Why wouldn't you just explain what it is here? You should have known you would already be questioned -- not releasing the details of why you need the money just makes the whole thing look more suspect.

Its not for you though. Its for people who want to trade bitcoin like it was a stock. Genuine users and enthusiasts don't need it, unless its from the perspective that it will help the value of their investments rise. Personally, I don't care if it happens or not, I only use BTC as a means of money conversion. Though the trickle-down wealth from an exponential price rise would probably work to my benefit.

^^^

cool, its nice to be in the Top 10 of something!

Edit: ah shit, nevermind. Top 194. Sounds about right.

It is part of their job to take into consideration what has been occurring across the breadth of exchanges, not just a select few, which is quite a bit of price manipulation. Per the Gemini Trust decision:

"The Commission agrees that, if BZX had demonstrated that bitcoin and bitcoin
markets are inherently resistant to fraud and manipulation, comprehensive surveillance-sharing
agreements with significant, regulated markets would not be required, as the function of such
agreements is to detect and deter fraud and manipulation. But because the underlying
commodities market for this proposed commodity-trust ETP is not demonstrably resistant to
manipulation, BZX, as the ETP listing exchange, must enter into surveillance-sharing
agreements with, or hold Intermarket Surveillance Group membership in common with, at least
one significant, regulated market relating to bitcoin"

"As a general
matter, the manipulation of asset prices can occur simply through trading activity that creates a
false impression of supply or demand, whether in the context of a closing auction or in the course
of continuous trading, and does not require formal linkages among markets (such as consolidated
quotations or routing requirements) or the complex quoting behavior associated with highfrequency trading."

"While BZX and the Overdahl Letter assert that the potential avenues for manipulation of
the bitcoin market also exist in the context of other commodity-trust ETPs, this argument merely
reinforces the Commission’s view that similar market structures—namely, surveillance-sharing
agreements with significant, regulated markets—should be in place for a bitcoin-trust ETP just as
they are for commodity-trust ETPs."

https://www.sec.gov/rules/other/2018/34-83723.pdf

Doesn't have anything to do with bitcoin? Not being able to suss out a real measurement of price is what is preventing the SEC from greenlighting a Bitcoin ETF. Regulatory standards regarding the operation of exchanges and price reporting have yet to be put in place as bitcoin is still an entirely new asset class.

I agree that CMC gets manipulated all the time. The "problem" is bitcoin is still new and regulators haven't found a way to protect investors from getting manipulated. By "nice things" I simply meant a Bitcoin ETF.

This is why bitcoin can't have nice things:

Majority of bitcoin trading is a hoax, new study finds

From the article:

An analysis published by Bitwise this week shows that 95 percent of bitcoin spot trading is faked by unregulated exchanges...

The analysis showed that “substantially all of the volume” reported on 71 out of the 81 exchanges was wash trading, a term that describes a person simultaneously selling and buying the same stock, or bitcoin in this case, to create the appearance of activity in the market. In other words, it’s not real.

Those exchanges report an aggregated $6 billion in average daily bitcoin volume. The study finds that only $273 million of that is legitimate...

The SEC highlighted the risk of manipulation as reason for rejecting applications for other cryptocurrency ETFs... Because most cryptocurrency trading platforms don’t use the same monitoring tools as stock exchanges, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton has warned that investors may not get a fair assessment of bitcoin’s price.

It's also the reason why I'm anti-technicals. Whatever gains a modicum of respect among short-term TA enthusiasts, the opposite is just as or even more likely to happen.

Why am I not surprised by this?

Does anybody know if a DirectBet style casino ever opened up after this one closed? There was never anything like it before, and there isn't now... Being able to place bets at a site without having to open an account was a brilliant idea -- just surprised nobody took the initiative to launch a similar-style site.

You can dismiss my point-by-point refutation to be "rambling" if you like but again it just goes to show how your judgment is clouded by the vengeful nature of your personality.

OK, now that the entire debate is narrowed down to this one item:

I obviously shouldn't have done it. Being hard up for cash or taking into consideration the possibility that it might not have been "abused by con artists" aren't good excuses. If you think vengeance should be exacted upon me now for making a mistake 3 years ago, an issue for which there is no set precedent, I can't stop you.

The way which I offered my account was extremely forthright, leaving little chance for somebody to successfully use it to conduct a scam. When I applied for a loan several months back, this issue was brought up by the loaner, who asked me to sign a message from the address that I signed earlier in this thread. That was good enough proof for him, so frankly it doesn't matter whether its good enough for you, as we've never conducted business.

I have nothing more to say about this. I'm sure you do though, have at it if you must.

The presidency is more of a figurehead than administrative position IMO. There's no way for 1 person to effectively govern 300,000,000. The ability of one president to have a broadly transformative effect on the entire country just isn't something that happens. There's too many machinations at work to allow a single person to upset the power structure... I think Obama was a good example of this. Much like with Trump, people thought Obama becoming president was going to destroy the country. Instead, he largely produced more of the same.

Sanders being elected would definitely represent a shift in attitude that is reactive of Trump, but I agree that ultimately he'll have to put any grand ideals on hold and compromise down to the status quo, just like every other president of the last 30 years.

You should really consider writing in ALL CAPS.


I'm glad you put the word "unknown" in quotes because the real reason is known: the affair happened 3 years ago, and the evidence points to this account not being sold. It doesn't matter to you if I signed 10 different messages from 10 different addresses associated with my account, you will continue to believe it is sold because you have a personal vendetta against me, which is overwhelmingly obvious. You are letting your vindictiveness overcome your ability to be rational, as you are famous for -- not much I can do about that.


Again, what "reputation"? It was a Hero member account back then and I never had a single DT, still don't. I know you won't believe this but it is also possible for peoples' standards to evolve over time, given things like the fact that the crypto space and demand for accounts has grown exponentially since 2016.


  That's a riot! You care far more than what is healthy. You were so distraught over me calling you insane and putting you on ignore that you doubled-down on your insanity, resorting to grade school tactics in an attempt to cast a negative light on me. Its since backfired on you and that's why I suspect you will probably triple-down in the near future.


Oh, I'm following you around, that's also a laugh.


Again, there is no previous instance of this type of situation happening: bringing an attempted account sale to light 3 years after the fact, especially when it has been publicly accessible knowledge the entire time. Thus there is no "standard" for how to deal with it. If I was on the outside looking at this happening to another account, I would consider it extremely petty to tag somebody for this 3 years after it happened. So how did I "put the community at risk"? Oh thats right, there's no way of proving I didn't sell the account, therefore it be sold  

Furthermore, lets say the account was sold: what behavior have I been engaging in that would put the community at risk? You're really reaching for the sake of continuing your battered argument, which has since been shut down repeatedly.

I have no reputation to remove. As far as my rep shows to you, it should be a nice red color since iCEBREAKER is in your trust list. All for reasons you deem "fair." Also, there is no "standard" for how to deal with a 3 year old attempt at a sale of one's own account, as the issue had never arisen before you made it an issue.

There's also no way to prove to you that the account is still in my hands. There are ways to prove it to other people who are willing to entertain rational thought, but since the whole reason for you being here is because of a personal vindictiveness, you do not fall into this category.


As tecshare has never lost an argument (or even a debate), he will continue posting in this thread for all of eternity. I would say please do and let tecshare open his own thread about me.

I feel like I should say something for the record that I can reference, as this issue will never go away.

CH: You're not exposing "double standards." There's no standard for how to tag an account put up for sale by its owner from 3 years ago. Has the situation ever happened before? If not, there's no standard. Also, I have already been tagged for it, albeit it was a neutral tag.

As has been pointed out by others in this thread, lengths that somebody would have to go to in order to complete this sale and avoid detection are extremely complicated and without a clear purpose. Its not some slow, long con that began bungled years ago, all so I could be here to do this. Obviously I didn't know what I was doing, was stupid about it, and had a change of heart. As the great Homer once said,


I began as an avid opponent of account selling, managed to rack up zero DT before my "incident," and zero since.


That's from a thread where I went off in a raging crusade about how account sellers should be not just red tagged but banned. After it was explained to me by hilariousandco and KWH (who were remarkably patient in retrospect) that wouldn't change anything, I sort of gave up caring at that point, that is until 2017 when crypto started to take off like a rocket and suddenly accounts on this forum were far more valuable than ever before.

And after being here long enough and witnessing the effects first hand, I can see the kind of deviousness that can be accomplished through buying an established account.

I would like to think the good I have contributed to the forum far outweighs the bad, but you know, this is a subjective measurement only determined by a greater consensus. For more dramatic fun and slamming on me personally, please visit my Reputation thread.

If I were to have tagged him for anything, it would be promoting a Ponzi in his sig space.



It was definitely a Ponzi or else straight up scam. There's no room for debate with silly promises like these:



However, I am of the opinion that once somebody has been tagged for something, there is no reason to add another tag for the same thing. I've been trying to give them out sparingly.

You met the information in the report? Was it like accessing it in the Matrix with a VR helmet? Satoshi is also a serial plagiarist? Hmm, highly unlikely...

Also, in BTC news:

- still up 2.9% in 7 days
- still up 1.8% in 30 days
- still up 268% in 2 years

Whats funny is he rage quit his ProfFaustus account because a bot kept copying it. He kept threatening to sue the bot, and the bot just kept copying his threats. Then he threatened to sue Twitter, the bot copied that, so he rage quit.

Then his other account got straight up banned. Err, indefinitely "suspended" as it were:

https://twitter.com/DrCSWright

"Faketoshi
Capitulation...

Thanks for helping me destroy you.

Now, no followers

Have a nice life."

https://twitter.com/BotFaketoshi/status/1107683377996398595

It was a great day for Bitcoin, and therefore, the world.

Right, I feel the same way about this project. I agree with you and your fellow spambots that its going to end badly. Sounds like its a pretty complete scam. Its also funny to me that you can be part of a paid bumping service and then talk shit about the projects you are bumping. What a great deal for your client!

Obvious signs this is a Ponzi scam:


Basically you are likely to lose your money if you send it here.

Sorry noob. No game for you.

Right... "Team" = CEO, "Financial Director," and anonymous founder without a last name. Nothing shady at all 

Of course you don't see anything criminal. You're just a hired goon who spams on the same handful of threads over and over and calls it a "job."

I want to hear from the GoldenFever account why they don't want to disclose who the founder is, and why they don't have a white paper. Don't bump this with one of your dumb noob accounts to help fill your daily post quota, let the actual team member reply.