|
Congratulations to the USA for electing Trump as the 47th president. This should result in a more prosperous nation and world. Trump has promised to end the wars in Ukraine, and the Middle East before he takes office, and I look forward to him making the world a more peaceful place.
This election marks one of the greatest political comebacks in US history.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
Are there any forum members in Venezuela? What are things like right now?
I open this topic because of the elections going on today. I strongly doubt that the election will be free and fair, although there does seem to be strong opposition to Maudero, exceptionally so.
in downtown Charlotte, in the US, there is some kind of gathering in which people seem to be hoping to celebrate a win for Gonzalez. There are many with Venezuelan flags here.
Feel free to use this to discuss the election in Venezuela and the aftermath.
|
|
|
|
Joe Biden recently said he would drop out of the Presidential race if a medical issue were to come up. Less than 12 hours later, it was announced that he has been diagnosed with Covid-19. I think it is very likely that Biden will drop out of the race. Given recent events, the Presidency is almost certain to be won by Trump. What do you think? Who, if anyone will be the Democrat presidential nominee?
Update: Biden has dropped out, and has endorsed Harris, the person he chose as his VP because of her gender and race. |
|
|
|
After last night's debate between former President Trump, and Joe Biden, it is clear that Biden is unfit to be president, unable to serve another term, and it is questionable if he would get any electoral college votes if he stays on the ticket. As it stands now, there are too many delegates attached to Biden for anyone else to get the nomination, so Biden will need to voluntarily not seek reelection. There are reports of Democrats having conversations about replacing Biden on the ticket, and it is likely he will start to see pressure to step down, including the possibility of big-dollar donors abandoning him. Gavin Newsom was at the debate, and afterward was asked multiple times if he would step in and replace Biden on the ticket. Newsom is currently favored to get the nomination after Biden. Did you watch the debate? What was your favorite part? Do you think Biden will get replaced? Under what circumstances? Will Biden serve the rest of his term? |
|
|
|
It was announced today that Julian Assange to set to plea guilty to a single count of conspiring to obtain and distribute classified information and is to be sentenced to time served, which is 68 months that he has served in a UK prison (where he was awaiting extradition, that he was fighting). Once he is sentenced, he is set to be allowed to return to Australia, which is his homeland. On one hand, it is very common for journalists to disclose government secrets, even embarrassing secrets (see the Pentagon papers, etc.). One the other hand, he has spent over 5 years in jail, in addition to the time he was hiding in the Ecuadorean embassy in the UK, and some may argue that accepting a time-served sentence to put the ordeal behind him. What do you think? |
|
|
|
|
Hi everyone,
In about two months, I will have been on the forum for 10 years. I have not been able to spend much time on the forum recently, certainly nowhere near as much time as I have in the past, and I am not sure I would remember to visit on my anniversary, so I figured I would create a thread today.
Time sure does fly when you are having fun. It is hard to believe it was 10 years ago when I first joined the forum. It is an understatement to say that a lot has changed over the years. A lot of people have lost their reputation they spent years building up, sometimes for good reason, often times not. A handful of people have been arrested for reasons related to their involvement in their Bitcoin-related activities. Sadly, some of the forum members I had the opportunity to get to know and talk to have died. I honestly cried when I saw that o_e_l_e_o had locked his goodbye/farewell thread.
Sadly, many seem to have actually left the forum, despite that they say that no one really leaves. BadBear, tomatocage, shorena, Blazr, escrow.ms, DarkStar, monbux, redsn0w, devthedev, Lauda, Dogedigital, blazed, MadZ, Muhammed Zakir, marcotheminer, xetsr, dogie, Vod seems to have left, and somewhat recently returned. There are others I have forgotten. If you have left, and happen to read this, maybe you can stop by to say hello, lol.
It is sad to see someone who was last active in 2020. The world was turned upside-down due to covid.
I certainly have made mistakes during my time on the forum. I can say however that my North Star has always been what I believed to be right at the time.
Anyway, I hope that everyone is doing well.
|
|
|
|
|
The terrorist organization Hamas, has recently launched hundreds of missiles targeting Israeli citizens. Some of the missiles exploded while still in Gaza (where Hamas is based), and Israel was able to use its missile defense system, the Iron Dome, to shot down the majority of the missiles before hitting their civilian targets. Unfortunately, not all missiles were destroyed, and some Israeli civilians were killed, and Israeli citizens were forced to go into bomb shelters for safety.
In response, the IDF, Israeli Defense Force, launched airstrikes against 130 terrorist targets. Hamas prefers to use citizens of Gaze as human shields, however the IDF will contact civilians before conducting air strikes, giving them the opportunity to move to safety before the targets are taken out.
What do you think? Is Hamas right to target Israeli civilians, who are innocent? Is Hamas right to use citizens of Gaza as human shields in order to protect their military assets from air strikes by Israel?
|
|
|
|
I am glad to see the forum return some of it's bitcoin to forum members as part of the annual April Fool's prank. I am having trouble finding a way to request a withdrawal of the BTC I received while selling some of my NFTs. While I am still having trouble with my BTC balance, I would like to request a withdrawal of my displayed balance in my wallet to the address in my profile. I would also like to inquire if I can withdraw my NFTs to my personal wallet on some blockchain? Thank you (increasing my politeness score). |
|
|
|
I wanted to apologize to anyone whose trust I may have broken over the years, including but not limited to one particular incident. I got the idea from another forum member who was in very good standing, and was well trusted at the time throughout the community -- I entered into a transaction with what turned out to be one of his sockpuppets, and he suggested that we use his 'main' account as a middle man. When I got caught, I lied about being banned in order to cover it up, which was wrong, is something I should not have done, and is something I regret doing. I also wanted to apologize to anyone who I may have otherwise harmed over the years in any other way (I have never stolen from anyone here, or IRL). I am a very principled person, but sometimes did not get other perspectives, or try to be able to see things from the other person's shoes before starting a topic. I should have done better. I have always cared about my reputation here. Even when I was someone who was well trusted, I did not like it when people opened fake scam accusations because they were upset at me. My intentions were always good, even if my actions were not. Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
In the past, many forum users have reached out to me for help getting 'stuck' transactions confirmed, and I was often happy and able to help. Moving forward, please stop PM'ing me for help with these transactions. I don't review my PMs frequently enough to be of timely help, and when I do respond, most people messaging me about these transactions never reply back to me.
I am not even sure my access code to the pool I previously had access to still works. I have not tried to use it in a very long time.
If I know you, I don't mind if you ask me for help with these transactions, although I probably will still not see your message in a timely manner. It would probably be best if you either double spend your 'stuck' transaction, or execute a Child Pays for Parent (CPFP) transaction.
Thank you.
edit: You can send me a PM, but you should expect to pay for this service in advance
Self Moderated
|
|
|
|
Hello, I am BSV representative. Please help us against the trolls, we needs a merits for reaching full member and have ability to wearing official BSV avatar. In the future, we promise you full support and to returning a half of the merits you sent. Let's make these trolls shit with bricks (nutildah, BitcoinFX, Piston Honda & others)
I received the above message from a "BSV representative", unsolicited. I won't be sending this person any merit. I am not sure how wearing a BSV avatar will make anyone "shit with bricks". This is being posted for transparency and to request that "BSV representative" stop sending stupid PMs, or PMs that you think are not stupid. |
|
|
|
Today I found over 60 posts in my inbox that were all messages saying I had posts deleted. It appears that the moderator was incorrectly applying the rule “double posting” isn’t allowed. The majority (if not all) the posts in question were from 2015, which is before the rule was implemented and I believe the forum generally has a policy against ex-post-facto laws/rules/regulations. Theymos has also said that occasionally posting successive posts when the posts are substantial and the person is not participating in a paid sig campaign is allowed. I am not currently participating in a paid sig deal and don’t believe I was when most of the posts in question were posted. Some of the posts were made in threads such as this one, in which the person who I was responding to had deleted their posts and as such the posts the posts did not violate the rule in question, even if applied retroactively as the rule is posting multiple posts in a row are not allowed, and multiple posts were not posted in a row. This is clear because the posts were quoting other posts that were removed. It appears that someone was implementing a script that uses flawed logic. Even without access to all deleted posts, you could easily see the posts were not posted in violation of the rule. Also, most of the threads in question are very old and are not active (they are 5 years old). I really don’t see a good reason to be going back this far to remove posts you believe violate this rule (using flawed logic). |
|
|
|
|
Trump just became the 1st sitting president to visit North Korea, as he stepped with NK supreme leader Kim Jun Un over the concrete boundary into North Korea. Kim appeared winded from the walk across the border.
Some will (and should) compare this to the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Nazi Germany -- American victories.
What do you think? Will this lead to a nuclear deal with North Korea? Will the US sign a peace treaty to officially end the Korean war?
|
|
|
|
As it is known by a decent number of people, the Stake.com signature campaign is causing some problems with the amount of spam and junk posts it is generating. I had a little bit of free time today, and decided to put this into numbers. As some have complained about, there is no public spreadsheet with stake signature campaign participants, so it is difficult to know for sure who is in the campaign. For the purposes of this thread, I am assuming anyone who submitted an application, and is currently wearing a signature that contains "stake.com" they are in the campaign. There were only a small number of participants who it is apparent were not immidiately accepted into the campaign, and this mostly appears to be because of missed applications. To obtain the number of posts have been deleted written by each forum member, I used bpip.org, and the data is starting from whenever they started keeping track of the number of deleted posts, presumably approximately a year ago. Based on the above, there are 173 participants in the stake signature campaign. In regards to merit, the stake signature campaign has not attracted very high merit posters: Of Stake.com signature campaign participants: Average Merit: 9.74566474 Median Merit: 3 Number of participants with: Above 20 Merit: 22 12.17% Above 30 Merit: 15 8.09% Above 50 Merit: 5 2.89% Under 5 merit: 106 61.27% 1 or less merit: 69 39.88% The stake.com signature campaign participants have had a lot of posts deleted: Of Stake.com signature campaign participants: Average number of deleted posts: 11.9017341 Median number of deleted posts: 6 Number of participants with: Above 5 deleted posts: 87 50.28% >10 deleted posts: 52 30.05% > 50 Delete posts: 10 5.78% I am not sure what the circumstances were in regards to why these people had their posts deleted. For example, if they had an active sales thread open for a long time and forgot to delete some old bumps, it might not be a huge deal to have some posts deleted. I did not run the names of who applied for their signature campaign up against users who are currently banned, however while looking through their signature campaign thread, I saw many users who had their signature blanked out, which is an indication the person may be permabanned. I did not keep track of the number of these people, but I would estimate a solid 20-30 users had their signature blanked out who had applied to participate in the stake.com signature campaign. (I would estimate this would make up about 15% of the number of participants). I also have many anecdotal examples of people wearing stake.com signatures either posting nonsense, or posting something that clearly indicates they have not read the thread, and their posts have not been removed as of when I read their posts. Based on the above, I think some, or all of the below should happen: *Stake.com signatures should be banned/disallowed/blacklisted for a period of time -- this is based on both the high number of deleted posts spread among many wearing the stake.com signature, and the high number of people who applied for the stake.com campaign who are apparently permabanned now. *Those who are currently wearing stake.com signatures should be cross referenced against those who are currently banned to check for ban evasion -- this is based on the high percentage of participants who have earned zero or a single merit, which I believe to be an indication of farmers. *The merit history of the below people should be reviewed for possible abuse, based on the below numbers. *The below people should be considered for a temp/perma ban, if they have not previously been banned for low quality posts + paid signature AND have not subsequently had a large number of their posts deleted Needs to be reviewed for merit abuse: Bitinity merit received: 56 | Posts deleted: 29 LUCKMCFLY merit received: 40 | Posts deleted: 51 Haunebu merit received: 34 | Posts deleted: 30 cryptjh merit received: 23 | Posts deleted: 35 alisafidel58 merit received: 26 | Posts deleted: 32 r1a2y3m4 merit received: 19 | Posts deleted: 22 CryptoBry merit received: 39 | Posts deleted: 29 jake zyrus merit received: 21 | Posts deleted: 26 Yatsan merit received: 40 | Posts deleted: 94 Adriano2010 merit received 40 | Posts deleted: 94 Needs to be reviewed for a temp/perma ban: blockman Posts Deleted: 42 mrdeposit Posts Deleted: 45 Bitinity Posts Deleted: 29 steampunkz Posts Deleted: 54 LUCKMCFLY Posts Deleted: 51 (should be in below list if there is merit abuse) xvids Posts Deleted: 42 Haunebu Posts Deleted: 30 Adriano2010 Posts Deleted: 56 lyks15 Posts Deleted: 93 (should be in below list if there is merit abuse) cryptjh Posts Deleted: 35 alisafidel58 Posts Deleted: 32 Ximoandali Posts Deleted: 28 CryptoBry Posts Deleted: 29 Yatsan Posts Deleted: 94 (should be in below list if there is merit abuse) The following people should be reviewed for a permaban, and should be permabanned unless there are some kind of special circumstances (such as many of their deleted posts are old bumps, or other posts that are not "spam"): Catmurs Posts Deleted: 127 Akshat21 Posts Deleted: 110 okala Posts Deleted: 64 furylmz Posts Deleted: 58 Carrelmae10 Posts Deleted: 56 Deleted posts are deleted by moderators. corrected above lists to match information from my spreadsheet Edit: June 14// removed request to have Stake signatures blacklisted. I do think checking for ban evasion, merit abuse, and ban review for those who had many posts removed is still appropriate. |
|
|
|
I believe it has been established the current implementation of the trust system is not working. This in large part can be attributed to the Default Trust changes implemented this past January, but the underlying root cause of the problem is a very small number of people leaving a very large number of controversial ratings. I believe a lot of these people have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, and should be labeled as such. The most appropriate solution, IMO is to blacklist most of these people from being able to ever be in anyone's trust network, unless they are explicitly added to a user's trust list, but I do not believe this will happen. If memory serves me correctly, the trust score algorithm was changed not long after AMHash stopped honoring their obligations. The algorithm was changed so that negative ratings had much greater weight, and positive ratings had much less weight. The instance of a single negative rating would further lower the weight of positive ratings. I believe this goes too far, and is not appropriate if the administration is unwilling to mediate trust disputes, as appears to be the case for many years now. To resolve the problems with the trust system, I would propose the following: Remove the ability to exclude a person from your trust network: This feature sounds good on its face, but is actually harmful to the trust system and the community. As an example, SaltySpitoon has BayAreaCoins on his trust list. if BAC leaves controversial ratings, he is unwilling to remove after a public discussion, if the rating is controversial, SaltySpitoon should remove BAC from his trust list. If BAC is unwilling to do this, a decision should be made to either accept the controversial rating, or to remove SaltySpitoon from your trust list. This will force people to be accountable for who they have on their trust lists. Ability to include someone in your trust list as "Ratings Only": If someone has left many good ratings, but is not good at maintaining a trust list, it should be possible to only trust the person's ratings, but ignore their trust list. In the above example, if SaltySpitoon refused to remove BAC from his trust list, but has left many good ratings over the years, someone may decide to include him in their trust list as "Ratings only" so that his trust network would see his trust ratings but would completely ignore his trust list. This will mitigate some of the problems and controversy caused by the above. Removal of Trust Scores: This is the most drastic, and probably the most controversial change. Forum members will be free to leave comments with their various types of ratings, but this will remove the harm associated with the controversial ratings. If someone leaves a negative rating you do not believe makes the person a scammer, you are free to ignore it. Ratings will be able to be filtered by if they are left by those in your trust network, and further by if the rating is positive, negative or neutral. This will force users to draw their own conclusions as to how trustworthy someone is. Further, this will also mitigate the "this person has good judgment" and "this person helps out" type positive ratings that some people have who lack any real trading history, but show Dark Green trust currently inappropriately. Modification of when the "Trade with Extreme Caution" warning will be displayed: Even if trust scores are not displayed, it is still appropriate to give a warning displayed in marketplace posts and in PMs by/from people who are reasonably scammers. The Algorithm to determined if this warning is displayed should be changed. Additional warnings should also be introduced. No ratings: If a person does not have any ratings, positive or negative (ignoring neutral), a warning should be displayed saying the person does not have any reported trust ratings within your trust network. Ratings, but no "Trade with Extreme Caution" Warning: If a person will not have a "Trade with Extreme Caution" warning, a message should be displayed encouraging people to review trust ratings, and attempt to evaluate the person's trustworthiness prior to trusting the person. "Trade with Extreme Caution" warning: This determination if this warning is displayed should depend on if they have any previous positive ratings, and if they receive any positive ratings after their first negative rating. If the person does not have any previous negative ratings, nor do they receive any positive ratings subsequent to receiving their first negative rating, they will display the "Trade with Extreme Caution" warning. This is simple and should not be controversial, if a single person believes a person to be a scammer, and no one contests this, the person should display this warning. If the person has between 1 and 3 positive positive ratings, and no positive ratings after they receive their first negative rating, they need at least 2 negative ratings from unique people to display this warning. If the person has more than 4 positive ratings, and no positive ratings after they receive their first negative rating, they need at least 3 negative ratings from unique people to display this warning. If someone leaves a negative rating, subsequently removes the rating, and adds a negative rating back on within a month, the date the original rating was left shall be used to calculate when a person received their first negative rating. If someone receives at least one positive rating after the first negative rating, their status as a scammer is disputed. If a person's status as a scammer is disputed, the number of negative ratings (in addition to the numbers listed above) need to be left for a member in order for the warning to be displayed: y = [(n^2)/3], round up n = number of unique ratings received after the first negative rating received, unless the member has received at least 4 positive ratings subsequent to their first negative rating, and if this is the case, it will be: the number of positive ratings received subsequent to their first negative rating, plus 20% of positive ratings received after their first negative rating The above formula will make it difficult to label someone as a scammer if many people disagree with this conclusion. The specifics can be tinkered with around the edges if necessary/deemed appropriate.
The selection process for how DT is determined should also be reformed, but that is another topic of discussion.
What do you think? Should the above be implemented? Vote above, select "yes" or "no" for each proposal. |
|
|
|
What happened:: Hhampuz appears to have stolen ~0.54 BTC (~$4,300 at the time) from the BestMixer campaign after he ended it. Scammers Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=881377Reference Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5125389.0;allAmount Scammed: 0.54 BTCProof of Payment: c5c716e779653795aaa03c950199cfcc73fef855b290153f421886d3d572fae1 Additional Notes: On May 22, 2019, it appears the BestMixer domain was seized by European government authorities. At the time Hhampuz was running their signature campaign. Once Hhampuz learned of the domain seizure, he announced the signature campaign was ending immidiately, and shortly thereafter he paid out what was due to each participant, presumably at the time. (The early cutoff for posts, and early payment appears to have violated the terms of the campaign, but that is not the topic of contention). The txid for the payment to participants was b27574cee6516ce29ff84dca1fad3e04e799cabcb801a102360e5e437c7147d9, which has a change address of bc1q9dzph9s96gsawqzcyj63j37e8nx8438pne296c, which is also the address the payment came from, and where all previous payments for this campaign came from. About 30 minutes later, the balance of what remained from the signature campaign was sent to 3GNadBucAV7kU3V5M5BrusFesQ4wfRsrtv via txid c5c716e779653795aaa03c950199cfcc73fef855b290153f421886d3d572fae1. After the above transaction, the money was sent via txid f1d0b755a53da5d17312a9df7304d3f08ecd264b5704d80e708e74dfae9bd388 to 1JnE9A72rBNbNRCN6FSdrRqcG1msTxki8x, which I believe may belong to ChipMixer. Later that day, Hhampuz posted that he never communicated with BestMixer outside of the forum: I've never had any contact with BestMixer outside of this forum, the account that messaged me never even gave me a name at the bottom of their message. I once asked if we could talk outside of bitcointalk since it would be easier and due to them not being online here that much. They declined and said this will be the only form of communication. As of when the signature campaign ended, the bestmixer account that created the ANN thread referenced in the OP of the signature campaign was last active three days before the campaign ended. The outputs to the transaction that 1JnE9A72rBNbNRCN6FSdrRqcG1msTxki8x spent are: 1M1o8TUAUunxD2rS4tnWFe8T3FSwQp8633 18FjF4nhU3m6MELjrpGyw175Hj1cMG8jXf 17EociKcomb7bXrN5uXFJS1WD989SoiCHB 17j1WYxgetC9JEmzNLCVF7iX63wEWvmHSi 1Lwu7dAUdidJtcsaYjwMNTJVK5dWAQTK64 All of which are 0.064 BTC, and according to the tool, http://chipstatdethbuwk.onion/ (tor link) BestMixer posted, all are "chips" belonging to ChipMixer and/or its customers. Additionally, BestMixer was critical of ChipMixer, and as such is unlikely to use their service. I asked Hhampuz in his campaign thread about why the bitcoin was moved when he could not have possibly received instructions on how to return the excess money, but have not received a response after a day. Based on the above, I believe that Hhampuz has stolen the excess money from the BestMixer campaign for his own personal use.
|
|
|
|
Vod is giving multiple people 50 merit for very low effort posts (they are on topic and not necessarily wrong) in a thread discussing something that reflects on him poorly. He is giving away merit to people supporting him. I am referring to this thread. Although he is also giving 50 merit to others who have recently supported him. His status as a merit source should be revoked and reversing the merit transactions should be considered. |
|
|
|
|
As it stands now, forum account sales are explicitly allowed, but many people on DT are giving negative trust to those who either have attempted (successfully or otherwise) to buy or sell forum accounts, sometimes many months or years after the fact. To make matters worse, certain forum members are doing this in the open without consequence.
The above two facts are in conflict, and the existence of both are harming many forum members. I have seen countless forum members have their reputations ruined after they reviewed the forum rules, and possibly the recent activity of prominent forum members who show up as having high trust/merit stats, try to engage in transaction consistent with what is reasonably based on their above observations, and end up with their reputations destroyed without a warning to amend their behavior.
The above two facts are harming countless forum members who I believe are acting in good faith, for no reason, and has the same effect as excluding these forum members from the community for no reason.
As a result of the above, one of the two below rule changes needs to be implemented:
*Forum account sales are banned, effective x date in the near future. If it is determined ownership of an account transferred after x date, the account will be permanently locked, and all people involved in the transaction (buyer seller) will be considered for a ban
*Leaving (DT) negative trust for engaging in a forum account sale transaction is prohibited, which will be applied retroactively. If this rule is implemented, forum members should remove these ratings on their own, however if they do not, the ratings should be removed by the administration (which will include ratings left after the rule is effective), and if someone leaves ratings for this reason (or closely related enough to reasonably conclude the root cause is a forum account transaction), they will be considered for a ban.
Whichever of the above is implemented, the rule needs to be actually enforced by the administration.
In either case, some freedoms will be infringed upon, however this is superior to the alternative of many people being harmed by the above referenced conflict. The current implementation of both above facts arguably infringes on a greater amount of freedoms.
I have no financial stake in the outcome of the above, current or anticipated. However I do have an opinion as to which option would be less intrusive, but I will not state it. There are arguments for and against both of the above rule changes.
I have added a poll for forum members to voice an opinion.
edit:
for those that say "scamming is allowed" I would respond by saying it is not explicitly allowed per forum rules. The forum will not moderate scams, while forum account sales are explicitly allowed per forum rules. The administration has previously tagged alt accounts of scammers when the evidence was clear they are a scammer.
I am interested to see the opinions of certain forum members.
|
|
|
|
I received the following email from bitfinex, and would like to share it with the crypto community: Dear Bitfinex trader,
By now, you may be aware of the events of the last 48 hours, but I want to personally give you an update on what has happened and how we are proceeding as a business.
On Wednesday, April 24th, the New York Attorney General’s office filed a petition and related documents in the NY State Supreme Court in Manhattan concerning Bitfinex and Tether. We believe the petition was based on understandings and materials received by the New York Attorney General’s office both from us and from other sources. Indeed, we had, until just yesterday, been co-operating fully with the New York authorities in their inquiries into and about our business. The petition and other materials were filed without notice to us or a chance to respond to them.
The materials, which do not constitute a civil or criminal complaint are, in our view, filled with inaccuracies and false assertions. In particular, we want to assure you that the allegation that we have “lost” $850 million is categorically false. We have been advised that these amounts – whether in whole or in substantial part – are, in fact, seized and safeguarded in several jurisdictions, including Poland, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We are actively working to exercise our rights and remedies to cause those funds to be released. We are confident in our ability to make clear, coherent, and convincing arguments to recover those funds. And rest assured that we will vigorously challenge the false assertions made by the New York Attorney General’s office in their filing.
I am here to tell you that we are good actors in the digital token space, and we always act with you, the customer, as our first priority. We have always taken our legal obligations very seriously, and will continue to do so. We continue to co-operate with regulators worldwide as they seek to learn more about our business. But we will not allow that spirit of co-operation and goodwill to be used to threaten our customers.
In the days ahead, you may have questions that arise, and we encourage you to share them with me or other members of the senior management team. We will update you as and when we can and we will address as many of your concerns and questions as we can.
We have been humbled and encouraged by the support we have seen from our customers and wider community in the face of these allegations. We are here to assure you we’re as strong as ever, we are not going anywhere, and we’re unwaveringly committed to you.
Thanks and best regards,
Jean Louis van der Velde
CEO |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
