Whoops
You don't follow the of information stream, = I am busy, and a common злoдeй such as you is not worth following. Пёc ёб твoю мaть.
Just call me old-fashioned. |
|
|
|
Whoops. My apologies for continuing the off-topic discussion on the plagiarism report thread, an important resource which should not be cluttered with this. My initial reply thereby is too long to quote here reasonably. It is relevant. Now, since WhiteManWhite is copying his nonsense between threads... Guys, you are probably not paying attention to what I wrote earlier about the correspondence with the photos owner. - Please tell me, can I use them for republication on other resources? I will need to use the link to your resource as the original source and author?- yes, please link to the original source www.dietmareckell.com and claim copyright holder: © Dietmar EckellThis was not done! What else do I need to explain? You are probably not paying attention to anything that I said, or that LoyceV said—or to common sense. In summary: - Alleged copyright issues are altogether off-topic in this thread.
- Failure to use and cite sources appropriately is tangential to the topic of this thread. The issues are distinguished in the CWPA Statement of Best Practices that I quoted above; the CWPA is an American academic association, so I think that their standards should suffice for the forum. I myself think that icopress should provide better attribution, if and where feasible. I hereby advise him accordingly, without demanding that he be banned for making a WO pic-post that is no worse for attribution than numerous other such posts. (icopress, if the photographer is known and has a website, or if this information comes to be known, then please take a few moments to verify it, and add a name and link as a matter of custom and courtesy.)
- The Wall Observer, where icopress posted, has numerous images posted to it without attribution, or with inadequate attribution, by people who obviously don’t claim to have produced them. If you want to make sure that these images are all properly attributed, including every cat photo and animated GIF (inasmuch as sources can even be found—as oft they can be, with considerable effort*), please feel free to make a new Meta thread about this. (And if you ever want to harass me over my intentional habit of posting more or less famous public-domain artworks, without too-overt identification for the benefit of lazy rubes, then I will tell you to пoшёл нa xyй.)
- Your motive for bringing a false plagiarism accusation is transparent: 29 hours after icopress credibly accused you of being involved in multi-account abuse of the Default Trust system, you came here and declared:
Formatting is in the original:
For this serious violation, this user should be banned
A valid accusation should be evaluated on its merits, regardless of motivation. But given that your accusation is invalid and meritless on its face, it is obvious that you targeted icopress for revenge, carelessly cast about for something to throw at him, and then abused this thread for your grudge. You are lying when you say this:
I am sure that I do not look at any past merits, it is the user who should suffer the punishment they deserve. The rules are the same for everyone.
That is bad. I suggest that you should stop it.
* I once identified the original source for a photo that I like, after five hours of persistent searching—and sifting through the numerous blogs and photo sharing sites where it had been re-re-re-posted for years without attribution. Reverse image search engines brought the mountain of re-re-re-posts up to the top, and dropped the original source into an abyss of obscurity. Sometimes, I have given up. :-(
Redirected from the other thread, where it is off-topic:~
I think the moderator will judge who is right and who is not. - Unlike you, the forum’s staff are not blithering idiots. They know the difference between plagiarism and alleged copyright issues, which you persist in conflating. They also know how the forum rules apply to images.
- Newbie protip: Your quote failed proper attribution guidelines. FTFY:
~
I think the moderator will judge who is right and who is not.
|
|
|
|
Guys, you are probably not paying attention to what I wrote earlier about the correspondence with the photos owner. - Please tell me, can I use them for republication on other resources? I will need to use the link to your resource as the original source and author?- yes, please link to the original source www.dietmareckell.com and claim copyright holder: © Dietmar EckellThis was not done! What else do I need to explain? You are probably not paying attention to anything that I said, or that LoyceV said—or to common sense. In summary: - Alleged copyright issues are altogether off-topic in this thread.
- Failure to use and cite sources appropriately is tangential to the topic of this thread. The issues are distinguished in the CWPA Statement of Best Practices that I quoted above; the CWPA is an American academic association, so I think that their standards should suffice for the forum. I myself think that icopress should provide better attribution, if and where feasible. I hereby advise him accordingly, without demanding that he be banned for making a WO pic-post that is no worse for attribution than numerous other such posts. (icopress, if the photographer is known and has a website, or if this information comes to be known, then please take a few moments to verify it, and add a name and link as a matter of custom and courtesy.)
- The Wall Observer, where icopress posted, has numerous images posted to it without attribution, or with inadequate attribution, by people who obviously don’t claim to have produced them. If you want to make sure that these images are all properly attributed, including every cat photo and animated GIF (inasmuch as sources can even be found—as oft they can be, with considerable effort*), please feel free to make a new Meta thread about this. (And if you ever want to harass me over my intentional habit of posting more or less famous public-domain artworks, without too-overt identification for the benefit of lazy rubes, then I will tell you to пoшёл нa xyй.)
- Your motive for bringing a false plagiarism accusation is transparent: 29 hours after icopress credibly accused you of being involved in multi-account abuse of the Default Trust system, you came here and declared:
Formatting is in the original:
For this serious violation, this user should be banned
A valid accusation should be evaluated on its merits, regardless of motivation. But given that your accusation is invalid and meritless on its face, it is obvious that you targeted icopress for revenge, carelessly cast about for something to throw at him, and then abused this thread for your grudge. You are lying when you say this:
I am sure that I do not look at any past merits, it is the user who should suffer the punishment they deserve. The rules are the same for everyone.
That is bad. I suggest that you should stop it.
* I once identified the original source for a photo that I like, after five hours of persistent searching—and sifting through the numerous blogs and photo sharing sites where it had been re-re-re-posted for years without attribution. Reverse image search engines brought the mountain of re-re-re-posts up to the top, and dropped the original source into an abyss of obscurity. Sometimes, I have given up. :-( |
|
|
|
One more thing i cannot understand...if using a remote node is unsafe, why cannot i choose an specific node (it gets chosen automatically and i don't know which one, i mean address). Some nodes are safest others, aren't they?
It's not that it is unsafe, merely a greater chance of security compromise than one you control. There is no 100% guarantee even on your own node. Only you can decide what degree of paranoia/safety is comfortable for you. My method is to use my own for any larger transactions/wallets, and a modest balance in a wallet I use with Monerujo/random remote nodes for smaller transactions. Compartmentalize like the Titanic to be sure your ship doesn't sink  The principal problem with untrusted remote nodes is privacy, not security compromise. There are some known attacks for monitoring, linking, or finding the real inputs of your transactions, which a remote node can do (or attempt), even with untrusted-daemon=1 in your configuration. It is for this reason that, e.g., the Monero CLI wallet emits scary warnings and advice if an attempt to create a transaction fails with an untrusted-daemon. Also, of course, you had damn well better have untrusted-daemon=1 in your config of the daemon is untrusted! That mitigates much, but not all of the problem, AFAIK. (I have never tried the Monero GUI, or any other Monero wallets; so I cannot speak to how those may mitigate some known potential problems with untrusted remote nodes.) Obviously, if you connect to a single untrusted node and send more than one transaction (within the same session over Tor/in any way linkable without Tor/etc.), then that node will know that the same party sent those txids! (I will omit further discussion here; this could get lengthy.) The best way for privacy is always to run your own node, especially since Dandelion++ was implemented to help obscure the originating node for transactions. None of that has anything whatsoever to do with the amounts of transactions, or the amount that you keep in a wallet.You seem to be worried about a security compromise by a remote node which exploits some hypothetical 0day in your wallet. That is a general software security concern, which also applies to your own Monero full node daemon—or your own Bitcoin node, or your e-mail client, or, worst of all, to the web browser that you are using to peruse this forum. It applies to each and every bit of software running on any computer that ever connects to the Internet, directly or indirectly. Yes, compartmentalize—among other things. But I have never heard of a remote node pwning a wallet. (Was there ever some obscure CVE that I don’t know about? I am not, and do not claim to be a Monero expert as such.) The aforestated privacy concern is much more significant.
Compartmentalize like the Titanic to be sure your ship doesn't sink P.S., RMS Titanic sank. ;-) This security product is 100% endorsed by nullius!The Ultimately Secure DEEP PACKET INSPECTION AND APPLICATION SECURITY SYSTEM[...] Installation Instructions- For best effect install the firewall between the CPU unit and the wall outlet. Place the jaws of the firewall across the power cord, and bear down firmly. Be sure to wear rubber gloves while installing the firewall or assign the task to a junior system manager. If the firewall is installed properly, all the lights on the CPU will turn dark and the fans will grow quiet. This indicates that the system has entered a secure state
- For Internet use install the firewall between the demarc of the T1 to the Internet. Place the jaws of the firewall across the T1 line lead, and bear down firmly. When your Internet service provider's network operations center calls to inform you that they have lost connectivity to your site, the firewall is correctly installed.
[...] P.P.S., do you kids even recognize the terminology? This webpage is a few decades old. Still true! |
|
|
|
- Antihero: Lauda 😼, nullius
How much more antiheroic could I be? ⚠ WARNING: This post exposes Nullian secrets.[WO] Truth, the Ruler of MenSupposing that Truth is a woman—I will take mythopoetic licence, and name her the ‘ruler of men’ (Ἀνδρoμέδα). Thus in lieu of a thousand words, this is the picture of exposing Truth to the Internet masses:  Sorry, honey. * My dick is bigger than a twitlib’s—where “dick” has a subtextual meaning of “supreme mastery of hermeneutics”, and its size is an allegory for my powers of mythological interpretation. Much of my more serious writing contains cryptic literary allusions. I do hope that someday, professors will apply the proper methods of hermeneutics and textual criticism to find all of the hidden meanings subtly onion-layered into my forum posts. (To be clear, my only lack of confidence is in the hope that scholars will exist in the future.) For example, from my personal political manifesto: It is the anarchy of amoralists who rise beyond good and evil to shatter the table of values of the mob’s slave-morality, and thus clear the way for their own tables of values.
[...]
For those whose honour is pride and whose pride is self-honour, law is at best superfluous; and the law of the mob must be explicitly rejected.
[...]
And in practice, the system with the best mob-appeal is, of course, democracy on the principle of “one sheep, one vote”. Thereupon do the sheep choose as shepherds those who are most adept at pandering to the masses, playing petty politics, and manipulating majority opinion with cunning propaganda.
[...]
Sheep can no more be taught to think than dogs can be taught to sing opera.
[...]
Wherefore let none dare any heresy against the “one sheep, one vote” principle of governance, a sacred relic that you must worship at the altar of the masses. Of course, this state of affairs is entirely convenient for the priests of the opinion-factories.
Democracy is not three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner: It is the flock obediently voting on the shepherd’s opinion of wolves. Wherefore wolves are an endangered species.
[...]
Free yourself first from the moral authority of the mob. You owe nothing to mass opinion; therefore, the laws which rise on mass opinion have no proper authority over you. You do not consent to be governed by the votes of millions of anthropoid livestock who want to be bound in chains—who eagerly embrace those chains just as long as they remain warm, fed, and adequately entertained. You are a law unto yourself.
Wherefore “anarchy” as to the masses and their so-called “governments”, which are in truth no more than the largest, most well-armed organized criminal gangs. Don’t reject authority: Be your own authority. (a) The term “table of values”, in the context of (b) herds of sheep and (c) rejection of laws, was an allusion to several specific passages in Nietzsche’s Thus spake Zarathustra. The reference to Beyond Good and Evil is more overtly Nietzschean—as is, of course, the condemnation of the mob’s Sklavenmoral, and the declaration of my amoralism. In parallel, there is hereby a doubly indirect hidden homage to Lauda, such as I have not infrequently enjoyed inserting into my posts. (Pedantic note: “Laudable” and “löblich” have different etymologies, albeit the same meanings.) No doubt, she would appreciate it. There are hereby multiple layers of abstract indirection, which you can probably follow if you know C/C++ programming and/or witchcraft. Compare the above passage to the below:Herdsmen, I say, but they call themselves the good and just. Herdsmen, I say, but they call themselves the believers in the orthodox belief.
Behold the good and just! Whom do they hate most? Him who breaketh up their tables of values, the breaker, the lawbreaker:—he, however, is the creator.
Behold the believers of all beliefs! Whom do they hate most? Him who breaketh up their tables of values, the breaker, the lawbreaker:—he, however, is the creator.
Companions, the creator seeketh, not corpses—and not herds or believers either.
Fellow-creators the creator seeketh—those who grave new values on new tables.
Hirten sage ich, aber sie nennen sich die Guten und Gerechten. Hirten sage ich: aber sie nennen sich die Gläubigen des rechten Glaubens.
Siehe die Guten und Gerechten! Wen hassen sie am meisten? Den, der zerbricht ihre Tafeln der Werthe, den Brecher, den Verbrecher:—das aber ist der Schaffende.
Siehe die Gläubigen aller Glauben! Wen hassen sie am meisten? Den, der zerbricht ihre Tafeln der Werthe, den Brecher, den Verbrecher:—das aber ist der Schaffende.
Gefährten sucht der Schaffende und nicht Leichname, und auch nicht Heerden und Gläubige. Die Mitschaffenden sucht der Schaffende, Die, welche neue Werthe auf neue Tafeln schreiben.
A table of excellencies hangeth over every people. Lo! it is the table of their triumphs; lo! it is the voice of their Will to Power.
It is laudable, what they think hard; what is indispensable and hard they call good; and what relieveth in the direst distress, the unique and hardest of all,—they extol as holy.
Whatever maketh them rule and conquer and shine, to the dismay and envy of their neighbours, they regard as the high and foremost thing, the test and the meaning of all else.
Eine Tafel der Güter hängt über jedem Volke. Siehe, es ist seiner Überwindungen Tafel; siehe, es ist die Stimme seines Willens zur Macht.
Löblich ist, was ihm schwer gilt; was unerlässlich und schwer, heisst gut, und was aus der höchsten Noth noch befreit, das Seltene, Schwerste,—das preist es heilig.
Was da macht, dass es herrscht und siegt und glänzt, seinem Nachbarn zu Grauen und Neide: das gilt ihm das Hohe, das Erste, das Messende, der Sinn aller Dinge.
I wish that I did not have to add that, in effect, I have now and oft given brilliant lectures on algorithmic information theory to mammothrepts. I have explained carefully and clearly to a herd of sheep that they are mutton; it is not my fault that they will stare at me with uncomprehending eyes, and go on chewing their cuds. ...that has resulted in heroes oft becoming “antiheroes”. But you would just scroll on by, like the “unmitigated savages” you are (lolz). Why do I do it? Inter alia: To spend energy. Psychologists should bethink themselves before putting down the instinct of self-preservation as the cardinal instinct of an organic being. A living thing seeks above all to discharge its strength—life itself is Will to Power; self-preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent results thereof. I make art. It is what I do. I was born that way. I couldn’t change myself, not even if I wanted to—not any more than the sheep can change their lamentable lack of appreciation pro magnā operā. If you are not reading it, then it is not for you. |
|
|
|
- This is not plagiarism at all. As explained below, there is a difference between plagiarism and improper attribution. No reasonable person would have read the posts as purporting in any way that icopress was the author of the images; thus, at worst, this was improper attribution (which I now see is remediated). —This is a subject that I have intended to address for awhile; I will do so below, more briefly than I had intended before.
- The allegation nonsensically throws in a statement about the “copyright holder”. Plagiarism has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright, as I have said repeatedly in many of my posts; e.g.:
“Open source” is only a copyright issue. Whereas the confusion of plagiarism and copyright violation is a pet peeve of mine, one which I believe is deliberately promulgated by the copyright lobby. Even the Cypherpunks Public License embodies this confusion, for which reason I have always disliked it.
For an extreme illustration of the difference in concepts: The complete works of William Shakespeare are in the public domain. You can legally copy them as much as you want, under any existing copyright law in the world. But if you claim Shakespeare’s work as your own, under the byline of your name, then you can and will be expelled from university, have your university degrees retroactively revoked, and/or be fired from any type of intellectual job. —And if you claim to be Shakespeare—not even the psychic reincarnation of Shakespeare, but William Shakespeare in the flesh!—then you should be committed to an asylum for the insane.
Lest anyone mistake that as merely my anticopyright opinion, here is the matching opinion of a well-known pro-copyright website, which properly distingushes between plagiarism and copyright issues:
Contrary to popular belief, the word plagiarism is not synonymous with copyright infringement. Not every incident of plagiarism is copyright infringement, especially when public domain works are involved. On the flip side, not every incident of copyright infringement is plagiarism, such as the alleged infringements of file sharers.
On a related note, not all reuse of copyrighted material is copyright infringement or plagiarism. Some uses are perfectly legal and ethical, thus getting them dubbed “fair use”.
However, on the Web, these terms are getting thrown around with reckless abandon. People, who often aren’t aware of the subtle nuances that separate the terms, use them in incorrect ways and cause confusion, often turning a legitimate complaint into a questionable matter.
[...you should read this...]
Thus, plagiarism is a very specific act and the term only means one thing. It is also, generally, considered to be a much more morally heinous act as it involves deception (lying to others about the origins of the work) and generally has a much greater impact on the copyright holder. - All three so-called “plagiarism” posts are image posts in the Wall Observer, with images that lacked attribution. If posting images without clear attribution to the Wall Observer were a bannable offence, then we must grant SwayStar123’s request to delete the Wall Observer thread (unedited OP), and ban the majority of users who have ever posted to WO.
- This false accusation of plagiarism is evidently intended for retaliation. It is a reprehensible abuse of the plagiarism report thread, which is an important resource for protecting the integrity of the forum community.
Yeah, obviously A-Bolt and WhiteManWhite are just victims .... I emphasized directly linked accounts
Plagiarism without author link and claim copyright holder33. Posting plagiarized content is not allowed.
User: icopress
The following is copied from the draft of a post that I had intended for the RegulusHR case, but never completed. I also intended to post this in the “hacker1001101001” case. (For the record, I think that RegulusHR was a shitposter, but not a plagiarist; “hacker” is a clear-cut plagiarist; and icopress is obviously neither.)On the Substance of PlagiarismTo avoid ad hominem counterarguments by people who dislike me personally, I think that I should borrow somebody else’s definition; and I will borrow it with proper attribution from “Defining and Avoiding Plagiarism: The WPA Statement on Best Practices”, Council of Writing Program Administrators (2003), pp. 1f., with my highlights added on wording that I deem relevant to the RegulusHR case: https://web.archive.org/web/20040102042235/http://www.wpacouncil.org/positions/WPAplagiarism.pdfWhat Is Plagiarism?
In instructional settings, plagiarism is a multifaceted and ethically complex problem. However, if any definition of plagiarism is to be helpful to administrators, faculty, and students, it needs to be as simple and direct as possible within the context for which it is intended.
Definition: In an instructional setting, plagiarism occurs when a writer deliberately uses someone else’s language, ideas, or other original (not common-knowledge) material without acknowledging its source.
This definition applies to texts published in print or on-line, to manuscripts, and to the work of other student writers.
Many current discussions of plagiarism fail to distinguish between:
1. submitting someone else’s text as one’s own or attempting to blur the line between one’s own ideas or words and those borrowed from another source, and
2. carelessly or inadequately citing ideas and words borrowed from another source.
Such discussions conflate plagiarism with the misuse of sources.
Ethical writers make every effort to acknowledge sources fully and appropriately in accordance with the contexts and genrres of their writing. A student who attempts (even if clumsily) to identify and credit his or her source, but who misuses a specific citation format or incorrectly uses quotation marks or other forms of identifying material taken from other sources, has not plagiarized. Instead, such a student should be considered to have failed to cite and document sources appropriately.
What are the Causes of Plagiarism and the Failure to Use and Document Sources Appropriately?
Students who are fully aware that their actions constitute plagiarism—for example, copying published information into a paper without source attribution for the purpose of claiming the information as their own, or turning in material written by another student—are guilty of academic misconduct. [...]
Students are not guilty of plagiarism when they try in good faith to acknowledge others’ work but fail to do so accurately or fully. These failures are largely the result of failures in prior teaching and learning: students lack the knowledge of and ability to use the conventions of authorial attribution.
I have hereby expended far more effort than necessary to address WhiteManWhite’s accusation, for, as aforesaid, I have been intending for awhile to clear up some common confusions on this forum: Plagiarism versus copyright violation, and plagiarism versus improper attribution. Neither is strictly relevant here; but WMW’s tortuously constructed accusation somehow tangentially invoked both, so I will take it as a felicitous opportunity to educate others. If necessary, I could draw on many other sources to support what I hereby say. The forum really needs to get its concepts straight. Plagiarism is bad—and the concept must not be diluted by confusion with things that are not plagiarism. |
|
|
|
Actually it turns out Trump, just like Obama, Bush Jr., Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, ...long list... has been enabling Erdogan meddling more than keeping him in line meddling (like other authoritarian world leaders people about whom Americans have opinions), despite the with much rhetoric. Ironic that I was adding this edit to my last post when you posted: National sovereignty. How’s that for a real, old-fashioned conservative value?
The “neoconservative” agenda is the the nadir of liberalism. So, the “liberal” and the “conservative” agree, after a fashion: America should be the world-police. (The rest is a matter of details.) Do I need to draw another Coke-Pepsi cartoon?
Lest anybody misread this as an anti-Trump post, may I remind you that Obama also loved murdering faraway people with drone strikes; and Clinton starved a half-million Iraqi children to death with grossly unjust economic sanctions, before Bushy, Jr. hopped in to finish making his daddy’s mess—thus clearing the way for the rise of that ISIS thing that Trump seems to be pretending that America wants to stop. No. This is not an anti-Trump post: This is an anti-American post. I will admit that despite his rhetoric, Trump was slightly less of a bloody warmonger than Obama was in practice. If you care about this, do not vote for Biden! |
|
|
|
I'm not American, but
Americans love to opine about other countries’ domestic policies—all too oft not with words, but with aggressive warfare and other coercion swaddled in saccharine sanctimonious bullshit, in violation of the very concept of sovereignty, delivered with stereotypical American hypocrisy. Why shouldn’t we opine about theirs? I'm very pleased with ACB's nomination. A congressman or a senator can be a bit wild, but you shall expect the supreme court to be very conservative. True. And at this point in history, ACB is probably the best that beleaguered Americans could hope for. —I mean, the small and dwindling proportion of Americans who give even half a damn about their own freedoms. |
|
|
|
I don't see your point about this. Are you trying to imply that if a country does not follow international norms, they should not be held accountable? Are you saying a country can take action to make the world more dangerous without consequence?
If anything the people of Turkey should be grateful that Trump is keeping the dictator of Turkey more in line. Otherwise, you will have Obama/Biden doing nothing with countries start gassing their own citizens. America is not the world-police.America is not the world-police.America is not the world-police.
This is not an anti-Trump post, per se, insofar as his opposition cannot be expected to be any better, no matter what they may say. By analogy, Obama was Bush III in terms of warmongering foreign policy, especially with that rabid bitch Hillary as Secretary of State. It’s an American thing. Thus, this is a classic Nullian anti-American post. Much though I am not a partisan for the Turks, hasn’t America made enough of a bloody mess in the Near East? And what the hell was that shot about Europe, the long-suffering victim of the American Empire’s mass-destructive tantrums and the fallout thereof? I would be inclined to grant that Trump was being sarcastic—but it seemed to be in the “hah, hah—only serious” sense. And it is indeed a serious matter. Never trust the Americans. America’s spreading of the Orwellian American idea of “freedom” is NOT WELCOME.
To be “liberated” by Americans is to be enslaved by them, if not killed outright.
Of course, I do not mean that all individual Americans approve of all the work of bombing countries into “liberation” under the imposition of American-approved régimes, to “make the world safe for democracy”. In fact, I am sure that many individuals disapprove. That may be unfortunate.
National sovereignty. How’s that for a real, old-fashioned conservative value?The “neoconservative” agenda is the the nadir of liberalism. |
|
|
|
So, you admit and stipulate to the wallet evidence? I have heard so many excuses about that type of evidence, from people who were guilty and caught dead to rights! In the real world, it is possible but improbable that “the same bitcoin wallet address” would “deposit to [your] account, and account of the other guy”, if the “other guy” is not actually you. And if the “other guy” is alleged by you to be some unrelated person in another country from amongst a large crowd following your bets, it is highly improbable. It requires a clear, sensible explanation. (I can imagine some unusual scenarios in which this could occur; but for obvious reasons, I will not suggest any.)
i am sorry, but this statement just proves that you did not read the original post in this forum. I did read it. Though I admit that I skimmed (what was) the middle of the thread (when I first found it); therefore, I just went back and reviewed all of your posts again, from your (exceedingly long) OP forward—reviewed them twice, from start to finish. This is what I found with regard to the above-stated issue: OP:On october 19th, my friend tells me that he finally opened an account in BetCoin.AG (user id 296772 judging from screenshots, username KillyPG. As he is even a bigger newbie in crypto than me, and i owed him money, he asked me if i could help him with deposit of BTC to this bookie. I did, and sent 0.1 BTC for deposit. Post #17 on Page 1:You have discovered that one of my deposits was made from the same btc address as the deposit in the other account (a Montenegro citizen) i have mentioned in my long text.
And i have openly stated that, that i have owed money to this guy, and he asked me to transfer BTC for him. Which i did.
I thought the whole point of crypto was that it is anonymous and not centralized. (By the way, no: Bitcoin is not anonymous, as I have been telling people since I was at Newbie rank on this forum. Much though I dislike it, that is the reality.) From my experience with investigations, your story sounds like it is probably a lie. Probably. It could be true. That is why in the part that you snipped, I said that the wallet evidence is “ probable cause”: It is probative. Indeed, I think that that in itself rises to the level of probable cause to believe that the accounts are connected, regardless of any other evidence. Don’t take that too personally. I don’t know you personally. You must understand, many people do lie about these things—so, that is what it sounds like. I have seen alleged multi-accounters lie about wallet evidence many times. Thus far, I have seen one of these stories turn out to be true, exactly once—and yes, I felt bad for that person. You would be the second one. But I doubt that you will be, when it sounds like the wallet evidence is the least of your problems here. Now, I must ask: Why do you pretend that the wallet evidence is nothing? Even if your unusual story is true, it still looks suspicious, does it not? Please look at it from the perspective of someone who is trying to catch cheaters—someone who has been lied to by many cheaters! I think that that way, you will be more successful in communicating your position. (And thus is my attempt to mediate the dispute, even though I am not the mediator.)I think it is very very unfair that you are making assumptions based what betcoin.ag lied in this thread, without even giving the "defendant" here a FAIR chance to defend himself (at least listen to what he had to say about the whole situation) this makes me sad  Your such calumny is NOT “FAIR” to me, given how evenly I have treated both sides—even with suggestions for Betcoin.AG to improve their handling of these matters, which they may or may not appreciate. I have tried to be constructive. And I should advise you, attempting to play on my emotions will not work. I am notoriously hard-hearted; I care only about the truth, not about feelings.
zikzik, I observe that you have pointedly ignored my inference about what other evidence Betcoin.AG seems to be claiming to have. If my inference is correct, I do not want to see that evidence myself; being granted access would impose on me a responsibility that I am unwilling to take, given that I am only a bystander who stumbled into this thread by happenstance. It is why I keep saying that the mediator needs to take a look at it, and why I have been suggesting in bold letters what types of questions the mediator should ask. I think that that is very fair to you, and also fair to Betcoin.AG. If you are innocent, I wish you good luck and a fair mediation so that you can get your money back. But if you are guilty, rot in hell! I don’t like cheaters. I am quite serious about this:
Edited further to add...
A message to cheaters:
It is easy to get away with malicious and abusive behaviour on naïve sites. —Not easy on sites that are serious about catching you.
I know of open-source code that can do at least some part of what Betcoin.AG claims their security system can do. It’s not a drop-in solution; it may require expensive consultant work to integrate into a site. I am also aware that there exist proprietary commercial systems that can catch you red-handed, if you try to multi-account from a banned region from behind a VPN. These are the same types of systems also used by banks, large cryptocurrency exchanges, and other financial institutions; the systems are expensive, and (unfortunately, in my opinion) quite commonplace in the industry. On non-gambling sites, you are being invisibly checked by such systems every day.
I am not saying that that’s what happened here. I am saying that it is a major issue that the mediator should inquire about. If my inferences are incorrect, then the outcome may or may not be unfavourable to Betcoin.AG, depending on the total weight of all the other evidence.
Moreover, I am warning cheaters that you will get caught—sometime, sooner or later, at some site—and it will hurt! Evading detection requires serious skills. People with serious skills usually apply them to activities more productive than multi-account abuse on gambling sites.
Now, besides this...is there a security reason for them not to exactly specify the balance of my account (if there is a chance that mediator will find me not guilty and i should get my btc back) ? I think that’s a more reasonable question. Anyone from Betcoin.AG want to address that? There may be other reasons for them to be reluctant to answer any of your questions, given your approach. I do suggest that they should clear this up, at least: A statement of the balances for the accounts in question, at the time of the accounts being closed for alleged fraud. If they have sound reason for not disclosing that publicly, then I suggest that they should say so, rather than ignoring the question. ...is there anything else to discuss in this thread, pending mediation? I think that SBR should step up and contact the parties, when both sides reasonably want for that to happen ASAP! I think it’s clear that both parties to this dispute can agree: A prompt disposition of the mediation request would be in everybody’s best interest.We have reached out to SBR to see if they will be taking this case and also suggested several other routes the player can take to receive mediation. Thank you. I have filed a claim 4 days ago and apart from an automated response acknowledgement of the claim recipience, i have not heard a word from them ...
Edit: Minor bugfixes; added some anchor tags. |
|
|
|
I think that that’s a sort of canard by omission. Are you purporting that that can be the only evidence of your abuse?
Betcoin.ag has stated himself here that this one of the "abusive patterns" they have caught, even mentioned a low level game where the two accounts in question accounted for all of the market. So obviously they say its a strong argument. I have absolutely nothing against them showing it to the public. I cant speak for the other person of course, but i will talk to him tomorrow and ask him to acknowledge his approval also. Listen, i am 95% sure that they will not show the bets here, because their security system made a huge mistake  From some of their posts on this thread (including, but not limited to some that I have quoted), I took it as implied that Betcoin.AG must have some other forensic evidence connecting the accounts and identifying your region. I strongly urge that the mediator should request this evidence from Betcoin.AG, and should NOT show it to you. If the evidence does not exist, of course, then the mediator should determine that, too; and in any event, all available evidence should be weighed fairly as to both sides of the dispute. <snip> The other "evidence" they have is the same bitcoin wallet address in deposit to my account, and account of the other guy. But is that against the rules? Does it prove anything?
It is probative. Indeed, I think that that in itself rises to the level of probable cause to believe that the accounts are connected, regardless of any other evidence. So, you admit and stipulate to the wallet evidence? I have heard so many excuses about that type of evidence, from people who were guilty and caught dead to rights! In the real world, it is possible but improbable that “the same bitcoin wallet address” would “deposit to [your] account, and account of the other guy”, if the “other guy” is not actually you. And if the “other guy” is alleged by you to be some unrelated person in another country from amongst a large crowd following your bets, it is highly improbable. It requires a clear, sensible explanation. (I can imagine some unusual scenarios in which this could occur; but for obvious reasons, I will not suggest any.)I think that the mediator should weigh the preponderance of the evidence, which is a higher standard—but that is just my opinion.
Edit: Minor clarification about the two issues of alleged multi-accounting and alleged banned region. Still being picky.
Edited further to add...
A message to cheaters:It is easy to get away with malicious and abusive behaviour on naïve sites. — Not easy on sites that are serious about catching you. I know of open-source code that can do at least some part of what Betcoin.AG claims their security system can do. It’s not a drop-in solution; it may require expensive consultant work to integrate into a site. I am also aware that there exist proprietary commercial systems that can catch you red-handed, if you try to multi-account from a banned region from behind a VPN. These are the same types of systems also used by banks, large cryptocurrency exchanges, and other financial institutions; the systems are expensive, and (unfortunately, in my opinion) quite commonplace in the industry. On non-gambling sites, you are being invisibly checked by such systems every day. I am not saying that that’s what happened here. I am saying that it is a major issue that the mediator should inquire about. If my inferences are incorrect, then the outcome may or may not be unfavourable to Betcoin.AG, depending on the total weight of all the other evidence. Moreover, I am warning cheaters that you will get caught—sometime, sooner or later, at some site—and it will hurt! Evading detection requires serious skills. People with serious skills usually apply them to activities more productive than multi-account abuse on gambling sites. |
|
|
|
We are with you TRUMP.  From Turkey.  Fact check: Is that a real quote? (If yes, link please?) Something seems (cough) just a wee bit hinky about it; and it’s not wise to spread satirical quotes without some obvious marker of it being just that.* nullius is quite persnickety about fake quotes, misquotes, misattributions, and other misinformation and disinformation. If you want to make a parody tweet, this is how it’s done: There is now a much worse “four-letter word”. 2016, with obsolete language:2018, after Faketoshi stuck a fork in his back, Jihan changes his tune and upgrades his F-bombs: Observe the obviously fake URL, the odd number “LOL”, and the question of just how I myself “liked” it “leet” times when I don’t even use Twitter. |
|
|
|
Green-text-on-red-background fixed to make this legible:Please people,
if some well respected member can ask the betcoin.ag these absolutely normal and rational questions:
1. What was the EXACT balance of my account at the time of closing?
2. Please show a list of the bets i took (all the bets please) [...]
I already did: I think that’s a more reasonable question. Anyone from Betcoin.AG want to address that?
2. Please show a list of the bets i took (all the bets please) which will "of course" prove that i was abusing your system.
I think that that’s a sort of canard by omission. Are you purporting that that can be the only evidence of your abuse? I don’t know if you are guilty or not. I know that if you are, your VPN was not protecting you as you thought it was (LOL). Based on my own security expertise, I would not assume that they can have no evidence. Yes, I am confident that I myself could avoid any multi-account detection. No, I will not tell the fine folks here how to do it. If you try, you will probably get screwed—tough luck.
Another problem:I AUTHORIZE betcoin.ag to disclose all of the above mentioned personal information here in public ...
The question as stated only makes sense if it includes information for all of the accounts that Betcoin.AG alleges are yours; otherwise, the picture presented is incomplete and unfair to Betcoin.AG. But you deny that the other accounts are yours! How can you authorize Betcoin.AG to disclose in public “personal information” about accounts that you claim are not yours?Please somebody from this well respected community ask the casino these questions.
OK. As for the balance... well, i think it is reasonable if betcoin.ag really going to comply with the mediator, that as there is a chance i will be deemed innocent, the btc would need to be returned, so its only FAIR to specify the amount BEFORE the verdict of the mediator, and not after like betcoin.ag is trying to do. I feel they may be planning another scam here - return much less money than the actual balance, as they have never confirmed the exact amount.
There may be other reasons for them to be reluctant to answer any of your questions, given your approach. I do suggest that they should clear this up, at least: A statement of the balances for the accounts in question, at the time of the accounts being closed for alleged fraud. If they have sound reason for not disclosing that publicly, then I suggest that they should say so, rather than ignoring the question.
|
|
|
|
Having been involved with abuse-handling work in the past, I know that sometimes, that can be tantamount to writing an instruction manual on “How To NOT GET CAUGHT Next Time”. What Betcoin themselves said on Page 1 is reasonable, on that particular point.
is there a security reason for them not to exactly specify the balance of my account (if there is a chance that mediator will find me not guilty and i should get my btc back) ? I think that’s a more reasonable question. Anyone from Betcoin.AG want to address that? I can only presume this; I don’t know why they have not provided that information: He just simply ignores ANY request for some exact information. Hell, he even still did not provide anybody with the exact balance of my account. Can that somehow put their security protocols in scrutiny ? I am guessing that it goes something along the lines of advice to the effect that, “If somebody is publicly accusing you of stealing money from him, and demanding that you specify the exact amount that he claims you stole, then STFU and don’t do discovery on a public forum.” That said, I would think that this kind of information would need to be disclosed through any kind of a reasonable mediation process; and I do not see a reason why it should be kept confidential there. Same as for this: is there a security reason for them not to release the list of bets that i took at this account, to prove that i was abusing their limits, as they say? I mean i took those bets, i already know them ... i lost BIG on them, so i kinda remember them <snip> There is nothing in the world they can show that can prove that the two accounts in question belong to me. I don’t know if you are guilty or not. I know that if you are, your VPN was not protecting you as you thought it was (LOL). Based on my own security expertise, I would not assume that they can have no evidence. Yes, I am confident that I myself could avoid any multi-account detection. No, I will not tell the fine folks here how to do it. If you try, you will probably get screwed—tough luck.If you are innocent, then I expect that Betcoin.AG will probably fall flat on their faces at mediation; and they have already promised to return your remaining deposits if the mediator says to, so...
Separately, I am curious about what Betcoin.AG thinks of my liquidated damages idea; though if they took it seriously, I would understand if it just shows up in revised TOS sometime. Lawyers usually advise their clients not to discuss legal decisions in public. I don’t like the idea of just keeping all deposits, without regard to proportionality; though if there is real evidence of fraud, I would not necessarily call that a scam, either. I would assess that point on a case-by-case basis, if I were in the mediator’s position (which I am not). Whereas liquidated damages would reasonably deter repeat abuse as a secondary effect, as a practical matter—in addition to the primary purpose of covering abuse-handling costs and business risk from abuse.
Weird, this sudden pile-on about Hhampuz. Why don’t the people making this about Hhampuz create a hundred new Reputation threads about how Hhampuz is pure evil, and meanwhile address what I said in an intelligent manner—or wait for the evidence to be reviewed by a neutral third-party mediator before opining. What is this thread about?
Edit: Qualified “return your deposits” to “return your remaining deposits”—just to be precise, although I think that my intended meaning was clear in the first instance. |
|
|
|
What could be easier than publishing the evidence? You do not have to enter specific IP addresses or personal details. Having been involved with abuse-handling work in the past, I know that sometimes, that can be tantamount to writing an instruction manual on “How To NOT GET CAUGHT Next Time”. What Betcoin themselves said on Page 1 is reasonable, on that particular point. Post #9, on Page 1 of 8 thus far... did you read the thread at all!?We would never close anyone's account without speaking to them first unless we were 100% certain of fraud. In this case, we have very clear evidence. We cannot share this with the player, because it helps them find ways around it for their next fraud, but we are prepared to provide them to a third party mediator, which we have been suggesting to this player since the day this event occurred. On the other hand, if Betcoin.AG is really doing what I suspect that they must be doing, then you would need to be a genuine security expert to evade their multi-accounting detection with no mistakes, ever.
Edit: I originally hit the post button in the wrong tab, trying to quote Betcoin.AG from Page 1. Whoops. Here is the actual post. |
|
|
|
I already wondered why you are reacting so aggressively and defending Betcoin, but since you are their campaign leader, that explains a lot. I would just ignore Hhamphuz's opinion, because he is their campaign manager and will never fail them. His message can not be taken to serious. There are plenty of people who agree with you. I find it curious that you are leaping to dismiss Hhampuz ad hominem, when at least on this page, besides blowing off RichGang and BTCGOLD, his only substantive argument what I also said: Let’s see what the neutral third-party mediator says.(I also find it curious that you both (BTCGOLD, codegnome) have credible-looking trust-page accusations of defending scams—though I can’t be bothered to look further now; maybe later.)
I have no financial interest in anyone here. And I am not here because of Hhampuz, either; this thread came to my attention due to someone else. I just think that it makes sense to see what a neutral third-party mediator says after reviewing the evidence. None of the people flame-warring here has suggested any reason to do otherwise. And although I know that an OP in a non-self-moderated thread cannot necessarily control the behaviour of others, it looks pretty bad when a bunch of accounts make a mud-slinging brigade with rapid-fire repeats of stuff that has already been said. Does everybody who is following this thread really need to wade through so many pointless posts, whilst awaiting further developments? You know, trying to attract attention that way can backfire. |
|
|
|
This discussion is forked from Reputation. The following is subject to further expansion and amendment. In accord with the local rules, suggestions are welcome! I especially want to expand this from its Github specificity; I myself actually dislike Github, but some of the stuff here is rather Github specific.Reader-writer priority issue: I think that this topic will attract better advice in the technical forum, but may arguably be oriented toward readers in Beginners & Help. Its subject matter seems borderline: Newbie-level Github usage. Should I move it?
I don’t want to scare you off with a learning curve; and I would not suggest that you should take the time and effort of learning all of the below for only one contribution. But since you care about open-source software, contributing on Github is a generally useful skill. Whether or not you code, you may wish to contribute translations, documentation, and also, well-made bug reports that help developers. Learning this once will open a whole new world to you! Nine [9] tips for Github newbies:
0.Github has detailed help pages. Use them, especially this: “ Collaborating with issues and pull requests”.
1.Open an issue concisely describing the problem, and (if applicable) noting that you will offer a solution. Avoid discussion of the personalities involved, unless it is necessary. Well-run Github projects are meritocracies; competent maintainers try to avoid drama. If someone else tries to raise drama, take the high road—unless it turns out that the maintainers are total idiots, in which case the project will probably fail anyway unless it has big corporate backers. I don’t want to sound negative. It’s just that Github newbies oftentimes don’t realize that every comment on every issue gets spammed to a whole bunch of busy people, most of whom are interested only in project management. They definitely appreciate comments that help with project management! If you wonder why many Bitcoin Core developers have forum accounts that have been inactive for years, or are barely, rarely active, this probably explains why. :-( A good tip offered downthread:...if you are contributing to a different project (bitcoin related or not) check and see if there is a preferred format of submitting an issue. [...]
Not saying one way is better then another but if the project has a way they want it, please use their format.
2.In the ensuing discussion, if you simply agree or disagree with a comment without substantive reply, feel free to use the little emoji buttons to express thumbs-up, thumbs-down, heart, “confused”, “party”, etc. Again, Github issues are a place for practical project management, not a forum; usually, excessively verbose discussion should be avoided. Of course, if you have a substantive remark that will help project maintainers, don’t be shy about expressing it!
3.Issue and pull request comments use Markdown for formatting; Github uses CommonMark, with “GitHub Flavored Markdown” extensions. There is a Github Guide for this. At-mentions work ( @username). There are also some tricks for cross-references, e.g. #1234 would automagically link to issue or PR #1234 in the same repository, with a backlink; bitcoin/bitcoin#19953 would link to/backlink from the PR merging Schnorr/Taproot consensus rules into Bitcoin; and bitcoin/bitcoin@8bbed4b (the first seven hexadecimal digits of the commit hash) would reference the commit implementing Taproot validation. (Please don’t spam that PR and commit with references from irrelevant issues!)
4.Make a fork of the main repository, make a branch within your fork, and commit your work to the branch. Read the pull request documentation to understand why.
5.If you wish to request several distinct actions, make atomic commits to your branch. For example, if you wish to delete the bad translation and add the good translation, make those actions into two separate git commits which can “upstreamed” together in one pull request, as I will briefly describe below.
6.Learn “How to Write a Git Commit Message”. Don’t overdo it; just follow the guidelines. Using the customary style for commit messages shows professionalism, and it really does make things easier for the people who will read the commit log in the future. “ The Seven Rules” are not arbitrary, as you will understand if you ever accrue experience reading commit logs: - Separate subject from body with a blank line
- Limit the subject line to 50 characters
- Capitalize the subject line
- Do not end the subject line with a period
- Use the imperative mood in the subject line
- Wrap the body at 72 characters
- Use the body to explain what and why vs. how
commit logs are exemplary, albeit probably incomprehensible to non-coders. On the flipside, I can “smell” a bad project by the odour of sloppy commit logs.
7.If you want to secure your commits, add a PGP key to your Github profile before you commit anything, and sign your commits. This is an absolute requirement for security-critical code; n.b. that all of Bitcoin Core’s commits show “Verified” status. It arguably may be less important for a whitepaper translation; but if you really want to do things right, invest some time to learn a process that will be fast and easy thereafter. N.b. that you cannot go back and retroactively secure commits that were made without digital signatures.If I were to manage a public repository of any kind, all substantive commits would require signatures as a matter of policy. Unfortunately, most repositories do not have such a policy.
8.File a pull request (PR). This is the action that asks the project maintainers to merge your repository’s branch’s commits into (typically) the project’s “master” branch. In your pull request, reference the issue that you raised with specific language that Github recognizes automagically. For example, if you raised Issue #1234, then say your pull request’s text, Closes #1234. or Fixes #1234. This way, the issue is automagically hyperlinked bidirectionally; and if your PR is accepted, the Github system will close your issue with an appropriate note and cross-reference.
Good luck!
Local rules: Some people are categorically banned from all of my threads. You know who you are. Don’t try it here. Others will be moderated at my sound discretion.
|
|
|
|
I don’t mean to thrust on you a new project, much less suggest when you could do it. From experience in working with you on translations, I know how much time and effort you devote to such projects; and although the whitepaper is not long, translation of the technical details presents a formidable task. It would probably take you some time.
I do know that it would be for you a labour of love, and an achievement that you would value independently of any forum political fights.
What say you? Me says yes! Excellent! If the IkeGDB translation is so bad... Shame on me, I didn't check the Romanian translation, but from the images attached it's indeed bad, I can confirm that. ...I do agree with this: I have planned to translate the white paper and submit it again. I think you should do the same, forget everything else. An independent translation would probably be less effort than trying to fix somebody else’s mess; and why should an incompetent translator retain byline credit for the result of painstaking line-by-line corrections? Based on my prior experience of working with you on your volunteer translations of Bitcoin advocacy essays (plus my political manifesto!), I have confidence in your own work.
Note: Whitepaper translations are probably accepted into the bitcoin-dot-org repository only in a specific file format, or a set of file formats. I have my own opinions about how this should be done; but I am not the maintainer of that repository, and I have no idea how they handle it.
How to contribute on GithubEdit: Discussion of this part is forked into a more appropriate venue. Original post text follows.I should elaborate. I don’t want to scare you off with a learning curve; and I would not suggest that you should take the time and effort of learning all of the below for only one contribution. But since you care about open-source software, this is a generally useful skill. Whether or not you write code, you may wish to contribute translations, documentation, and also, well-made bug reports that help developers. Learning this once will open a whole new world to you! - Github has detailed help pages. Use them, especially this: “Collaborating with issues and pull requests”.
- Open an issue concisely describing the problem with the Romanian translation, and noting that you will offer a better translation. Avoid discussion of the personalities involved, unless it is necessary. Well-run Github projects are meritocracies; competent maintainers try to avoid drama. If someone else tries to raise drama, take the high road—unless it turns out that the maintainers are total idiots, in which case the project will probably fail anyway unless it has big corporate backers.
I don’t want to sound negative. It’s just that Github newbies oftentimes don’t realize that every comment on every issue gets spammed to a whole bunch of busy people, most of whom are interested only in project management. They definitely appreciate comments that help with project management! If you wonder why many Bitcoin Core developers have forum accounts that have been inactive for years, or are barely, rarely active, this probably explains why. :-( - In the ensuing discussion, if you simply agree or disagree with a comment without substantive reply, feel free to use the little emoji buttons to express thumbs-up, thumbs-down, heart, “confused”, “party”, etc. Again, Github issues are a place for practical project management, not a forum; usually, excessively verbose discussion should be avoided. Of course, if you have a substantive remark that will help project maintainers, don’t be shy about expressing it!
- Issue and pull request comments use Markdown for formatting; Github uses CommonMark, with “GitHub Flavored Markdown” extensions. There is a Github Guide for this. At-mentions work (@username). There are also some tricks for cross-references, e.g. #1234 would automagically link to issue or PR #1234 in the same repository, with a backlink; bitcoin/bitcoin#19953 would link to/backlink from the PR merging Schnorr/Taproot consensus rules into Bitcoin; and bitcoin/bitcoin@8bbed4b (the first seven hexadecimal digits of the commit hash) would reference the commit implementing Taproot validation. (Please don’t spam that PR and commit with references from irrelevant issues!)
- Make a fork of the main repository, make a branch within your fork, and commit your work to the branch. Read the pull request documentation to understand why.
- If you wish to request several distinct actions, make atomic commits to your branch. For example, if you wish to delete the bad translation and add the good translation, make those actions into two separate git commits which can “upstreamed” together in one pull request, as I will briefly describe below.
- Learn “How to Write a Git Commit Message”. Don’t overdo it; just follow the guidelines. Using the customary style for commit messages shows professionalism, and it really does make things easier for the people who will read the commit log in the future. “The Seven Rules” are not arbitrary, as you will understand if you ever accrue experience reading commit logs.
Bitcoin Core’s commit logs are exemplary, albeit probably incomprehensible to non-coders. On the flipside, I can “smell” a bad project by the odour of sloppy commit logs. - If you want to secure your commits, add a PGP key to your Github profile before you commit anything, and sign your commits. This is an absolute requirement for security-critical code; n.b. that all of Bitcoin Core’s commits show “Verified” status. It arguably may be less important for a whitepaper translation; but if you really want to do things right, invest some time to learn a process that will be fast and easy thereafter. N.b. that you cannot go back and retroactively secure commits that were made without digital signatures.
(If I were to manage a public repository of any kind, all substantive commits would require signatures as a matter of policy. Most repositories do not have such a policy.) - File a pull request (PR). This is the action that asks the project maintainers to merge your branch’s commits into the project’s “master” branch. In your pull request, reference the issue that you raised with specific language that Github recognizes automagically. For example, if you raised Issue #1234, then say your pull request’s text, Closes #1234. or Fixes #1234. This way, the issue is automagically hyperlinked bidirectionally; and if your PR is accepted, the Github system will close your issue with an appropriate note and cross-reference.
If you have any questions that cannot be easily answered by the Github docs, please feel free to ask here, or ping me off-forum if that would be more appropriate. Edit: Discussion of this part is forked into a more appropriate venue. Original post text is above. |
|
|
|
Despite the unfounded comments above, we continue to do our job honestly and effectively. You can easily verify this and make an exchange right now on our website.
For my part, I take exception to that spammer spamtalk. It is a plain fact, not reasonably disputable, that you spammed the Monero thread with spammy spam, which was deleted by the forum moderators after complaints from several people. People who use your exchange are supporting spam.If you don’t want people popping up out of nowhere to complain about your spam, then don’t spam.Moreover, I should note that logfiles has reputational credibility which you lack. Is Exolix non-custodial?
From what I observed recently. It is a custodial service because they at times freeze traders' funds and ask for KYC on grounds of suspicious transactions. A non-custodial service would never even have any power to freeze user funds. SPAMMERS!PSA: Please do not support an exchange run by spammers. Thank you.Posted in the Monero thread:Subject: Re: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrencyCould you imagine that you can easily earn BTC? Seems improbable? Then we are ready to prove it is true. With our Affiliate Program, there is nothing impossible! Just register, generate your personal link, share it, and start earning.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
