|
I would go with Design chosen by theymos as of course he should get the privileges of choice, due to the blockbuster moderation of the forum he is doing from years !
|
|
|
|
I took part in the signature campaign and 'No KYC' was a decisive reason for me to participate in the campaign at all.
This is an good example of what I said earlier, many ( most of the ) participants would have joined the campaign by taking into consideration there own anonymity, and changing such an based rule of "NO KYC" to "KYC REQUIRED" is not a acceptable change. Seriously, which reputable KYC provider collects the data via a Google form?
No one legitimate would do this, its straight away an attempt of grabbing people's personal info by giving them a fake sense of security. Using google form is just out of the box and of course risky ! |
|
|
|
This is not the right place to discuss this issue, please move your thread to Bounties (Altcoins), where it suit's better. You can also consider, posting the link to this thread on your original bounty thread's here and here for better exposure. |
|
|
|
I think someone participating in the campaign can start a type 3 flag as an agreement about the total number of bounty tokens to be paid was made earlier and broken by the bounty manager or at most the team. Also, no instructions about the requirements of the KYC were given before had, so that participants could decide before joining the campaign according to there convince, the sudden change does smells fishy.  |
|
|
|
One can argue, this is legally right or some conditions forced them to do so,
There has no point of argue. Any kind of implementation must be announced at least one month ago. Coinexchange will be closed from December first, they have announced it already. CB is a decentralized exchange, there's no point of requiring KYC either. Although it's their exchange, their rules. But why they don't give much time to the users? So that people who are not interested with KYC can withdraw fund. That's what I said, it's a DICK move overall and I agree KYC is SHIT. |
|
|
|
If Lutpin wanted his rating adjusted or removed, he knows how to PM on this forum. You should worry about yourself and let Lutpin worry about his profile.
It could be that Liptin's EGO stopped him from doing so from this many days and some people here looking at his profile from long time would probably be concerned and can rise a issue on it. I don't think its bad to rise a issue about others rating, which is from a DT anyway. |
|
|
|
I think, the exchange is shady enough just because they didn't gave any prior warning to the users about the change in policy and didn't allowed the users to exit the service with the funds they owned. One can argue, this is legally right or some conditions forced them to do so, but from the perspectives of an user of the exchange this change is a very annoying thing, which clearly indicates that the exchange doesn't care about costumer's satisfaction and comfort in anyway and can land you into a trouble anytime in the future. You see the word scam to the average English speaker like myself means 'lack of trustworthiness', so unless I am okay with extortion of personal data then I think it's a scam, to those who speak better English might call it something else, but it sure is worthy of being tagged and flagged for IMHO.
In one way, this looks like extortion of personal info but it is more like taking users funds without them being warned. This is purely a SCAM for me as a exchange costumer. I would surely support the flag once created. |
|
|
|
|
Form the overall behavior and contributions of @Luptin to the forum, I would say the tag should be resolved or made to neutral at least. This would surely be a good step towards theymos's views of forgiving attitude over the forum.
Anyways yaa, I known @TP, is surely a good hearted guy and has the greatness to forgive.
|
|
|
|
Just checking the senders email should ring a bell in your head. I think only some one with lowfunctioning brain cells would do the mistake of trusting that email. But, it's good you reported it here, no offence.  |
|
|
|
Maybe he is not serious about selling merits and accounts at all. Remember he is selling through auto-buy links so you never know for sure if he will scam you or he will actually give you.
No, he is serious about selling merits or account. Because this is not auto buy link, its through fiverr. And no one will able to scam you there. There is if you not accept delivery of product then seller will not get his payment there. So if seller not provide you account or merit then buyer will not accept delivery. If incase there is arguments then fiverr will handle it manually. Then they will decide what should do with fund. On the other hand even after delivery you could dispute fund if product is corrupted, obviously there is timeframe (not sure how many dyas). And all process will done manually when seller and buyer not convinced. Its just like an on-site escrow. So, yes it could be genuine too. |
|
|
|
OG, you sure have used Theymos' name or position a lot recently in your lies. Is that why he removed you from your lucrative sole position of forum treasurer?
He was removed because of some sole reasons, and based on some past incidences of loss in forum funds due to the disappearance of the treasurer holder ( probably due to death ). To avoid this, the decision of returning the forum funds was taken and OG returned them clear handedly back to the forum. I don't think someone having a bad taste of ethics would do this in anyways. This is something to be appreciated not to be criticized upon. |
|
|
|
I don't support the flag against CryptoSparks, because there is no real victim until who lost funds and reported.
The type of flag involved actually does not requite any actual victims. It only requires the perso nto be engaging in high risk activity. I never said the flag is wrong at it place, I think you miss read it. I just said I don't support it as I don't see any solid evidence about him scamming someone's money. And yaa, as @tmpf said earlier, until proven everything is just guessing. I can trust his judgement blindly lol. |
|
|
|
From, the evidence until, there is no solid proof of FruitsBasket being and alt of CryptoSpark other than FruitsBasket defending him. They rather could be some known users to each other obviously. I don't support the flag against CryptoSparks, because there is no real victim until who lost funds and reported. Of course, I don't trust trading bot's and don't recommend anyone to use the same without any prior knowledge about the code behind it. But, this doesn't make CryptoSpark a scammer either due to no documented fraud against him. Just remember when the standard is mob justice, inevitably you become the target of the mob instead of part of it.
To understand this you need to be a target of the mob first. It's not that easy to interpret but is true. |
|
|
|
<...> As per the telegram conversation in the OP, the translation work was submitted and the payment was not given even after the promised date which is breaching of written contract. <...>
I could be wrong, but judging by the story in the OP, the flag should be not the 3rd type ("violation of the written contract"), but the 2nd ("violation of a casual or implied agreement"). The contract was created at the same time when cryptoji agreed with OP about the payment here. So, I think type 3 flag fits here. |
|
|
|
|
I support this flag.
As per the telegram conversation in the OP, the translation work was submitted and the payment was not given even after the promised date which is breaching of a written contract.
I have already dealt with cryptoji.net in the past, and they were good at there work as per my dealing with them. Them not being active with this is a bit weird to me. I am open to removing my support to the flag if the payments are made soon.
|
|
|
|
I confirm BitcoinFX, didn't sent any risky PM or anything about scamming funds. He was rather giving all of us a gift of pie of some Gapcoins. But still, as per the rule it is not a right thing to send mass PMs, many other trusted members like Hhampuz are also banned here for the same offence but he had to face a 7 days ban if i remember right. Maybe you should create an Airdrop thread instead of sending PM's... just sayin.
This looks like a wise advice to avoid the same in future.  |
|
|
|
I like your idea, about starting a service for scam busting and specifically for bounty managers overall. Yaa, I agree about the "to be faced problems" which many others listed here but if its offered at some cheap rates or better just putting a donation address, we can work through it without censoring any project at all. That would also motivate bounty hunters to do there due intelligence before joining project or promoting it and not just depending on our research fully. So I have decided that, I am not going to open such as services
I understand you're decision of not putting your hands in the dirt, of course it would make your hands dirty too.. But not censoring any of this researched projects would just work fine as per I see. Let me know if you are still into it, I would be happy to join you. |
|
|
|
Like that's ever a great reason to add somebody to your trust list to begin with...  You keep getting mixed up in your lies. You too don't seem to have any great reasons to exclude someone from your trust list. Remember : rules for thee but not for me
Source: TECSHARE |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
