Since people using Coinbase would be buying bitcoins using their bank accounts, so how exactly would people be evading taxes here ? Wouldn't all that money earned that they didn't pay taxes on would have hit their bank accounts first ?
If you both bought and sold bitcoins through Coinbase and had realized gains (sold bitcoins for more than they cost), then the IRS would be able to identify that fairly easily. If taxes were not paid on those gains, they would would be able to go after you for the taxes due on those gains. |
|
|
|
|
Oh how people forget... Prior to that section all of those posts were flooding the main gambling section. The admins do not moderate scams, so those types of posts won't be deleted. Having them all in their own section is better than having them show up elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Apparently it looks suspicious to buy several cars, including a Mercedes S63 AMG ($143k+), and afford a house with a girlfriend plus 3 kids without having a job for 6+ years.  Combined with the Silk Road data, it seems their investigation is pretty straight forward. |
|
|
|
|
For quite a while back mainly in 2012 and 2013 there was lots of activity in this section with people raising millions of dollars for various projects or businesses. Almost all of them ended with investors taking huge losses due to scams or the funds being badly managed. Now there is hardly any activity here as people don't want to lose their coins to scams.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe people should stop whoring themselves out for a few bits and make the choice not to promote a (likely) scam?
It seems pretty simple to me, if you promote (likely) scams, then people may think you are untrustworthy and leave you negative trust.
|
|
|
|
|
The AML/KYC requirements should be of no surprise to anyone. It sounds similar to what you would need to open a bank account or brokerage account.
It is still early, but I am sure volume will pick up in the coming weeks. Takes time for people to sign up and fund accounts...
|
|
|
|
|
For UFC, do you stream the prelims as well or just the main card?
|
|
|
|
|
In the early days, the forum would give out a "scammer tag" to scammers. After awhile they stopped giving them out (probably due to the work involved in investigating each scam), but existing tags remained on the accounts. Some time, after the trust system was added, the scammer tags were removed and replaced with negative trust from OldScammerTag.
|
|
|
|
That's why the CloudThink signature campaign raised a lot of criticism of senior + members who signed up for it, it so obviously screamed scam while pretending to be legit, but they still queued up to take the money.
I personally think that established forum members have a duty to research what they advertise and if there is a major red flag, err on the side of caution and decide against helping pretty likely scammers (although not proven to legal standards maybe) with their deception.
I cannot agree more, people need to wake up and realize that promoting questionable businesses is a problem. Unfortunately people are easily swayed with relatively small amounts of money. |
|
|
|
Because DefaultTrust people are supposed to hand out judgement that would be seen by the rest of the forum by default. So, from natural logic, it needs to be handed to everyone doing the same thing, in the same way. Ponzis in disguise only turn out to scam, when they fail. When you are labelling a running program as Ponzi, relying on your "strong believe" and NOT labelling another one because of "no evidence", then you are acrually showing discriminatory nature, which is not supposed to be coming from people on DefaultTrust.
A ponzi scam is a scam from the beginning, they don't "suddenly scam" when they can't pay. Their model is designed to scam from the start. Because it is believed to be untrustworthy, not proven. Right now, you can leave any feedback, because you are not on DT. But, once you'll be on DT, you need to revise those feedback and be sure that you are not being partial to anyone, i.e. giving -ve to one but not to another for the same thing, which is the case in this thread, as I "strongly believe".
Read the description of the trust options:  Why should this apply differently for different people? If someone is promoting an obvious ponzi scam, they should get marked negative for that. |
|
|
|
|
I have a ST Huntsman Urban Masked MW that I am looking to sell for about 65%, let me know if you are interested.
|
|
|
|
|
If you are using a paid signature then you are promoting that business. If you are promoting a scam then yes you are part of the problem and deserve the negative trust.
|
|
|
|
By not disclosing this earlier I also wonder what else the company could be hiding. I've just lost a lot of faith in Bitpay. As for this happening in legacy bank systems - they could probably just reverse the mistaked transaction. Fungibility is not such a big deal for them.
Wire fraud is still a huge problem for the traditional banking system. Sometimes they can be reversed but generally once the fraud is detected it is too late for the money to be retrieved. |
|
|
|
|
Try emailing your bank a wire request and see what they do. Email is not secure, they either had a poor internal policy or did follow their existing policy.
|
|
|
|
The sky is red and you cannot prove me wrong because my definition of red is blue.
btw, you owe me .01 BTC I believe you have me mistaken for someone else. no, it was for the escrow service i just provided to you while i'm sitting here in my bathroom.  since escrow can mean whatever i want it to mean, right? You agreed to it by posting after me in the same thread. you can't prove me wrong.  Well played... |
|
|
|
The sky is red and you cannot prove me wrong because my definition of red is blue.
btw, you owe me .01 BTC I believe you have me mistaken for someone else. |
|
|
|
|
The sky is red and you cannot prove me wrong because my definition of red is blue.
|
|
|
|
they want only your address, other "companies" steal your money. that is the difference.
No Pre-Sales
We are not pre-selling anything, nor taking money in advance (this business model is severely burned in all hashing markets). You will be able to purchase capacity when we make it available. The reason for the registration of capacity interest, and AML / KYC procedures leading up to it, is solely for planning purposes of the initial 350-500 PetaHash (current estimate) at launch, and to reserve a significant portion of it for customers who choose to commit to capacity in advance. We expect to sell out the initial supply at launch. Only customers who pass the AML / KYC steps qualify for reservations and rental purchases.
i dont know what will happen but as long as you dont sent money, you are on the safe side.
Assuming you trust them with your information. |
|
|
|
You have still failed to explain why that matters. If it was known that Daniel is the person you are trading with then you would have sent first to Daniel without escrow.
I don't know how it could have been more clear. In both scenarios Alice is expecting the escrow to resolve the dispute as a third party. Alice has no reason to suspect the escrow has any bias towards Alice or Bob.
In scenario 1, Charlie is able to act without bias because he is an independent party.
In scenario 2, Daniel is unable to act without bias because he is also acting as a party to the trade.
Scenario 1 will always be more favorable for Alice compared to scenario 2 since there is no bias. Also, by definition, Daniel is not an escrow to the trade since he is not a third party.
As I stated previously, it is misleading and disingenuous to act as if you were providing an escrow service when you really are not.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
