolls on the forum and this is the last time I will dignify you with a response.

Insolvency is the inability to pay back debts. Livecoin has the ability -- they are choosing not to in the case of Monacoin holders. While I don't think this is the best approach to the situation, they are claiming their rights under their terms to do so. Besides, being "insolvent" usually refers to the entire state of a business. It seems to me that outside of their whole issue with Monacoin, other business operations remain entirely functional.

Somebody told me they were also having problems with XMR, I don't know anything about that. I have just been a casual user of Livecoin for almost 3 years and never once experienced any problems with them.

Seems like you're purposefully trying to conflate insolvency with being the victims of theft. They are obviously not insolvent, they simply don't have the Monacoin to reimburse their holders, and whether you agree with it or not, they feel they did not violate the terms of their agreement with their customers, and are under no obligation to reimburse them.


This is actually pretty commonplace in exchanges. Poloniex, Bitfinex and others have passed losses on to their customers in the way of "haircuts." Not saying its a great thing, but these exchanges will also point to clauses in their terms that legally allow them to do this. When somebody shorted CLAMS into near oblivion a couple months back, Poloniex passed their losses on to all BTC lenders.


Incorrect. Maybe you just made a typo, but it was Monacoin that was attacked. They were targeted because of their particularly vulnerable difficulty readjustment mechanism. A few other coins using the same Lyra algorithm were also attacked around the same time period:

This is not true. It would seem Livecoin holds zero MONA coins, and you know this. They couldn't release your MONA to you if they wanted because, as they've already explained to you, they don't exist.


Also incorrect. izooomrud made this allegation but it was quickly disproven thanks to archived copies of the Livecoin ToS.


They did this at the time it happened, over 1 year ago. They posted a notice on their site saying all MONA withdrawals and deposits were suspended. I suspect the reason why the coin is still "traded" is because they didn't want to dismiss the chances of them eventually being reimbursed by the developer.

Livecoin was the first exchange to attempt to contact Monacoin developers about the attack.


They apparently knew about the Monacoin attack before the developers did.

That would be nice and all and I am happy to be rooting for you to be right this time, but weren't you arguing that there is no reason for BTC to go that significantly above the cost of mining a few days back?