Hi Timelord2067,

Please do not read any of the posts in this thread prior to posting.

Regards,

I guess this is something I should expect from a Litecoin master.

Thanks.

Hopefully something can be implemented specifically for accounts whose passwords have not been changed since the hack, since they have an almost 100% certainty to be hacked.

It looks like there was a new addition to the security log at roughly March 23, 2017, 12:26:24 AM GMT that alerts people to when someone accesses their account after a long period of inactivity. This appears both in the security log and on a user's trust profile (presumably for at least 30 days).

My main question is, what is the criteria for this to show up?

It looks like this will show up, even if you have changed your password since the May 2015 hack. I would point out that it is not entirely unusual for someone to take several months being away from the forum for whatever reason and to come back. With this being said however, it would be more unusual for someone to have not changed their password after the forum was hacked in May 2015 if they had any intention of ever coming back, especially about 22 months after the fact, and especially considering the widespread attention and publicity that this hack got.

As a result of the above, I would propose to display some additional/different warning when an account "wakes up" (as per the above criteria) AND has not changed their password since the May 2015 hack.

At a minimum, this should be a different warning message on a user's trust profile, and different entry in the security log.

I am not sure how difficult this would be to code and implement, however a scrub of all posts made by users who have not yet changed their passwords since the May 2015 hack that contain what could be considered a bitcoin address could be done, and users could be prevented from editing/deleting those posts. If the legitimate owner of an account comes back and wishes to edit/delete one of these posts (and would otherwise be able to do so, eg no hidden scammer tag), they could sign a message from one of the addresses posted -- I don't think admin intervention would be necessary in these cases because users already have access to their accounts, I think it might even be safe to 'unrestrict' these posts by submitting the signature to a specific message requested by an automated form.

Another option would be to have OldScammerTag leave negative trust whenever someone meets the above criteria of waking up their account and having not changed their password since the May 2015 hack. This negative rating could be removed after a signed message is provided, or after xxx number of days from when a user disputes the negative rating publicly -- in the later case, the rating could be changed to a neutral.

The OP clicked on this link, pasted the quote from Danny, typed his commentary in the OP and then clicked "post"

Can't you read the OP? He is offering a BMW car that needs to be repaired!

#fail

I have had this issue a number of times today/recently.

In recent months there have been a number of periods when the ability to connect to the forum have been sporadic.

It might be time to invest some of the forum's money into additional capacity (e.g. hardware, bandwidth, something else to reduce downtime).

edit: ironically, I received an error message when attempting to make this post saying something about being unable to access the SMF database

Just as an FYI to anyone considering doing business with the OP -- I am in no way associated with the OP, nor is the OP one of my alts

Regards

ACCTseller was not enrolled in that signature campaign.

There is no reason to involve me in this. Thanks.

---

It is pretty clear that you are an alt of a scammer who has been around longer then your account's age would imply. You are creating the same kind of drama that the scammer/thief James Volpe of Melbourne, Australia liked to create with Quickseller

Thanks for the payment.

As long as you can get a specific signed message from an old enough address, and you are certain the account can be easily sold for more then the loan amount then the loan should be safe. You should however add an additional buffer from what you see as displayed prices and what you expect to sell accounts for as account sellers (as is the case for other types of items sold in the marketplace), to offer discounts and will often sell at below asking prices.

The issue is that almost in every case (especially recently) that if an account is offered as collateral, the loan ends up not being paid.

You should also not take reputation points into consideration when deciding to make a loan (other then the fact that reputation point may increase the value of an account).
If you were to buy an account via a [WTB] thread then you could take additional time to evaluate the account, or could have the seller agree to have payment withheld for a certain period of time (maybe a few days) in order to wait for any scam accusations to come to light. When making a loan, there is a bit of pressure to get the money to the borrower quickly.
It really depends on how good of a salesmen the borrower is. If they are not a good salesmen then they may be willing to accept lower prices/loan amounts then what a good salesmen could sell it for (also note that people have complained to me that I was offering to low of an amount to buy their account when they were asking for a loan with their account as collateral).
I don't think it is very financially rewarding, although you could likely buy them at low prices and then sell them at high prices if you have both a [WTB] and [WTS] threads because of the fact that account selling is somewhat taboo, so pricing will almost always work in your favor (significantly) when others come to you. Prices are declining at a rapid rate, and there appears to be oversupply in the market right now, so you could be stuck with excess inventory that eventually becomes worth less then what you paid for them.

From what I have seen, the lender having to sell accounts they took as collateral is more the rule then the exception.
Some people may own a particular altcoin because they believe it's value will rise in the near future. If they need money then they could offer that altcoin as collateral, then be able to spend the money they need to spend, then repay the loan to get the altcoin back, which hopefully will have increased in value since then.

If you are considering to accept forum accounts as collateral for loans, then I would suggest that you don't. In my experience, the overwhelming majority of loans where an account is used as collateral will default, and the loans that do not end in default will very often result in the borrower subsequently asking for a larger loan then what their account is worth (e.g. the 1st loan was a confidence loan).

If you can get a signed message from an old address associated with the account being accepted as collateral, then the risk of someone coming back to claim the account was hacked is low, especially if the account has been posting somewhat frequently recently. Although you do have the risk that the account is involved in some kind of scam that will result in it receiving a negative trust rating.

If you are interested, or would consider buying forum accounts, either to farm or to resell then you would probably be better off opening a [WTB] thread in digital goods. You will probably be able to buy the accounts for as much, or less then you would be able to if you were buying them via loans, and you would not be forced to have the accounts sitting idol while you are waiting for the loan to default. Additionally, a WTB thread would allow you to keep the prices you are willing to pay more private, witch will aid in your ability to negotiate with sellers.

If you are truly interested in lending BTC to users, then you would really almost only want to consider accepting stable, established alt coins, or lending to people who have significant amounts of reputation.

PayPal might consider Bitcoin to be a competitor, however PayPal <--> bitcoin trades are very high risk for PayPal because often times PayPal accounts actually are hacked.

The difference between buying a physical item on eBay and buying a digital item is that a physical item can easily be traced, so if an item is shipped to the address associated with your PayPal account (as what sellers should insist on doing), then if you dispute the transaction, you would be told that you need to return the item for PayPal to possibly siding with you (assuming there is proof of delivery). With digital items on the other hand, it is difficult to prove that the actual owner of the account was the one who received the digital item.

If you wish to buy 10 BTC then you should open up a thread in Currency Exchange offering to buy that much BTC and offering Cash-like payment options (e.g. cash deposit into someone's bank account, Western Union, Money Gram, W2W, etc.)......just be sure to use escrow if you do trade because of the large number of scammers.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1144974.msg12066081#msg12066081
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1144974.msg12064222#msg12064222


tl;dr - you literally were asking to get doxxed and you were playing tough guy on the internet. I am not exactly what you were expecting?

If that is his username then he had exceptionally bad luck. He lost everything almost as soon as he started playing. Without the betID's it is not possible to verify the bets though

If you (or someone) can give me ndnhc's DaDice account name then I will check out his bets

I hope that you have verified your bets to make sure they were legitimately calculated to be actual losses.  

edit: what is your DaDice username?

Of course you could, especially if you were using a lot of them over a long period of time. I have never dealt in Netflix accounts, however I would think that your risk would be that Netflix would take action against you rather then the account holder taking action against you.

The account holder likely couldn't care less about some random person using their Netflix account, but doing so will cost Netflix money and cause them problems with having to deal with increased support tickets in dealing with reset passwords, ect.

Well people in the Bitcoin world tend to check facts slightly more often so such a scam would be unlikely to gain any credibility. Plus I would be doubtful that theymos would be willing to sell the forum for any price.

Also the OP is almost certainly not who he claims to be

It should be relatively obvious that the OP is trolling. The link the OP posted identifying himself is an article discussing how someone named John Fitzpatrick offered to donate $100 million to some universities foundation despite him having a history of insolvency. The university did not catch this for quite a while and had planned a ribbon cutting ceremony and everything (which is similar to what has happened with several people in this thread).

Furthermore, the forum is not worth anywhere near $100 billion, especially considering that the forum only generates roughly $25,000 worth of revenue per month, and that the market cap of bitcoin is only ~$3.5 billion.

You are sure that your hosting provider is behind the hacking attempts but you are staying with your hosting provider?

If there is any significant evidence that your hosting provider is attempting to hack your site then the only prudent course of action would be to move to a different hosting provider. Period. To even consider anything other then this is just gross incompetence.