[onichang]

Let me use this opportunity to shamelessly promote myself once more as a Dutch translator. PM me if you're looking for a good and trustworthy translator.

Further on, here's a list of people who are NOT making any sense in Dutch.

Therefore, it's safe to say they're FAKE Dutch translators and dirty cheaters. Naughty, naughty!

- onichang: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2731702;sa=showPosts

No idea which bot this guy used, but it sucks. Added and removed some characters to make it "look human", which made it look even worse because there are words in there that simply don't exist. Also confirmed by other members.

- CryptonianX5:


(click for large view)
(archive)

First rule to not get caught if you're using bot translation: do not translate the name of the project. Otherwise even people who don't speak Dutch can see you're cheating. Not sure if the guy was paid for this translation, but if he was, that bounty manager is one lazy f*ck who probably didn't even open the PDF. Sent the translator a PM about a week ago, asking for a reaction. Never received a reply and I'll probably never will.



To be continued (if more cheaters are to be found) ........

[TOTAL NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS EXPOSED FOR NOW - 13 accounts:]

TOTAL NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS EXPOSED FOR NOW - 13 accounts:

Code:

arjuna BTC
cahkalem
coinporch
coinswebid
cryptofirm
cryptonx
didzi
jawatulen
JNR
Kang TB
krisnajsadrak
Mr. Art
republicrypto

Having alts is not forbidden on this forum.

However, spamming is. And replying to posts made by your alts is activity boosting, which is even worse, because that's bounty cheating (and therefore: stealing).

So here's a gang of stealing shitposting/spamming alts. This is one and the same person who has been able to freely continue cheating for over 4 years now.

Their accounts have a 100% nukability rating imho, since this dude does not only cheat, but also hasn't got even a minimum of input to these boards whatsoever. Should these posts look even a tiny bit acceptable to you, keep in mind that hundreds of them have been reported and deleted already (check their BPIP). If there was even the slightest bit of doubt, I haven't reported them. Every report from these accounts has been marked "Good" by the mods.

When I started reporting a few weeks ago, some of these accounts which were very active before, suddenly stopped posting. It's not clear to me if these accounts have received a (temp) ban or not.

At the moment, I've succeeded to distinguish 6 edit: 7 edit: 8 edit: 10 different accounts and there might be more...

They all have this in common:
- all of them were created in March 2017 (except for republicrypto and cryptonx)
- all of them wrote their first posts on the Indonesian local boards (where the replying to alts already started from the very beginning!!)
- the same low quality everywhere, all the time
- extensive use of the words "buddy", "mate" or "my friend" in almost every post
- no upper case and inconsistent punctuation, if any at all (if there is, it's a quote)
- repeated posting of print screens from coin values on CoinMarketCap (edit) and these print screens were all uploaded on Imgur (thx ETFBitcoin!)
- repeated posting about ADA/Cardano, BNB/Binance Coin, TRX and Polkadot (of course, without the upper case )
- no real content, and if there is any, they're mostly rephrasing stuff which was already written by other people in earlier posts
- some share the same bounty signature, thus stealing twice

So here goes:

1. arjuna BTC: post history - BPIP



2. krisnajsadrak: post history - BPIP



3. Kang TB: post history - BPIP



4. JNR: post history - BPIP



5. coinporch: post history - BPIP



6. coinswebid: post history - BPIP



7. cryptofirm: post history - BPIP



8. republicrypto: post history - BPIP



9. cryptonx: post history - BPIP



10. cahkalem: post history - BPIP




Well then, I've just lost a few potential friends.

Too bad.

[Sig spamming is theft.]

I think the time is right to explain something that some bounty hunters do not always seem to understand or realize.

If you're participating in a bounty campaign, part of the bounty goes to signature campaigns. At the end of the bounty, the number of posts is counted, and every participant receives his part relative to his number of posts.

This means: the more shitposters and spammers have been accepted in this campaign, the smaller your part will be.

Let me make this clear this with a very easy example:



As you can see, these sig spammers and shitposters run off with a part of the bounty. Sig spamming is theft. They run off with the part that other bounty hunters deserve to have for respecting the bounty rules and for having written nice and interesting posts.


So what should you do to avoid having your part of the bounty stolen by sig spammers?

Report every shitposter in your campaign:

1. send a PM to the campaign manager
2. post a warning in the campaign thread
3. report every shitpost, using the report button, which is this:



Have fun and fill your bags, bounty hunters!

[Laatste update 30 oktober 2021 - Thread overgeplaatst van deze originele post]

Laatste update 30 oktober 2021 - Thread overgeplaatst van deze originele post

Een vraag die wij ons allemaal al hebben gesteld (en nog steeds stellen): hoe gaan de banken om met de ontvangst van cryptowinsten, het versturen naar exchanges etc. De weinige informatie daaromtrent is een beetje versnipperd over de verschillende threads in de Nederlandstalige boards. Reden waarom ik deze thread opnieuw heb gemaakt, om alles netjes overzichtelijk gebundeld te hebben.


Ervaringen Belgische banken:

- [ B ] Fortis - Fortis zou niet wensen samen te werken volgens Tyger
- [ B ] Belfius - problemen bij Fortis worden bevestigd door El Duderino, en Belfius heeft er volgens hem ook geen zin in. Het zou zo ver gaan dat ook hier je rekeningen worden opgezegd.

- [ B ] Argenta & ING - volgens diezelfde Dudeness maken Argenta en ING geen bezwaar, zo lang het maar van een grote "stabiele"/"betrouwbare" speler komt, zoals Kraken (en ik vermoed dat pakweg Coinbase, Bitstamp of BTC Direct ook niet direct als schimmige bedrijven worden aanzien). ING wordt bevestigd door JohanM.
- [ B ]KBC - E-riko verstuurt al lange tijd zonder problemen fiat heen en weer naar Coinbase en Binance.

Onder discussie:

- [ B ] Keytrade Bank - accepteert zenden van en naar Kraken volgens sloiz en ook van Bitstamp volgens JohanM, maar heeft diezelfde JohanM later om meer duiding gevraagd en uiteindelijk de rekening opgezegd.
- [ B ] Fortuneo Belgium (??) - behoort tot dezelfde Franse bankengroep Arkéa als Keytrade, dus vermoedelijk delen ze dezelfde policy.


Ervaringen Nederlandse banken:

- [ NL ] Triodos - BioMike startte een van de eerste threads over dit onderwerp, toen Triodos hem een dikke twee jaar geleden liet weten dat zijn rekeningen zouden worden afgesloten, na een storting te hebben ontvangen, hoewel alle administratieve verplichtingen steeds perfect werden vervuld.
- [ NL ] N26 - bit my coin heeft zijn rekening geblokkeerd gezien na een kleine cryptotransactie als Nederlandse klant bij de Duitse bank N26.

- [ NL ] ING - M-BTC bevestigt dat ING in Nederland geen probleem heeft met stortingen van Nederlandse crypto-bedrijven.
- [ NL ] Rabobank - muleroaa heeft in 2018 probleemloos relatief hoge bedragen laten uitstorten bij Rabobank. Werd in 2018 ook bevestigd door joeyops. Goede ontvangst en verzenden van en naar CoinMetro wordt bevestigd door John Cryp in 2021.
- [ NL ] ABN AMRO - Paashaas heeft goede ervaringen met ABN AMRO.
- [ NL ] Knab - John Cryp meldt geen problemen in combinatie met CoinMetro
- [ NL ] Aegon Bank - behoort tot dezelfde groep als Knab, dus vermoedelijk dezelfde policy



Zoals je ziet, dateert deze informatie van rond midden mei [edit: deze post wordt intussen geregeld geüpdatet, maar uiteraard blijft deze info onder alle voorbehoud gezien de beperkte hoeveelheid ervaringen]. Ik heb zelf nog nooit gecasht, maar vroeg of laat komt het er wel eens van, dus als iemand in de voorbij maanden extra ervaring heeft opgedaan, lijkt het me goed deze in deze thread te delen.


OPGELET, ik heb de meest recent mogelijke ervaringen opgenomen, maar dat neemt niet weg dat sommige ervan al meerdere jaren geleden werden gepost en mogelijks gedateerd zijn! Hoewel ik probeer de ervaringen up to date te houden, zou ik sterk aanbevelen steeds de bijhorende links te lezen en de leeftijd van de posts te checken.

Waarschuw / help andere gebruikers en deel je ervaringen - zowel positief als negatief - in deze thread.

[the Court administration has mistakenly communicated "confidential and sensitive" information of several Cryptopia users to a third-party group called "Cryptopia Rescue", which might or might not have contacted these users in order to obtain financial support for their group]

Some of you might know I'm quite fascinated about all legal aspects of crypto, and therefore I have been keeping a close eye on - among others - the unfolding of the Cryptopia bankruptcy liquidation.

A few days ago, the liquidators have released a warning: it seems the Court administration has mistakenly communicated "confidential and sensitive" information of several Cryptopia users to a third-party group called "Cryptopia Rescue", which might or might not have contacted these users in order to obtain financial support for their group. Without any doubt, there's a lot to be said about this mistake... But let's not go into that now.

Now, this is not a scam accusation per se, but if you are one of the affected users in the Cryptopia liquidation case, and if you have been contacted by Cryptopia Rescue, know that they possibly have not obtained your contact information (and possibly even more information concerning your holdings, trade history etc.) in a legal way.

Please be aware that due to an error by court staff at the Christchurch High Court, information containing certain customer data has been provided to an unauthorised third party. We consider this information confidential and sensitive, and we are concerned that this third party may attempt to use it to mislead and influence account holders’ decision making. We have taken steps to restrain the misuse of this confidential information and to recover it from the third party.

We understand that this party is associated with a scheme named Cryptopia Rescue and a New Zealand company.

Cryptopia Rescue is claiming that we as the Liquidators will not abide by the judgment of Justice Gendall. It is important to remember that we initiated the hearing to get the directions and, as previously stated, we will adhere to Justice Gendall's decision. Not to do so would be in breach of the Court’s directions made on our application.

Those Court directions require that repatriation of customer holdings is to be in Crypto where possible. We are working towards paying as many users in Crypto as possible.

Cryptopia Rescue is encouraging members to contribute to their scheme by paying a monetary contribution as a means of forcing us to work with them to supposedly fast track repayment of funds to certain users ahead of others, which is not in line with New Zealand Law.

As Liquidators, we will not ask you to deposit any further crypto-assets or fiat to return Account Holders' property. To pay funds to another party to supposedly enforce directions we are following is unnecessary.

We urge Account Holders to take care to ensure that any communications asking you to deposit further funds are not scams, and to carefully read all terms and conditions of any proposals from third parties.

Members are being asked to sign powers of attorney and enter into an agreement with a 'principality' that does not physically exist. We encourage account holders to seek legal advice before they enter into any such agreements and agree to settlement of property in an unreleased, unknown and unregulated Cryptocurrency as consideration for a part of or all the account holders’ entitlement.

We must warn that anyone outside of the official communication channels claiming to have access to the confidential information or offering to tell account holders what balances are in their accounts is doing so without the Liquidators' authority.  This includes Cryptopia Rescue. Please be wary of any such approaches and note that any communications relating to the Liquidation will come from the official channels such as the Grant Thornton website, or the Grant Thornton and Cryptopia Facebook and Twitter accounts.

Source here.

This is in no way a positive or negative opinion or a scam accusation towards Cryptopia Rescue, but since this information was obtained by mistake, I think this subject absolutely deserves clarification.

I'm leaving this thread completely open and not self-moderated to make sure any affected or concerned party can react freely, should they feel the need to do so. I will not join this discussion, as my personal reason of opening this thread is limited to simply sharing this information. I haven't even got a clue about what this Rescue group is or stands for, except for the info quoted above.

I do however believe this message is important enough to not see it drown somewhere in the Altcoin Discussion boards or so... If the mods however think this thread should be moved to another subboard, I accept, or just let me know and I'll move it gladly myself.

[the only true risk is getting-poor-fast]

At first, I was planning to post this in my DYOR thread, but when I noticed this scam risk on the Dutch local board, I changed my mind as it seemed more appropriate to start a new thread for this.

Current prices are luring in many scammers to these boards.

Even if you have only recently discovered Bitcoin or only recently taken the step of investing in crypto, please DO NOT LET YOURSELF BE SEDUCED by these getting-rich-fast schemes. Don't let frustrations about being a late investor, cloud your judgment. That is exactly what these scammers are anticipating. But these offers are simply untrue, and at current prices, the only true risk is getting-poor-fast!

There's a very easy way to think soberly about these interesting business proposals.

Before accepting an offer that's too good to be true, just ask yourself this simple question: why would people want to share their part of the cake at the time when crypto prices are reaching all-time highs?

[this case does not confirm "Not your keys, not your coins" at all]

A few months ago, the Court of Appeal of the State of California published its decision in the case of Darrell Archer vs. Coinbase. Archer, a Coinbase user, filed suit against Coinbase for refusing access to his part of the forked Bitcoin Gold coins, which were forked from the BTC he owned on the Coinbase exchange. Archer lost both trial and appeal.

Following the publication of the Court's decision, self-declared "crypto lawyer" Justin Wales stated on Twitter that this case confirms the principle of "Not your keys, not your coins". While I can imagine his tweet no doubt got him the media attention he was hoping for this case does not confirm "Not your keys, not your coins" at all. What could be - maybe, carefully, cautiously - concluded at best from this decision, is: "not your keys, not your forked coins" (even though in reality, the Court simply does not deal with "the key issue" directly).


Here are the (imo) most important parts of the decision, with my (humble) personal analysis - let me clarify that I have not read the trial judgment, only the Appeal decision:


1. "It is undisputed that the User Agreement does not contain a provision requiring it to support or provide services for any particular digital currency created by a third party."

Forked coins are "third-party" coins even if they're forked from supported coins, and the exchange has no obligation to install its software or to provide services related to these third-party coins, if this is not marked in the User Agreement. The exchange has therefore no obligation to make forked coins available to its users.
(Judicially irrelevant, yet still mentioned in the decision - and interesting for us to know - is the fact that Coinbase did in fact consider a Bitcoin Gold integration and did evaluate its security risks)

Furthermore a judge confirmed in an earlier decision - also quoted in the present one - that, were the Court to acknowledge this obligation, then "The Court would be imposing a major new duty on all cryptocurrency exchanges (...) to affirmatively honor every single bitcoin fork." This point of view was shared by aesma in this post.


2. "(...) whether Coinbase could provide plaintiff with access to the forked currency is not dispositive; the pertinent question is whether Coinbase had a contractual obligation to do so, and the undisputed evidence submitted by Coinbase shows it did not"

A huge missed chance... The Court does not have to answer the important question if Coinbase should give the private keys to the client, if possible and when asked, because the Plaintiff is founding his defense on the principle of breach of contract (which it's not) and not on the principle of his (possible) property rights of the private keys. In other words, the important question if an exchange user has the right to have access to his private keys, is left unanswered because it's impertinent for this case.


3. "Though plaintiff argues nothing advises the customer he may not be able to access the private keys for his forked digital currency, plaintiff does not dispute he knew at the time of the Bitcoin Gold fork that Coinbase does not support every digital currency."

Again, oh-so extremely close... But no cigar. The Court does neither confirm nor deny the right to have access to your private keys. However, the Court does confirm that access to your private keys is not expressly excluded in Coinbase's User Agreement. Sadly, the Plaintiff apparently did not use the argument that he should receive his private keys, but that Coinbase should give him his Bitcoin Gold. Based on what I read in this decision, the Plaintiff actually never asked Coinbase to make the keys available prior to the fork either. We can of course not expect the Court to make a decision based on assumptions and hypotheses...

Now why did the Plaintiff choose this strategy and why he did not simply demand that Coinbase give him access to his private keys???

A possible explanation could be that in the meantime the Plaintiff's Bitcoin Gold value was way lower than at the moment of the fork. For this reason, having access to his private keys would have become less interesting anyway, from a financial point of view. Therefore, the argument of "Breach of contract" might have been preferred as a strategy of trying to get an indemnity from Coinbase with the BTCGold value at the time of the fork, instead of trying to obtain the private keys and those Bitcoin Gold coins, which had a much lower value now.

Of course, I'm only guessing, but my line of thought is probably not too absurd.


4. "(Plaintiff) contends Coinbase was required to provide “the usual and customary” services, including services for “ ‘fork’ occurrences,” but he identifies no basis for that alleged duty, nor evidence of any written or oral representation by Coinbase that it would provide such services (...)"

Another confirmation of the obligation to respect the mutual agreements between parties - nothing less, but also nothing more; so there's no obligation to provide services for "third-party" coins, even if these are forks from supported coins.


So my conclusion about the content of this decision: not your keys = not your forked coins, unless stated otherwise in the User Agreement.

In other words, in the end this decision is imo nothing more than a confirmation of the fact that agreements and contracts have to be respected by both parties. Nothing less, but also nothing more. So this decision's not very shocking as such, and it is simply confirming the "basic" Private Law "pacta sunt servanda" principle, meaning that "agreements have to be respected". Nonetheless, I can't help but feel that decision probably has missed out on becoming a landmark crypto decision only by a breath...

It does look as if we are close to answering the question if not owning your keys indeed means you're not owning your coins. Or put differently: (if not stated otherwise in the User Agreement and when asked) do exchanges have an obligation to provide you access to your private keys? To be continued soon...

Some of you probably already know, I've been an advocate for reading these Terms, and have been warning people quite often about the risks they are taking when trusting their coins to several low-quality exchanges. Sadly, many of the exchanges I was warning people for in the last months and years, have in the meantime closed shop or gone bankrupt, with little or no action possible, because users suddenly discover everything was mentioned in the Terms of Use (or they discovered the Terms were fishy as hell).

It's the main reason why I find it rather disturbing that this principle of "not your keys, not your coins" is used over and over, whether appropriate or inappropriate (even by this self-declared "crypto lawyer"). People will never blindly or unthinkingly accept or understand such advice - no matter how well meant it is - if they do not understand WHY. I'd like to urge members who have the knowledge and experience to not use this expression recklessly, because it's eroding its credibility and undermining the important message it really does contain.

My advice and the warning I am once more giving users of exchanges (and in this case specifically for people who want their forked coins), would therefore be:

1. Read the frigging Terms of Use, before transferring your coins and make sure they're watertight. Would you buy a car or a smartphone or a TV without reading any reviews? Same goes for an exchange. KNOW WHAT YOU USE BEFORE USING IT.
2. Ask yourself which issues could rise in the future (needless to say this forum is a treasured source of knowledge for all possible obstacles on your trading adventure). Since one of those "issues" could be the launch of forked coins: keep your coins on your own private wallet during the fork and avoid any discussion or problem.
3. Finally, taking into account the points above, ask yourself: would you trust this exchange with the keys of your car or your house, and what could be the possible consequences? The principle for your coins is exactly the same.

Hat tip: Last of the V8s.

Nou lijkt het hopelijk niet alsof ik BTC Direct en hun app BLOX wil shillen, want ik schrijf er nu en dan eens over. De waarheid is dat dit het enige crypto-bedrijfje in de Benelux is, waar ik ervaring mee heb. Heb nooit ergens anders (binnen de Benelux) crypto aangekocht dan hier, en heb over de andere dus ook helemaal niets te vertellen.

Dit nieuws leek een beetje ondergesneeuwd in het hele Paypal-gedoe, maar ik vind dit best wel indrukwekkend:

https://www.computable.nl/artikel/nieuws/fintech/7077660/1277528/ruim-tien-miljoen-voor-bitcoinmakelaar-btc-direct.html

Werd voor deze financieringsronde op de een of andere manier reclame gemaakt bij particuliere beleggers in Nederland? Ik zou waarschijnlijk wel overwogen hebben een deeltje mee te investeren in dit bedrijf.

[pour l'envoi et la réception de l'argent allant vers et venant des exchanges crypto]

Salut les gars, je suis assez actif dans les boards néerlandophones, où nous essayons de créer un petit thread concernant nos expériences avec les banques, càd pour l'envoi et la réception de l'argent allant vers et venant des exchanges crypto (style Kraken, Coinbase, BTC Direct etc.).

Selon les infos des Néerlandais et des Flamands que j'ai reçues (c'est une petite communauté donc mes infos sont assez limitées), les banques néerlandaises ont une attitude plutôt "cool" s'il s'agit de transactions avec des exchanges - jusque maintenant: ING aucun problème; Argenta (banque flamande) aucun problème. Par contre, quelques utilisateurs qui sont des clients de BNP Paribas Fortis et DEXIA (mtnt "Belfius" en Belgique) ont reçu des demandes de carrément clôturer leur compte après qu'ils avaient reçu de l'argent d'un exchange. C'est quand même assez drastique comme mesure...

Vu que la plupart des banques belges sont des succursales de banques françaises ou néerlandaises, cela me semblait intéressant d'entendre vos expériences en Wallonie (ainsi qu'en France). J'espère que je ne viens pas d'ouvrir un thread qui existe déjà dans les boards français. En ce cas-là, veuillez me communiquer le lien du thread et je copierai et fermerai immédiatement le présent thread.

Thx d'avance pour toute info!

[This has resulted in almost 300 spam reports (equivalent of 15 pages) in less than 48 hours in only one campaign and gives you an idea of how much spam is caused solely by people who don't even bother to read the rules]

After having read this sticky thread "Users posting "joined" type posts when not required or allowed will be BANNED" by mprep in the Bounty thread, I decided to pick one random campaign that took off recently, by a campaign manager with a good Trust rating, and to report every post which did not comply with the campaign (or forum) rules. I contacted the manager, who apologized very politely, but in the end probably didn't report a single post himself.

In this case, the rules state:
1/ No newbies
2/ PoA posts are not required for signature participants

This has resulted in almost 300 spam reports (equivalent of 15 pages) in less than 48 hours in only one campaign and gives you an idea of how much spam is caused solely by people who don't even bother to read the rules. I'm only talking about this category and not even about those who do care to read the campaign rules, and only begin to spam as soon as they're accepted

I was quite happy to see that these posts were indeed removed by the mods - thx mods! However, I was less amused when I noticed that these people haven't been banned at all. I wasn't cheering for a permban, but I presumed that they would at least receive a tempban for a few weeks or - symbolically - for the duration of the campaign (which in this case would have been 4 weeks). Seemed like a reasonable period to serve as a good lesson, without being too severe: firm but fair.

I'm very disappointed to see these people again, hardly a few hours later, posting the exact same application, still against the rules and sometimes even adding:

(...) *note: already make the proof of authentification yesterday (as you can see on the sheet), but getting deleted. hope this one is fine. thank you!

(...) My POA has been deleted by Mod because there is no rule regarding POA. I will recreate my POA (...)

(...) My previously Proof of Authentication removed by moderator

(...) I don't know why the "PROOF OF REGISTRATION" that was previously removed by the moderator   I registered yesterday

(...) PS. i don't know why it was deleted. But I want to apply again. Here was application days ago.

In other words, no ban at all, not even temporarily. You must be kidding me.

What is the use of having this rule and even emphasizing it by adding a sticky thread in the Bounty section, if it's not applied?? What a complete waste of my time this has been.


Guys, dear mods, I'm trying to contribute my fair share of the job in trying to keep this excellent community spam-free, and have been doing so for a long time now. I'm trying to fight these spammers, because I have come to like this forum so much in the past 3 years and have passed a lot of time here, having so much fun - and I'm extremely annoyed by people who are spamming this same community, without showing a shred of respect.

But I'm not Sisyphus. If people think this spam reporting of mine is just my way of fighting boredom because I haven't got anything else to do, I'm out.

Anyway, thanks for reading this post and allow me to friendly suggest to either apply this sticky thread rule of "Users posting "joined" type posts when not required or allowed will be BANNED", or to simply remove it or at least let us know if it's only there for keeping appearances.

NB: I've contacted some of these spammers above and most of them have removed their posts voluntarily in the meantime. So yes, they do wake up if the word BAN appears.

[written with a text spinner]

A few days ago, I was cleaning up some posts by this guy Subbir, which is a superstar on the Wall of Shame and indeed a reputed spammer.

I noticed immediately that, although these are in quite acceptable English and even on-topic, there's something quite strange about them. There's hardly any punctuation marks, some of the sentences are pasted together, and even though you can vaguely get an idea of what the guy is trying to say, the whole text is actually a bit... absurd?

After searching for some of the keywords and phrases to Google, as I thought this was written by a bot, I did not find any proof of plagiarism.

I missed it too but repeatedly it depends on luck albeit you've got a thought about bettingit is easy to form a profit without doing anything. the ultimate round looks tons of funfar better at raising funds we've to maneuver forward consistent with the old trick if you hold on you'll make a profit.

After the coronavirus epidemic sports were stopped altogether other countries of the planet but the ministry of youth and sports said it had decided to introduce limited-scale sports and training activities however covid-19 is more susceptible to start playing football. Before starting playgrounds and training centers infection prevention and control work plans got to be developed by storing epidemic-resistant equipment like masks gloves disinfectants and non-contact infrared thermometers.

Conclusion can only be that this has been written with a text spinner, f.i. like best-spinner . com (for which some members of these boards are making publicity). Only question is: how to proof this...

Since I do not want to make a new Meta thread for every single (spin) spammer out there, I've made this thread not only to report this guy, but also as a friendly suggestion to use this thread to report other spinners, and of course with a wink to LoyceV's thread about plagiarism.

Might also be interesting as a discussion thread about how we could proof that these guys are using text spinners. Imho, since these posts are written by software/apps, I see very few - if any - differences with bot spammers...

Special thx to LoyceV for his help on this subject (and in general for his spambusting activity ).

Wie Coinomi gebruikt en de app vandaag heeft geüpdate, heeft het al gemerkt: vanaf nu kun je via Coinomi ook crypto kopen via BTC Direct!

Ik vind dat een indrukwekkende stap voor een Nederlands bedrijf.

Tegelijk stel ik me de vraag hoe lang het in godsnaam nog gaat duren alvorens in Vlaanderen een gelijkaardig initiatief uit de startblokken schiet.

KBC Bank kondigt met veel bombarie aan dat kliënten de mogelijkheid krijgen voetbal-samenvattingen in de banking app te bekijken, maar over veel relevantere thema's als crypto, zwijgen die banken nog steeds als vermoord.

Iemand met wat ondernemersbloed in deze boards, die zin heeft de koppen eens samen te steken om de mogelijkheden in België op een rij te zetten? Misschien moeten we ook een of ander initiatief overwegen.

Oh yeah let's all vote Republican or Democrat again. I'm 100% sure that this time, they will change the country.

Jokes aside, are any American fellow forum members considering a vote for Libertarian Party nominee Jo Jorgensen? If so, could you elaborate a bit? You might know I'm passionated by the ideology, but having a real organized libertarian party is something we Europeans can only dream about, and I'm quite curious to hear how the LP campaigns are being run IRL and what people who cast their votes for the LP act and think (politically) IRL.

www.joj2020.com

[this judgment is a landmark decision]

About a month ago, a judgment was pronounced in the context of the Cryptopia bankruptcy case.

Imho, this judgment is a landmark decision for crypto, which is - as you all know - a relatively new kind of 'property', about which until now, very few rulings have been pronounced.

I am therefore a little bit astonished - to say the least, to find out that no-one has been posting anything about this. Like it or not, these kinds of seemingly unimportant details are in reality the essential triggers to turn crypto more and more into a commonly accepted good, so how is it even possible that this news was not picked up on these boards (correct me if I'm wrong)...

That being said:

Today 8 April 2020 Justice Gendall delivered his judgement, finding firstly cryptocurrencies are “property” within the definition outlined in s2 of the Companies Act 1993 and secondly that account holders cryptocurrency were held on multiple trusts, separated by individual crypto-asset type. This means that the cryptocurrencies are beneficially owned by the account holders and are not assets of the company.

In short, and in human language:

1. Cryptocurrencies are formally and undeniably recognized as property. The definition referred to in the judgment is this one (for those who don't know, I'd like to specify that this is New Zealand Law): "property means property of every kind whether tangible or intangible, real or personal, corporeal or incorporeal, and includes rights, interests, and claims of every kind in relation to property however they arise".

This gives you all the rights that are attached to it, meaning in a nutshell they're yours, you can do with it as you please, and no-one is allowed to take them from you without agreement from your side.

2. If you leave your cryptocurrencies on an exchange - regardless of the fact of (not) owning the private keys - they remain yours, and do not become the property of the exchange. This protects the owner against bankruptcy and also against theft / hacking (if the money can be found but that goes for any property, of course).

3. Little side note: NZ law and Australian Law are "quite" alike. If Australian judges decide to follow the same line of thought, this could open interesting perspectives for Nauticus Exchange - based in Australia - customers.

More info: http://cryptopia.co.nz/

Again: this is huge.

Looks like an interesting event, next week - tickets for the celebration in Virtual Reality cost $20, which go to the fight against Corona.

From the invitation:

"Speakers include John Dalli, former EU Commission, David Friedman, legal scholar talking on the issue of Government, debating the pros and cons, Joseph McKinney, from the Startup Society Foundation, Roger Ver on the topic of Cryptocurrencies as a solution for Big Government and Michael Carbonara on modern Liberland Banking.

Local officer Vanya Czar will talk about the Liberland Free Zone while Saro McKenna from Ghostbusters will speak about Liberland Blockchain Governance. Daniel Dabek, founder of SafeX, will talk on a decentralised market based on Monero.

Other speakers include Vojtěch Roček, organiser of CoroVent, Pavol Luptak, founder of Paraelni Polis, Naomi Seibt, climate and reason activist, and Nik Halik, astronaut and documentary maker. Finally, Vítězslav Kremlík, author of the Guide to Climate Apocalypse will speak to fear-mongering leading to totalitarianism."


More info on liberland.org, I'd be interested to hear if anyone in the community is considering to tune in.

[I might offer a modest amount of Merit to lower ranked members who can present an impressive amount of reports and/or anti-spam efforts.]

edit: I might offer a modest amount of Merit to lower ranked members who can present an impressive amount of reports and/or anti-spam efforts.

While we are anticipating a (possible) Reporting/Spambusting profile medal, I figured, let's give the members of this community a possibility of showing off with how much they've been reporting already - by analogy with tbct_mt2's "Save your nice Merit records" thread, of course.

I know it's a long shot compared to many mods and Spambusters on this forum, but I'm actually more proud of this record, than any Merit record I've had in the past. At least, it gives me an incentive to do something back for the forum (and to be totally honest, I simply hate spammers, so I'm also doing it for myself).

So I reached a nice number of reports, about 40 minutes ago exactly on this forum's 10th Anniversary. That's just brilliant!

Today at 14:25:38:

You have reported 2500 posts with 99% accuracy (2425 good, 27 bad, 48 unhandled).

Sorry, I only made a stupid copypaste instead of a screenshot. I didn't really think it over.

So guys, keep reporting, and post your nice records in here!

Misschien is ondergetekende de enige met dergelijke onderdrukte gevoelens, maar heeft er nog iemand anders heimwee naar die heerlijke maalstroom aan ICO's van 2017-2018? En dan maar uren stoppen in het zoeken naar een mooi project dat als investering kon dienen, je afvragend of je je niet liet meeslepen door een of andere belofte die uiteindelijk banale scam bleek te zijn.

Om een lang verhaal toch maar af te ronden - want anders kan ik nog uren doorgaan: hoe zit dat met de ICO's? Hoeveel van die beloftevolle projecten zijn uiteindelijk uitgegroeid tot heuse bedrijven?

En de vraag is meerledig en ook een beetje stout van mij: welke van die ICO's hebben nu eigenlijk echt voordeel gehad van het gebruik van blockchain - en ik bedoel: een voordeel dat een niet-blockchain-bedrijf niet zou hebben gehad?

En tot slot - omdat ik sowieso steeds op zoek ben naar interessante investeringen: welke lijken jullie de meest veelbelovende ICO's van het moment en de nabije toekomst?

Ik houd zelf Bitwings in het oog. Evenwel tot op heden nog geen cent erin geïnvesteerd (voorlopig private sale).

Iemand enige ervaring met traden via de smartphone? Welke app gebruiken jullie? Is het veilig? Behoud je je eigen private keys?

Lijkt me makkelijk om het echt op zak te hebben en "on the road" te kunnen inspelen op trends, waar ik nu nog te veel vast zit aan de weinige momenten waarop ik 's avonds eens voor de PC kan gaan zitten. En dan moet ik vaststellen dat ik net een of andere mooie pump of belangrijk nieuws heb misgelopen en dan maar blijf vasthouden aan het veilige hodlen...

De info van QuadsPoker heeft me nieuwsgierig gemaakt om het zelf te proberen.

[equity shares instead of tokens]

An interesting evolution:

Looks like the DataBlockChain/DBC.io project had some issues with their 2 bounty campaigns. It made them decide to change the initial campaign project, which was "the usual" token payment. They have decided now to reward bounty hunters with equity shares instead of tokens.

This means you have to fill out KYC, send a copy of your selfie with ID and even fill-out a tax form (!!).

I am not sure what to think of this evolution. Could this be a new step in bounty campaign rewards? What about user's privacy protection?

Also, these guys are really dancing on the limits of legality. If you're promising people to pay them tokens, you can't just go ahead and change the rules along the way. Even the most radical of libertarians or anarchists will agree that the principle of "pacta sunt servanda" is the basics of any system or society.

Ik had graag eens gehoord welke visie de Nederlandstalige community heeft op de toekomst van crypto en het verdere verloop van de prijs. Ik tracht met aandacht deftige topics te vinden op de Engelstalige threads, maar veel verder dan de usual spam en ongefundeerde voorspellingen gaat het niet. Dat hebben we dan weer voor op de Engelstalige fora.  

Nu zouden we natuurlijk met z'n allen het liefst de prijs de lucht in katapulteren, maar met hoop alleen zullen we er niet komen. Iemand enige visie over de oorzaken van de actuele crash? Enige toekomstvisie, zelfs al is die negatief?