Bitcoin Forum
September 28, 2020, 09:38:37 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 »
1  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Binance sued for money laundering over stolen bitcoin. on: September 15, 2020, 12:05:49 PM
Hacked exchange Zaif alleges thieves sent 1,451 bitcoin to an address belonging to Binance. (which was worth $9.4 million)

The allege that Binances (KYC) and anti-money laundering (AML) protocols “do not measure up to industry standards.” allowing the thieves to launder the bitcoin.

They are holding Binance liable for the loss plus damages.





Source:

2  Other / Ivory Tower / People claiming to be Satoshi (List of Faketoshis) on: April 27, 2020, 01:14:18 AM
DISCLOSURE: I don't believe any of these people to be Satoshi.



Debo Jurgen Etienne Guido - Belgium - (Copyrighted whitepaper)
Ronald Keala Kua Maria - Hawaii - Claims to be Satoshi but curiously trademarked "Bitcoin Cash"
Jörg Molt - Germany
Craig Steven Wright - Australia / United Kingdom (Copyrighted whitepaper & claims copyright over the bitcoin database)
Bilal Khalid(AKA James Caan ) - Pakistan / United Kingdom
Phil Wilson (aka Scronty) - New Zealand

These are people that have publicly stated that they are Satoshi Nakamoto. Other than Phil Wilson who claims to have worked with Craig Wright all of them claim to have worked independent of each other.

This all started on twitter where a conversation between Arthur van Pelt, Pete Myers and Adam Back came up with a brilliant suggestion:

Quote
They have all called each other frauds.

I would love to see a head to head debate between them chaired by
@adam3us



Have I left off any notable claimants from my list ?

Any suggestions on who should be hosting the event ?
3  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Calvin Ayre receives the first bitcoin transaction. on: April 01, 2020, 02:21:36 PM

Article from Coingit magazine:



https://twitter.com/xtraelv/status/1245354214533943298/photo/1
4  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Helix tumbler / bitcoin mixer founder indicted for money laundering on: February 13, 2020, 05:05:42 AM
CLEVELAND, Ohio — A Bath Township man is charged in federal court with running a darknet operation that prosecutors said laundered more than $300 million worth of cryptocurrency often used for illegal transactions in underground marketplaces.

Larry Dean Harmon is charged with conspiracy to launder money instruments, operating an unlicensed money transmitting business and money transmission without a license detailed in an indictment handed up by a grand jury in Washington, D.C. Federal prosecutors say Harmon, 36, ran a service that allowed customers to send bitcoin and obscure its origin. Such services are known as “mixing” or “tumbling.”

Federal prosecutors are seeking millions of dollars in financial penalties and want Harmon to forfeit his house on Yellow Creek Road, as well as additional property in Akron and Aurora, Colorado.

Source: https://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/2020/02/bath-township-man-ran-service-that-laundered-311-million-in-bitcoin-for-darknet-transactions-feds-say.html
5  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Craig Steven Wright - Satoshi, MtGox Hacker or just a fraud ? on: February 07, 2020, 09:03:34 AM
In his attempt to claim he is Satoshi - Craig Wright has made claims in court filings that he owns certain Bitcoin addresses. This was before blockchain forensics was common.

In one of his claims in 2013 he claims to own the bitcoin address that contains the bitcoins from the first MtGox hack in 2011 ended up in.

He used the bitcoins from that wallet as collateral for his business.


https://blog.wizsec.jp/2018/02/kleiman-v-craig-wright-bitcoins.html
https://blog.wizsec.jp/2019/05/kleiman-v-craig-wright-part-2.html
https://blog.wizsec.jp/2019/07/kleiman-v-craig-wright-part-3.html
https://blog.wizsec.jp/2019/08/kleiman-v-craig-wright-part-4.html#more
https://blog.wizsec.jp/2019/08/kleiman-v-wright-part-5.html

He claimed to own the following addresses that were actually owned by MtGox. He used the funds held in some of the addresses as collateral in transactions for his businesses until the Australian Tax Office shut him down.
Court document can be seen here:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4462663-24-4.html#document/p5/a423127

1933phfhK3ZgFQNLGSDXvqCn32k2buXY8a: MtGox user
1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF: first major MtGox theft receiving address
18JPragfuDVHWWG8ABQ15cghJFetnXUjBD: MtGox user
1F34duy2eeMz5mSrvFepVzy7Y1rBsnAyWC: from MyBitcoin.com
1HtTw9zR9wWFfgV8Jy8MqsaeVi7ZXrjdq6: part of a long chain of transactions that send minor amounts into a BTC-e deposit address
12fZ2HxkLjG9zn1u44XYsFFYKHM4A2zCea: MtGox user
16Ls6azc76ixc9Ny7AB5ZPPq6oiEL9XwXy: MtGox cold storage
12HddUDLhRP2F8JjpKYeKaDxxt5wUvx5nq: MtGox cold storage
1P3S1grZYmcqYDuaEDVDYobJ5Fx85E9fE9: MtGox cold storage
1MyGwFAJjVtB5rGJa32M6Yh46cGirUta1K: MtGox cold storage
1A6SDef1TJAM8Saw2SqmqFGhkWR1y3qMx2: MtGox deposit address
16cou7Ht6WjTzuFyDBnht9hmvXytg6XdVT: MtGox user

Wizsec was in the unique position that he was given access to the databases of MtGox by Mark Karpeles after the collapse.





If Craig Steven Wright really controlled 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF as certified by his lawyer and presented in the Supreme Court of New South Wales then he would be the hacker involved in the first major MtGox theft.

Court document can be seen here:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4462663-24-4.html#document/p5/a423127

From chatlog beween mccaleb and Karpeles used in evidence in the court documents against mccaleb:

[3/3/2011 7:45:26 AM] Mark Karpelès: I also located the bitcoin transaction causing all the bitcoins to disappear
[3/3/2011 7:45:34 AM] Mark Karpelès: in the wallet
[3/3/2011 7:45:45 AM] Jed McCaleb: which was it?
[3/3/2011 7:45:57 AM] Mark Karpelès: http://blockexplorer.com/tx/e67a0550848b7932d7796aeea16ab0e48a5cfe81c4e8cca2c5b03e0416850114



https://courts.ms.gov/appellatecourts/docket/sendPDF.php?f=dc00001_live.SCT.17.M.1681.102741.5.pdf&c=87490&a=N&s=2


https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/e67a0550848b7932d7796aeea16ab0e48a5cfe81c4e8cca2c5b03e0416850114

So to recap:
 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF received the coins from MTGox when it was hacked in 2011

A sworn statement by Craig Wrights lawyer from 2013 that Craig Wright showed him on his phone that he controlled 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF presented by Craig Wright to the Supreme Court of New South Wales as proof that it was used as collateral for his business



https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4462663-24-4.html#document/p5/a423127


https://twitter.com/lopp/status/1196794848852037632
https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF

6  Other / Ivory Tower / The-Ass-Above-All stole my Giraffe and gave me campylobacter. UNDENIABLE truth. on: November 10, 2019, 09:27:12 AM
Ivory tower rules:

Quote
These two sections are for serious discussion.

 - When you post, you must have a clear point. If you ramble on about nothing, then your post will be deleted.
- Humor is OK as long as it has a point. Any topic of conversation is allowed here.


Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2722359.0

Local rules apply:

1) Only fiction is allowed to be posted here. Solely at my discretion the TRUTH will be selectively censored.
2) Anyone referring to “we” needs to identify all entities they are representing at the start of each post.
3) Emotional responses supportive of my loss and totally biased fictional accusations supported by selective evidence are encouraged. Please use a writing style that shows how you are manipulating the issue. (Sarcasm allowed)
4) The-Ass-Above-All, similarly named entities and known and suspected alts are permitted to respond but only in Haiku.
5) Failing to follow these rules results in deletion and/or further accusations and ridicule.
6) Word walls are deleted purely to evoke an emotive response.
7) Passing off anything in this thread as truthful is intellectual dishonesty.


The-Ass-Above-All stole my Giraffe and gave me campylobacter. The UNDENIABLE truth. Is a parody and fictious tale of serious word crimes, kidnapping, alleged Giraffe murder and vouching for yourself with an alt account. Sadly the body of the Giraffe was never found.

Either nothing or all of it is true. (That may be a lie too)
It is a response to obvious trolling, a guide on how to detect it and an entertaining story that demonstrates how a little bit of evidence can be used to come to ludicrous conclusions.

This is an edutainment guide on "How to spot the fallacies of a pigeon pooper.”  This works as a case study into deceptive writing.


What happened::
The-Ass-Above-All stole my invisible giraffe
Due to neglect it starved to death
His obsession with faecal matter caused campylobacter.

Scammers Profile Link:
No need. Everyone already has The-Ass-Above-All and his alts on their ignore list.

Reference Link:

Amount Scammed:
Irreplacable invisible Giraffe worth at least 22 million BSV

PM/Chat Logs:
Additional Notes:

He insulted me by calling me XLDIV and other names.
Photo of the missing giraffe:



The details:
I visited his post here: [POLL] The Official Dirty Turds Poll - Which DT needs flushing first HuhHuhHuh??

While the title had turds in it -  it didn’t specifically give a consumer warning that it could be detrimental for your health.

Dirty turds also implied that as long as you stayed away from the dirty ones that standard turds or even clean turds aren’t dirty.

He was using lots of emotive language, rewording of what people said and lots of insults.
Best of all he used the most words. He out-worded everyone and out-lasted them by wearing them down.  Often – using Alice as an example - fought them in his head and made them submit to his will in his fantasies like a true dominatrix / dominant or both.  (What is the plural dominatrices or dominatrixes ?  & Does that cover an entity that refers to themselves as “we”) I felt that I could immediately trust him despite his merits or DT status. Obviously he was right and everyone else was wrong. I remembered some other trustworthy character that did that that stopped posting just before he appeared.  I asked him if he was his alt. He wouldn’t tell me but implied it wasn’t.

Then to my horror I saw the trust score that the Dirty Turds had given him. I didn’t have to think for myself anymore or read the comments. I SAW RED ! This guy is a scamming cunt ! Fortunately there was a consumer warning
He uses words like feltch and cumguzzler so he is a bit of a deviant !


I engaged in conversation with him. It took me completely by surprise. I never knew that I would become part of his erotic “fight” fantasies.

2 fighters

above all - I will fight you anywhere any place including RIGHT NOW.


" that's it xldiv, keep ramming your face into his heel like that over and over" " that's it now you're almost unconscious and looking like you have been hit by a train , you are certainly winning, look at him not a single scratch"    the little bears chant...hahaha

It got weird really quick ! I thought we were just talking on a forum. He made me rub my face against his heels while “little bears chanted” (He has never confirmed whether they were midgets or underage).



It was masculine and Masterful. His experience and talent dominating was apparent. Those heels were just covered in shit from wading through this forum. There was a trail of shit in his posting history. He didn’t even pause the wipe the bit of bullshit from his lip. I got a real beating. Close to death he said. I think the fact that “little” bears were watching saved my life. I thought that was against the forum rules ?
I’m not sure whether they were dirty turds, standard turds or the clean turds that he is selling. But it gave me campylobacter. I felt DIRTY after this. Disgusted ! Violated !

"look the fact he is not actually giving you the death blow and allowing you to survive proves he is a total wussy and knows you would kick his ass xldiv, you are still our hero " says the little  care bears from meta...haha

Worrying sexual references xtraelv sees in this piece of text .

Consistent sexual references and innuendo are scattered through the thread UNDENIABLE proof that he watches porn.



Look you sniveling wretches and bottom feeding ass feltchers
That is when I noticed that the Giraffe was gone ! The [insert emotive and insulting words] scamming perverted cunt had stolen my invisible giraffe. I know he was capable of nearly killing me. I have his admission and the little talking bears can testify to that.
He did the same with Tman:
I was just striking a piece of 2 by 4 across tmans skull repeatedly

He starved the Giraffe and the sick fuck was aroused when he buried it.

Were you aroused when you buried the the corpse - yes or no ? (This is a yes or no answer question only ! Everything else will be ignored)

He refused to answer by the deadline I set and I clearly stated the consequence would be an UNDENIABLE admission of guilt. He would have been guilty anyway because I already had decided that he was guilty but he didn’t even try to deny it.
If he had denied it I could have caught him for lying about it too.

Foxpup an UNDENIABLE authority and respected senior member of DT agreed with me:
Sorry, you were boring me by spouting the same nonsense over and over again. Anyway, can you prove you never kidnapped a giraffe? I want to see OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE!

Even the Ass recognises his authority:

Agent foxpoop aka foxpup.


Later he stated:

Any evidence of us kidnapping a giraffe =  NO

The deadline had passed. He hadn’t replied immediately like I had demanded.
I’m confused about what he means because he refused to answer any of the Yes/No questions I asked him.

Does he mean:

Any evidence of us kidnapping a giraffe =  NO” – There is no evidence I covered my tracks well
“Any evidence of us kidnapping a giraffe =  NO” – There is no evidence but there is a strong suggestion that I did it.
“Any evidence of us kidnapping a giraffe =  NO” – There is no evidence of us doing it but there might be evidence of someone else doing it.
“Any evidence of us kidnapping a giraffe =  NO” – There is no evidence of kidnapping the giraffe. I killed it straight away and disposed of the body. Murder and disposal is not kidnapping. OR “we” didn’t do it. Just one of us did it.
“Any evidence of us kidnapping a giraffe =  NO” – I kidnapped more than one giraffe.
“Any evidence of us kidnapping a giraffe =  NO” - This is a complex algebraic equation I am confusing you with.
“Any evidence of us kidnapping a giraffe = NO ?” – An attempt to find out what evidence there is implicating them.


Can you confirm ( by asking your mother to confirm) that you are intending to be called xtraelv?  is your name trev? by any chance? or lex? hang on alex??



Then he tried to DOX me. Probably because he is going to kill me too.

I certify that the first sentence of this parody is more believable than any rebuttal because it contains the word “undeniable” in capitals and everything else is left to the imagination of the reader.



Quote

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), was a brilliant German philosopher. These 38 Stratagems are excerpts from "The Art of Controversy", first translated into English and published in 1896.
Schopenhauer's 38 ways to win an argument are:
1. Carry your opponent's proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it. The more general your opponent's statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it. The more restricted and narrow his or her propositions remain, the easier they are to defend by him or her.
2. Use different meanings of your opponent's words to refute his or her argument.
3. Ignore your opponent's proposition, which was intended to refer to a particular thing. Rather, understand it in some quite different sense, and then refute it. Attack something different than that which was asserted.
4. Hide your conclusion from your opponent till the end. Mingle your premises here and there in your talk. Get your opponent to agree to them in no definite order. By this circuitious route you conceal your game until you have obtained all the admissions that are necessary to reach your goal.
5. Use your opponent's beliefs against him. If the opponent refuses to accept your premises, use his own premises to your advantage.
6. Another plan is to confuse the issue by changing your opponent's words or what he or she seeks to prove.
7. State your proposition and show the truth of it by asking the opponent many questions. By asking many wide-reaching questions at once, you may hide what you want to get admitted. Then you quickly propound the argument resulting from the opponent's admissions.
8. Make your opponent angry. An angry person is less capable of using judgement or perceiving where his or her advantage lies.
9. Use your opponent's answers to your questions to reach different or even opposite conclusions.
10. If your opponent answers all your questions negatively and refuses to grant any points, ask him or her to concede the opposite of your premises. This may confuse the opponent as to which point you actually seek them to concede.
11. If the opponent grants you the truth of some of your premises, refrain from asking him or her to agree to your conclusion. Later, introduce your conclusion as a settled and admitted fact. Your opponent may come to believe that your conclusion was admitted.
12. If the argument turns upon general ideas with no particular names, you must use language or a metaphor that is favorable in your proposition.
13. To make your opponent accept a proposition, you must give him or her an opposite, counter-proposition as well. If the contrast is glaring, the opponent will accept your proposition to avoid being paradoxical.
14. Try to bluff your opponent. If he or she has answered several of your questions without the answers turning out in favor of your conclusion, advance your conclusion triumphantly, even if it does not follow. If your opponent is shy or stupid, and you yourself possess a great deal of impudence and a good voice, the trick may easily succeed.
15. If you wish to advance a proposition that is difficult to prove, put it aside for the moment. Instead, submit for your opponent's acceptance or rejection some true proposition, as though you wished to draw your proof from it. Should the opponent reject it because he or she suspects a trick, you can obtain your triumph by showing how absurd the opponent is to reject a true proposition. Should the opponent accept it, you now have reason on your own for the moment. You can either try to prove your original proposition or maintain that your original proposition is proved by what the opponent accepted. For this, an extreme degree of impudence is required.
16. When your opponent puts forth a proposition, find it inconsistent with his or her other statements, beliefs, actions, or lack of action.
17. If your opponent presses you with a counter proof, you will often be able to save yourself by advancing some subtle distinction. Try to find a second meaning or an ambiguous sense for your opponent's idea.
18. If your opponent has taken up a line of argument that will end in your defeat, you must not allow him or her to carry it to its conclusion. Interrupt the dispute, break it off altogether, or lead the opponent to a different subject.
19. Should your opponent expressly challenge you to produce any objection to some definite point in his or her argument, and you have nothing much to say, try to make the argument less specific.
20. If your opponent has admitted to all or most of your premises, do not ask him or her directly to accept your conclusion. Rather draw the conclusion yourself as if it too had been admitted.
21. When your opponent uses an argument that is superficial, refute it by setting forth its superficial character. But it is better to meet the opponent with a counter argument that is just as superficial, and so dispose of him or her. For it is with victory that your are concerned, and not with truth.
22. If your opponent asks you to admit something from which the point in dispute will immediately follow, you must refuse to do so, declaring that it begs the question.
23. Contradiction and contention irritate a person into exaggerating his or her statements. By contradicting your opponent you may drive him or her into extending the statement beyond its natural limit. When you then contradict the exaggerated form of it, you look as though you had refuted the original statement your opponent tries to extend your own statement further than you intended, redefine your statement's limits.
24. This trick consists in stating a false syllogism. Your opponent makes a proposition and by false inference and distortion of his or her ideas you force from the proposition other propositions that are not intended and that appear absurd. It then appears the opponent's proposition gave rise to these inconsistencies, and so appears to be indirectly refuted.
25. If your opponent is making a generalization, find an instance to the contrary. Only one valid contradiction is needed to overthrow the opponent's proposition.
26. A brilliant move is to turn the tables and use your opponent's arguments against him or herself.
27. Should your opponent surprise you by becoming particularly angry at an argument, you must urge it with all the more zeal. Not only will this make the opponent angry, it may be presumed that you put your finger on the weak side of his or her case, and that the opponent is more open to attack on this point than you expected.
28. This trick is chiefly practicable in a dispute if there is an audience who is not an expert on the subject. You make an invalid objection to your opponent who seems to be defeated in the eyes of the audience. This strategy is particularly effective if your objection makes the opponent look ridiculous or if the audience laughs. If the opponent must make a long, complicated explanation to correct you, the audience will not be disposed to listen.
29. If you find that you are being beaten, you can create a diversion that is, you can suddenly begin to talk of something else, as though it had bearing on the matter in dispose. This may be done without presumption if the diversion has some general bearing on the matter.
30. Make an appeal to authority rather than reason. If your opponent respects an authority or an expert, quote that authority to further your case. If needed, quote what the authority said in some other sense or circumstance. Authorities that your opponent fails to understand are those which he or she generally admires the most. You may also, should it be necessary, not only twist your authorities, but actually falsify them, or quote something that you have invented entirely yourself.
31. If you know that you have no reply to an argument that your opponent advances, you may, by a fine stroke of irony, declare yourself to be an incompetent judge.
32. A quick way of getting rid of an opponent's assertion, or throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category.
33. You admit your opponent's premises but deny the conclusion.
34. When you state a question or an argument, and your opponent gives you no direct answer, or evades it with a counter question, or tries to change the subject, it is a sure sign you have touched a weak spot, sometimes without knowing it. You have as it were, reduced the opponent to silence. You must, therefore, urge the point all the more, and not let your opponent evade it, even when you do not know where the weakness that you have hit upon really lies.
35. This trick makes all unnecessary if it works. Instead of working on an opponent's intellect, work on his or her motive. If you succeed in making your opponent's opinion, should it prove true, seem distinctly to his or her own interest, the opponent will drop it like a hot potato.
36. You may also puzzle and bewilder your opponent by mere bombast. If the opponent is weak or does not wish to appear as ife he or she has no idea what you are talking about, you can easily impose upon him or her some argument that sounds very deep or learned, or that sounds indisputable.
37. Should your opponent be in the right but, luckily for you, choose a faulty proof, you can easily refute it and then claim that you have refuted the whole position. This is the way which bad advocates lose a good case. If no accurate proof occurs to the opponent or the bystanders, you have won the day.
38. A last trick is to become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand. In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. This is a very popular trick, because everyone is able to carry it into effect.
(abstracted from the book:Numerical Lists You Never Knew or Once Knew and Probably Forget, by: John Boswell and Dan Starer)
Source: http://www.mnei.nl/schopenhauer/38-stratagems.htm

Here are some of my favorite quotes when dealing with internet trolls.
“Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.” ― George Bernard Shaw.

“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” ― Mark Twain

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

"Arguing with an idiot is like playing chess with a pigeon. It'll just knock over all the pieces, shit on the board, and strut about like it's won anyway."

"Holding a grudge is letting someone live rent-free in your head."

7  Other / Meta / Irony on bitcointalk on: November 07, 2019, 03:04:11 PM
Looking for some posts on bitcointalk that in retrospect are ironic - please post them here.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=211858.0





https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=306878.msg3290091#msg3290091



8  Other / Serious discussion / Is the human race getting more knowledgeable but losing wisdom ? on: July 19, 2019, 01:39:12 AM
Is the sheer amount of information that we are bombarded with actually dumbing us down or making us less decisive?

Everyone has heard the popular sayings:

A wise man never knows all. A fool knows everything.
Don't argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

It is really just a phrase relating to the the Dunning-Kruger effect

The Dunning-Kruger effect is the inability for someone to understand their own incompetence.

As the world is getting more complex in the industrial revolution I wonder whether knowledge is increasing but wisdom is decreasing.

While we understand more of what is happening around us - medical knowledge, technology and science knowledge has all improved.

But it is the application of that knowledge that has me worried.

We are polluting the planet more than ever and our population is ever increasing.

While medical knowledge and skill has increased people are increasingly falling for pseudo scientific quackery and outright scams.

Blockchain technology and crypto have the ability to improve everyones lives.

But the majority of the "noise" on the forum appears to be hype, scams and poor quality ICOs with a lot of users that know very little about the technology they are using and are vulnerable to re-invented old scams.

While "official" crime statistics show no dramatic increase - it is only because people are no longer reporting certain crimes. If I look at my email inboxes I receive numerous daily attempts to scam and weekly scam calls on my phone.

People got away from slavery and serfdom. Yet now the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing again.

People fought for privacy and personal freedom and are now giving it away for free on social media.

Are we as a population becoming less wise while simultaneously being bombarded with more information. ?




9  Other / Meta / [RESOLVED] on: June 22, 2019, 10:07:46 AM
Why is it that if someone receives neutral trust from a DT1 or DT2 in my trust network and the user that got NEUTRAL trust only then gives POSITIVE trust to another user that user shows as having POSITIVE trust to me ?

i.e.


A is in my trust network and gives NEUTRAL trust to B

B now gives POSITIVE trust to C

C trusted  feedback shows as POSITIVE to me.


This could be a real issue for those that give neutrals as a downgrade from a negative.

10  Economy / Scam Accusations / QuadrigaCX rumored to aquire bitconnect. on: March 31, 2019, 10:00:58 PM
QuadrigaCX rumored to aquire bitconnect.

In an industry run largely by hype and FUD industry insiders from reputable ICO promotion platorms have leaked documents that show that QuadrigaCX is positioned to make an agressive takeover on Bitconnect.
It is thought to be funded by its cold wallets, applying a slightly larger haircut to investor funds or a partnership with an annonymous Indian based company.
The leaked whitepaper is here.
The timeline for the aquisition is here.

Source: /www.cnn.com/news/national/QuadrigaCX rumored to aquire bitconnect
11  Economy / Exchanges / Unofficial thread - announcements regarding the Cryptopia security breach. on: February 26, 2019, 04:23:45 AM
On 14 January 2019 Cryptopia suffered a security breach when an undisclosed amount of Crypto was taken.

Information is available but is easily lost in the discussion in other threads.

Since Cryptopia staff doesn't generally post on bitcointalk I've decided to repost their responses from other social media.

This thread is self moderated - it is only for posting announcements that are either from the New Zealand police, Cryptopia management or a reliable verified source

All other discussion or posts will be deleted.

This is not because I want to censor any discussion but purely so the announcements are easy to find and don't get drowned out by opinions.

There are plenty of threads that allow you to express an opinion.


This thread is NOT endorsed by Cryptopia. I do not work there and do not have a role there other than as a volunteer chat moderator.

I understand that some people are upset while others are more philosophical and trust that the exchange management will sort out the mess.


This thread is not for discussion - it is only to provide information to others from verified reliable sources. Media speculation can be posted in other threads about this topic but not here.


https://twitter.com/Cryptopia_NZ


https://twitter.com/Cryptopia_NZ


https://twitter.com/Cryptopia_NZ


https://twitter.com/Cryptopia_NZ





It is confirmed real. It is a generic letter that was sent to people who had contacted the police regarding the Cryptopia investigation.




https://twitter.com/Cryptopia_NZ/status/1089705760274079744





https://twitter.com/Cryptopia_NZ/status/1096158617022201856


Quote
While the NZ Police can state that they have handed our building back to us and that they are placing no constraints on the company resuming trading, there are a number of things that the company must consider first before any trading could recommence.

It is important to consider the timeline of this event: Firstly, the crime/hack/breach was identified on the evening of 14 January 2019. The company staff that identified the event immediately froze the exchange and locked down the platform; they then notified the NZ government authorities, first the NZ Police High Tech Crime Group and second, the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC, a division of the Govt Communications Security Bureau or GCSB), third, the NZ Financial Management Authority.

Members of the NCSC flew from Wellington first thing the next morning at were in the Cryptopia office conducting interviews and gathering evidence by 08:30am NZST. The NZ Police High Tech Crimes Group, also from Wellington were in the Cryptopia office from noon on the same day and issued search and seizure warrants effectively taking control of the building and all of the systems.

In cooperation with NZ Police and NCSC they identified key specialist staff who were tasked with working with the investigators to clone systems to preserve forensic evidence for investigation.

This took 3.5 weeks to complete and our specialist staff have now turned to carrying the work that is necessary to ensure that assets are retained in a secure environment.

While the Police statement that they are no longer constraining our return to operations and trading, it would be extremely reckless for us to do this until we can fully identify the losses and ensure that the balance is absolutely secure. NZ legislation makes it a serious crime for a company or a director of a company to allow that company to trade recklessly thereby placing creditors assets and property at further risk. That work is now underway.

Statement made by Pete Dawson Managing Director of Cryptopia Ltd



Source: Cryptopia discord

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2012/0024/latest/DLM2136633.html

Quote
Issuing officer may issue search warrant
An issuing officer may issue a search warrant, in relation to a place, vehicle, or other thing, on application by a constable if the issuing officer is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds—
(a)
to suspect that an offence specified in the application and punishable by imprisonment has been committed, or is being committed, or will be committed; and
(b)
to believe that the search will find evidential material in respect of the offence in or on the place, vehicle, or other thing specified in the application.


Quote
Duty of persons with knowledge of computer system or other data storage devices or Internet site to assist access
(1)
A person exercising a search power in respect of any data held in a computer system or other data storage device may require a specified person to provide access information and other information or assistance that is reasonable and necessary to allow the person exercising the search power to access that data.
(2)
A specified person may not be required under subsection (1) to give any information tending to incriminate the person.
(3)
Subsection (2) does not prevent a person exercising a search power from requiring a specified person to provide information or providing assistance that is reasonable and necessary to allow the person exercising the search power to access data held in, or accessible from, a computer system or other data storage device that contains or may contain information tending to incriminate the specified person.
(4)
Subsections (2) and (3) are subject to subpart 5 of this Part (which relates to privilege and confidentiality).
(5)
In this section,—
specified person means—
(a)
a user of a computer system or other data storage device or an Internet site who has relevant knowledge of that system, device, or site; or
(b)
a person who provides an Internet service or maintains an Internet site and who holds access information
user, in relation to a computer system or other data storage device or an Internet site, means a person who—
(a)
owns, leases, possesses, or controls the system, device, or site; or
(b)
is entitled, by reason of an account or other arrangement, to access data on an Internet site; or
(c)
is an employee of a person described in paragraph (a) or (b).
12  Economy / Reputation / nixon99 on: February 19, 2019, 01:26:49 AM
While crawling through some old posts I found this:


I would advice everyone to change their passwords on this site asap.
I just lost the above quoted account, nixon99. I'd had for 3 years.  I can no longer login.  The password has been changed and not by me.
Bit of a coincidence don't you think.
Yet the moderators in this thread seem oblivious to his posts and dealings.

So I messaged the nixon98 account and was told that he had contacted his old account and was told that they had bought it.

Some of the PMs exchanged.

When I asked the new owner of the account why it was being used I received this reply.

"Hello! We bought this account from a trusted trader"

Do you still have the message ? Can you forward it to me ?

Can you give me an answer?
Hello! We bought this account from a trusted trader
13  Other / Meta / Discussion about subjective behaviors that may result in a red tag. on: February 03, 2019, 10:35:49 PM
From this thread: Discussion about acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Community values. DT

I'd like to have some discussion about some contentious subjective behaviors that could result in red tagging by some DT members.

Unacceptable behavior that could result in a red tag:

Quote
These items are subjective and require some community discussion.

Extreme harassment *Subjective
Business activity that resulted in the loss of funds by others. *Subjective
Asking for a no collateral loan *Subjective This should only apply if the user has little reputation/is asking for an amount that is way too unreasonable for what reputation they have.
ANN bumping, which is negative to the forum.
Loan defaults (only if unpaid for an unreasonable amount of time)
Colluding *subjective
Leaving fake negative ratings*subjective
14  Economy / Scam Accusations / Hacking accusation: zTheWolfz, Aleks09, Mr Felt, shdvb - discussion needed. on: January 27, 2019, 11:42:17 PM
What happened::

Legendary account erre was hacked and recovered.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3652698

Before recovery large amounts of merit was sent to three accounts.

One of those accounts has feedback from DT2

EDIT: Additional proof was found that Aleks09 , Mr Felt and zTheWolfz are alts of the same person who has been vouching for themselves as an exchanger.

All accounts show strong signs of being hacked or bought. (see proof in the thread)

Profile Link:

Aleks09
Mr Felt
zTheWolfz
shdvb-assistant
shdvb

This DT2 prolfile gave positive feedback to one of the profiles. This user also has hack allegations against it.



https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3061930.msg31532524#msg31532524  shdvb hacked account accusation.


Gave feedback to the "mr felt" account around the time of the hack.

shdvb
shdvb-assistant

I'll change the negative feedback to neutral but something still doesn't seem 100% right about this. The fact that he deals in bitcoin for years yet can't provide a signed message from an address associated with the account is a bit suspicious.

Not I cannot I have explained many times before, those wallets I used are ALL from exchanges. I don't have any private keys to them. Also, change my assistant's negative to neutral, please. Nothing happened to us. No one scammed, nothing.

My Assistant's Account:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1895733


Additional Notes:

In May, my account was hacked (see here for reference).

The process of recovering was extremely long and painful, but thanks to the new  system I was finally able to get my account back a couple of days ago Smiley

A few hours after the hack, i locked my account. The hacker was not able to post anything in my name, but according to this site he was able to send my sMerit to a couple of Russian users (zTheWolfz and Aleks09).

I think additional investigation are needed, because I probably spotted two of my hacker's accounts.

"MrFelts" appears to have received that "trusted feedback" from an account that has a suspected hacking allegation against it.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=318030

I've sent a message to vod who appears to know / trust him.



All three look extremely suspect.







It would be nice to hear their response before deciding to paint them red.


15  Economy / Exchanges / [HACKED] Localbitcoins on: January 26, 2019, 11:01:45 PM
Anyone using locabitcoins be aware that it has had a reported security breach.

Often after a hack there is an increase in phishing attempts trying to take advantage of the chaos. Be careful.


https://bitcoinist.com/localbitcoins-hacked-forum-suspended/

Quote
The popular peer-to-peer (P2P) bitcoin trading platform LocalBitcoins has been accessed by “an unauthorized source,” the platform confirmed, which was caused by a third-party feature vulnerability.

Quote

LocalBitcoins' report on the security vulnerability 26.01.2019
We would like to inform that today 26.01.2019 at approximately 10:00:00 UTC, LocalBitcoins has detected a security vulnerability - an unauthorised source was able to access and send transactions from a number of affected accounts. Outgoing transactions were temporarily disabled while we investigated the case.

We were able to identify the problem, which was related to a feature powered by a third party software, and stop the attack. At the moment, we are determining the correct number of users affected - so far six cases have been confirmed. For security reasons, the forum feature has been disabled until further notice.

Outgoing transactions have already been re-enabled and we have taken a number of measures to address this issue and secure the limited number of accounts that might have been at risk.

Your LocalBitcoins accounts are currently safe to log in and use - we encourage you to enable Two-factor authentication, if you have not yet.

We sincerely apologise for any inconvenience this might have caused.

Kind Regards, LocalBitcoins

https://www.reddit.com/r/localbitcoins/comments/ak1u8m/localbitcoins_report_on_the_security/
16  Other / Meta / Discussion about acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Community values. DT on: January 19, 2019, 02:51:24 AM
I notice there are a few issues that appear to be arising.  Trust farming and political feuds appear to be the main current issues.

Personally I was quite satisfied with the previous system of DTs. There were a number of them that were obliging tagging scammers and from what I saw it was as much a curse as a privilege to be on the list. (Each DT has their own "fan club".

One of the things I think is important is to create a list of community values. Values that deserve negative trust. Values that deserve trust list inclusion. Values that deserve positive trust.

I've included a couple of posts I made that have already covered some of that already  in other threads. (Quoted below)

Unacceptable behavior that will result in a red tag:

Attempted or successful fraud or theft.
Business activity that resulted in the loss of funds by others.
Account sales
Merit sales / swapping
Harassing a DT
Offering escrow without a track record
Asking for a no collateral loan
Shilling / advertising MLM or ponzi
Escrowing for themselves
Late loan repayments / loan defaults.

I'd like to make a comprehensive list of unacceptable behavior and discuss some of the subjective issues. This will provide an indication of community values and direction for people wanting to avoid getting into trouble.



A major goal of this is to allow retaliatory distrusts and ratings to actually have some chance of mattering so that contentious ratings have an actual cost. If someone is obviously scamming, then any retaliatory rating should not last long due to the DT1 "voting", but if you negative-rate someone for generally disliking them, then their retaliation against you may stick. In borderline cases, it should result in something of a political battle.

This is inspired partly by something that David Friedman said once (though I can't find the quote), that one of the requirements for a peaceful society is the credible threat of retaliation in case you are harmed. As DT was organized previously, one or both sides of a dispute was usually unable to effectively retaliate to a rating, at least via the trust system itself. Now your ability to effectively retaliate will tend to increase as you become more established in the community, which should discourage abuse generally. (Or that's the idea, at least.)

All that being said, I still discourage retaliatory ratings, and with these changes I encourage people to try to "bury the hatchet" and de-escalate rather than trying to use any increased retaliatory power you now have. Also, it's best to make your own custom list, and you must do this if you want to be on DT1.

I am never completely tied to anything, but let's try this for at least a few months and see how it works.

I feel that we are all part of Theymos "ant-farm " experiment.

The unfortunate part of the trust system is that it holds political and potential scam power.

For this reason I think it would be good to create a list of values that the majority on the DT list would like to maintain.

It is interesting that while the list was created as a trust list it appears that distrust is more important.

One of the things that I would like to alert people to is the danger of removing some of the old DTs from the list.

For instance when Lauda was removed from the old list there were numerous scammers that suddenly were untagged. This worried me.

Having a charter of what is acceptable and what is unacceptable will bring both discussion and some agreement.

I feel the idea of the new DT system is to have more eyes and ears out there fighting scams.


Before giving RED TRUST to anyone i think DT members obviously investigate properly.but my question is isn't it alarming when we see someone have 1000 merits but got red trust. This kind of profile spoils our forum fame.

Not really. For a start a lot of legendary accounts already have 1000 merit automatically from the merit that was provided to them automatically when the merit system was introduced.  Merit is for post quality and not for trust.

I have merited some users with negative trust because their post was good - sometimes their post was brilliant and very useful.

Trust is based on opinion - so the person placing it feels there is a reason to warn others.

I use a modified trust list to include people I know and trust and exclude people I don't trust.

Negative trust does not necessarily mean that the person is a "written off" in all aspects. This is why it is really important to place a reference link and clear explanation why the rating has been given. (Same applies for positive trust)

Anyone can provide trust or negative trust and people on the DT list is not directly controlled by the forum. They are "independent agents".

Some scams are clearly defined while others are more subjective. For instance - if a business fails due to no illegal activity of the member. Is it a scam because people lost funds - or is it not a scam because no illegal activity was involved ?

Things that can get people negative trust from a DT are:
Attempted or successful fraud or theft.
Business activity that resulted in the loss of funds by others.
Account sales
Merit sales / swapping
Harassing a DT
Offering escrow without a track record
Asking for a no collateral loan
Shilling / advertising MLM or ponzi
Escrowing for themselves
Late loan repayments / loan defaults.
Any other untrustworthy or illegal behavior.

Saying "I don't trust you" is subjective. It doesn't mean there has been a judicial process that has found the person to be guilty of a crime.

Sometimes minor dishonesty is a sign of more less obvious stuff. Like Al Capone who was convicted on tax evasion.

Also just because a person has done something in the past (history is something that we rely on to identify patterns of behavior) it doesn't mean that they will repeat their mistake or haven't reformed.  

Some historical scams and failures have also been very good learning processes for the Crypto community.
Some of it resulted in Terms like:
"To get Goxed" Definition: To suffer from mt. gox’s technical glitches; to get screwed over by mt. gox; to lose all your money in a speculative investment .
"To take a Big Vern holiday" Definition: To disappear like Paul Vernon - the owner and CEO of the now defunct Cryptsy who "vanished" like the exchange funds. (Also referred to as an "exit scam".
"To receive a (Butterfly Labs) BFL upgrade" Definition: To receive something substandard much later than promised.
"To buy a Yesminer" Definition: To pay for something and never receive it.

There was a thread about why scams are not moderated and it has good reasons:

What is a scam and who decides it is a scam ?

Some scams are obvious but others are not. Once you start moderating scams it can quickly become extremely complex.

Some people call bitcoin a scam. Some people call bcash a scam - some people call it bitcoin cash.

Some people call Ripple a scam. Where do you draw the line ?

Cloud-mining contracts ? Short term mining contracts ? HYIP ? Pump and dump groups ? Crypto exchanges ? Tax collectors ?

The trust system - while not perfect - works fine in identifying and warning people of potential issues and scams.

The reality is that people need to educate themselves on how to spot scams, keep their crypto safe, use escrow and do their own research.


If Theymos wanted to, he could come up with a list of things that are and aren't acceptable.  It might not be easy, and it might not please everyone, but he could do it instead of doing nothing.  I mean, that's what laws are--they're written rules describing behavior that isn't acceptable.  Lawmakers don't throw up their hands at the complexity of the legal system and decide to not prohibit certain things as a result.

Once you start censorship it opens up a whole new can of worms.

If you censor some scams but not others it can provide a false sense of security.

Banning copy-pasting is not censoring because they have nothing unique to say.

It is also a matter of "proof" and "liability". Copy-pasting when caught is fairly clear cut.

Once you start censoring scams you are accepting some sort of responsibility for the safety of the users.

The whole bitcoin thing came from the Cypherpunk movement - which tends to have a free speech and libertarian viewpoint on life.

Once you start censoring it very quickly turns into over-reach.

The reality is that most users that get banned probably re-incarnate as another account anyway.

A known & tagged scammer is better than an unknown & untagged scammer.

Lawmakers often over-reach. The powers they give their "henchmen" often affect ordinary citizens. (I'm not only talking of developed democratic countries)

To make something illegal - lawmakers only have to declare it to be illegal. Lawmakers only pursue "crime" if it is in their self interest.


The average CEO salary is more than 531 times that of the average hourly worker.
Politicians get a regular pay rise  -but for other Government workers it is "not affordable".
Some wealthy executives pay less tax than a laborer.
Some drugs with minimal risk are illegal - while other drugs with high risks can be prescribed by your doctor.
Euthanasia, and suicide are illegal in most countries - but the death penalty or "shooting by police" is not illegal in some of those countries.
Some large corporations pay no taxes without breaking the law.
Some legal action can leave an innocent person broke.


Theymos views on trust. I shortened them to what I believe to be the relevant quotes but please click on the links to view the whole context.

The ratings did all end up being removed, which I'm happy with, and I appreciate the willingness to de-escalate and forgive from the people involved in this case. The fact that this issue came up at all indicates that the trust system isn't working perfectly (and I am considering future system changes), but it's still a good outcome.

And the trust system is only going to work if there's some level of forgiveness and de-escalation.

Some people were talking about neg-trusting spammers for spamming. This is not appropriate; report the posts, and if that doesn't seem to be working well, come to Meta with specific examples and suggestions.

Logged-out users will now see a warning in trust-enabled sections if more DT members neg-trust the topic starter than positive-trust him.

This increases the responsibility of DT members not to give negative trust for stupid reasons, but only for things that cause you to believe that the person is a scammer.

You should give these ratings for anything which you think would impact someone's willingness to trade with the person, but you should not use trust ratings to attack a person's opinions or otherwise talk about things which would not be relevant to reasonable prospective traders.

I do not view it as appropriate for trust ratings to relate primarily to non-trust matters. By giving someone negative trust, you're basically attaching a note to all of their posts telling people "warning: do not trade with this person!". If we can get DT working well enough, in the future I'd like to prevent guests from even viewing topics by negative-trust users in trust-enabled sections, so you have to ask yourself whether your negative trust would warrant this sort of significant effect.

In particular, in my view:
 - Giving negative trust for being an annoying poster is inappropriate, since this has nothing to do with their trustworthiness. If they're disrupting discussion or never adding anything, then that's something for moderators to deal with, and you should report their posts and/or complain in Meta about it.
 - Giving negative trust for merit trading and deceptive alt-account use may be appropriate, but you should use a light touch so that people don't feel paranoid.
 - You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.
 - It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them. I'm disappointed in the reaction to this post. Although H8bussesNbicycles is perhaps not particularly trustworthy for other reasons, the reasons many people gave for neg-trusting him are inappropriate. You can argue that what he's advocating is bad on a utilitarian level, but he would disagree, and his advocacy of a certain Trust philosophy doesn't by itself mean that he's an untrustworthy person. DT selection is meant to be affected by user lists, and it is totally legitimate to try to honestly convince other (real) people to use a list more in-line with your views.
 
I'm not going to blacklist people from DT selection due to not following my views, since a big point of this new system is to get me less involved, but if a culture somewhat compatible with my views does not eventually develop, then I will consider this more freeform DT selection to be a failure, and I'll probably get rid of it in favor of enforcing custom trust lists.


We have so many threads like this nowadays, people twerking for merits.

There are a lot of pointless "summarize something obvious" posts, but IMO btcsmlcmnr's summary added something.

Forgiveness and de-escalation are key to getting Trust working smoothly:
 - Forgiveness: Often people make fairly small mistakes, but then they seemingly get red-trusted for life. This isn't really fair, and it discourages participation due to paranoia: if you think that you have a 1% chance of running afoul of some unwritten rule and getting red-trusted for life, you might just avoid the marketplace altogether. Red trust should mostly be based on an evaluation of what the person is likely to do in the future moreso than a punishment/mark-of-shame.
 - De-escalation: If some people end up locked in a feud where they're only really giving negative trust to each other in retaliation for negative trust, then one of them should propose burying the hatchet and removing the negative trust. Otherwise it never gets resolved, and everyone is worse-off for it.

How are the existing ratings converted into the new flags?

They're not. I decided that too many negative ratings aren't flag-worthy, and there's no way to automatically determine it. If you believe that a past negative rating is flag-worthy, you'll need to create a flag.
17  Other / Meta / Ban and deletion message - better communication will increase efficiency on: January 04, 2019, 01:26:57 PM
I know this topic has been discussed before and part of this post includes my suggestion on another thread.

A lot of times people are confused about why they are banned or had a message deleted. It would be good if the offending post  and the reason from the reporter was included in the ban or deletion message.

It will reduce recidivism due to ignorance.

Alternatively a tickbox system could be used where the moderator has found the post.

Here is my previous suggestion - this could be further simplified to make the moderators job streamlined.



I think with any deletion it would be really good to include the reason for the deletion. It could be as simple as including the text of the initial report or a tickbox system so it is clear why the person is banned or post was deleted. It will prevent recurrence of rule breaking by those that don't intent to break the rules.

Link to rules.

Permaban:
☐ Plagiarism / copy and paste without attribution
☐ Persistent Spam
☐ Ban evasion
☐ Exploiting forum code
☐ Banned multiple times previously - ignored warnings
☐ Other - comment ..............

Deletion / Short term ban
☐ Advertising / Spam not related to thread
☐ Off topic
☑ Low quality post
☐ Too many bumps, "updates" per 24 hours
☐ Trolling   
☐ Threatening behavior
☐ Begging
☐ Un-deleted old bump
☐ Referral link
☐ Link to illegal site
☐ NSFW images / No NSFW warning
☐ Duplicate posts
☐ Foreign language on English board
☐ Altcoin giveaway (not in bounty thread)
☐ Incorrect message board
☐ Multiple sales threads for same items
☐ Sale of illegal goods
☐ Consecutive posts in the same thread (by same account or alt accounts)
☐ Link shortner that requires viewing of advertisement
☐ Translation created by automated translation tool
☐ Other - comment ..............
18  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Bitcoin stolen. Electrum exploit / phishing on: December 28, 2018, 08:28:02 AM
Initially reported on Reddit it is now mainstream news:

https://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/news/hackers-steal-250-btc-from-electrum-bitcoin-wallets/

Quote
Hackers Steal 250 BTC from Electrum Bitcoin Wallets
When ‎the user opens his wallet app, he will be redirected ‎to download a fake update created by scammers.

The official Electrum Github confirms the exploit / phishing attack.

The user appears to connect via the genuine wallet and is prompted to upload a fake "update". As part of the "update" they are prompted to enter their 2FA code. This is then used by the attackers to empty their electrum wallet.

Updates do not require a user to enter their 2FA


https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/4968

Quote
There is an ongoing attack against users where servers raise exceptions when a client broadcasts a transaction; in this case the error text is displayed as is in the client GUI. The attacker has spawned lots of servers on different /16 IPv4s to increase his chances of being connected to. The error messages are trying to get the user to download and install malware (disguised as updated versions of electrum



Quote
There wasn't really any extra information given, however most likely the following happened:

user was using legitimate electrum client
connected to an electrum server operated by the attacker
user tried to broadcast a txn
server replied with an error containing the above rich text message



19  Other / Ivory Tower / Is amusement causing the downfall of society ? on: December 07, 2018, 09:32:57 PM
Quote
“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism.

Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumble puppy.

As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists, who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny, “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.”

In 1984, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that our desire will ruin us.”

― Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7942005-what-orwell-feared-were-those-who-would-ban-books-what



People are so pre-occupied with social media )or anti-social media). Is society losing interest in privacy, social causes and constructive work ?

Are people as engaged with social causes beyond being "offended", "enraged" and acting on that by "re-posting" on social media ?

Are we so bombarded with irrelevant information that it drowns out the important things ?



20  Economy / Scam Accusations / Unusual activity Datarius Credit (DTRC) on Exrates - is it a scam ? on: November 28, 2018, 04:22:11 AM
This failed ICO http://datarius.io/ Datarius CRYPTOBANK has plummeted since launch to a fraction of its launched value.

Total raised
$1,662,752.00 USD now valued at $69,095 USD


Is a coinmarketcap error ? Is Exrates faking volume or is it a pump scam ?

$1,526,211 USD 24 hour trading volume on a $69,095 USD market cap coin.

https://exrates.me/dashboard







https://www.reddit.com/r/SmartlandsPlatform/comments/9cwwbf/price_manipulation_on_exratesme/









EDIT:

More accusations that Exrates is faking volume:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxGzGrq5-T8
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!