*lol* Sounds like you have a lot ot time... now changing your story back. But still you don't want to provide proof for either of your claims.

How can it be a useless pm? You never had a deal where you needed info from past pm? And this deal was not at a successfull end. Do you send to quoted escrow addresses too?

amartin99



Well he says you in fact sent me the pm and him a pm. So you received both, pm and bitcoins. Then you changed settings and claimed I sent to the wrong address. At the end you have the coins and the pm and you would look like the victim.

It is a possible scenario though even then, the pm-account would belong to a hacker and it would be important to know that account to either connect it to past scams or prevent future ones.

He might be right, maybe you are the scammer and no hack happened. It should be possible to be proven by mods. Well not really, since you could have logged in with a vpn and other measures to look like another person logged in.

So yes, it might be you are the scammer and he is the victim. As well as your account being hacked and the hacker waited for a trade to happen so that he can scam both of you. Though I wonder if a hacker would sit and wait, watching until a trade comes in.

Anyway, it is pretty strange that he has so many claims but is not interested to work with us in any way. Might be that he is only a lazy... person... who prefers to insult everyone who does not do the way he wants it to. And he really was scammed. But him not wanting to help in any way looks more like another thing.

---

Quickseller, mexxer-2, lutpin



Well, I don't know. Quickseller, mexxer-2, lutpin... what is your opinion. Should I remove the red trust because in doubt removing?

Indianacoin



What signed message? You realize that most persons don't have a staked address? Then I would have to get one address at the start of the trade only for the case that the account might be compromised and the hacker did not change the pass.

You know, I can offer that but I'm pretty sure either no one will do it or it will be a huge amount of time just to teach most of them that they learn how to sign messages, what a private key is, where to get it. I already had this alot. It is a mess to explain.

Well, if you really mean we now have to distrust every account that way then man, I would not like doing escrow anymore. It costs so much time already and pays practically nothing. Many big escrows already left because of the time needed and no reward.

I wonder if you ever tried to explain someone how to sign a message.

---

Ralobot.com



So you claim he scammed you but you don't want to provide proof you can provide and you deleted other proof of your claims too. Man, you are tiring. Everything you says makes no sense at all.

Anyway, my trust doesn't matter. You have enough red trust for the other case where you let some scammer use your pm-account. Surely you await that the other ratings are removed because you say you didn't do it, right? No proof needed because you say so and you don't have time because... fuck you.

---

amartin99


Anything you want to say about these claims you being the scammer?

So the hacker, as amartin99, sent you a pm in private, without including me. And you sent it to that address without the escrow being notified of such change?

Besides, you not even providing a screenshot means you help to hide the hacker. Since you claimed you sent pm you can show it and we would know the hacker's pm account.

At the moment you are only bitching around. Trying to get your negrep gone without any attempt to prove your claim. Still you want to take part in the forum for trades but you don't care when it comes to providing proof for your innocence or helping to stop scammers/hackers. Instead you go around like crazy naming everyone as stupid and other things and demand everyone has to do what you want... only you don't want to do anything.

It doesn't matter if there is proof that you deleted your pm's. Why should you? They were important and you deleted important pm for an ongoing trade.

I'm not sure why you don't care to prove your innocence. And it really does not make sense to me that you delete all old messages. You claim you even deleted a pm from an ongoing trade. That sounds plain stupid.

Argumenting to not wanting to try to provide proof is a bit strange. You should be interested in clearing your account from that trust. Though you might think it's not worth it because of the previous red trust.

Besides... how can you write that you don't care what your partner is doing on your pc? It directly effects you and your trust.

Surely it will take time to photoshop such image. But that's not the time I asked for. Only the time to make a screenshot and post it.

Well, you were quick to answer all the time and were pushing the buyer to do the trade. It looked alot like you initiated the traded knowing that you can scam him.

Please post a screenshot of the payment you did to the hackers account and post the content of the pm you received from the hacker.

Edit: By the way... it sounds strange that the hacker only blocked me from sending pm to amartin99. He would have done the same with you so you can't contact him.

Well, this is great. Ralobot contacted me and told me that he received a message from amartin99 that he should pay to another pm address. And he was wondering about the neg trust.

Never thought of the possibility that the hacker might be a third person.

Anyway... I directed him to this thread.

---

You guys are right about signatures. Way way too many people, that sometimes are years on bitcointalk, know how signed messages work. And everytime I had to explain it was a very time consuming thing.

Besides, normally you need to trust that if you receive a message from the exact same account the deal was done with that this is the actual user. If this falls then practically everything has to be signed. It would become a real mess.

I can suggest it but I really doubt that many want to use it. Not to speak about that I would have to send around a couple of PM's first.

Well, screenshot of payment... that is something that could be done but honestly... how easy would it be to make a fake screenshot, photoshopping the numbers of an incoming transaction and the receiving address? How should I check that the scammer did not create it?

Even when I would send a question pm to ask back if I really should release? The scammer might simply change the pass and agree. Before the buyer realizes and thought his deal might be in danger the transaction might be already gone.

Maybe I should ask other escrows if they might know a way that you could efficiently protect against such thing happening.

---

amartin99



You don't need to drop your account. Even when he neg reps you... it does not matter at all for you. He is not on default trust and he can negrep all he wants... it would not change your trust rating.

But I think he would not put any work into this anymore. He got what he wanted and will let that account die. Going over to the next scam...

Well, unfortunately bitcointalk is a real sharkpool of scammers. We only can try to make it harder for them. With escrows or something. But some things can't really be avoided it seems.

Well then everyone using bitcoin somehow would need to get a lot of trust.

But the trust system is a point of much many discussions on bitcointalk. I only wanted to warn you that you can get in trouble if you try to buy trust or similar. People doing so already received red trust.

Just check out the forum to find out how things work.

I don't know exactly what the numbers mean, there was a thread about it, but green trust is always good, red trust is always bad. Besides that you can only get these trust from people on default trust, which makes it seldom to get. All people not on default trust would give you untrusted feedback, which you can see when you click on the link in the peoples trust ratings.

You should not try getting actively trust. It could be seen as buying trust or something. The trustsystem is for when someone made a deal with you. Though mostly you will only get green trust from people not on default trust because people on default trust are cautious who they say are trustworthy. They need to.

When I escrow I can't give green trust for that since I did not risk anything. Well, the last part might be up for discussion when checking the thread I post this in.

Merging my posts into one...

amartin99



With encrypted pass I meant that bitcointalk.org uses an ssl-certificat. You can see that on the url. It has https instead http. Then the browser automatically encrypts the pass and other data when it is sending a, for example, login form to bitcointalk. This way nobody on the way can sniff our the password. Only the forums server can decrypt it again.


I doubt something that would cost the forum (SMS confirmation) or other major changes will be implemented since theymos works on the new forum since some years already.

Guess your password should have benn a unique one then. The hacker must have gotten into your account some time ago before he tried to establish the trade I think.

---

mexxer2



ralobot never reacted on my pm. At the end nobody else is involved. The only other solution would be that amartin99 faked it and the receiving address is actually his own. So that he maybe received the pm. Though that again would have meant amartin99 would have been able to send the receiving address to me through ralobots account. Which doesn't sound likely and ralobot already would have had complained.

---

xetsr



Well, guess I have to think about warning trading partners about red trust of the other trading partner. Though I think normally that should be checked by the trading partner when trying to establish a trade.

Or can it be that you did not know what the red numbers meant, amartin99?

---

Quickseller



If ralobot would be the scammed one then it would mean he received either the coins from me or his account was hacked and the pm where he sent me the releasing btc address was sent from the hacker. Which would have been amartin99 then since the pm's contain the quoted texts that no one other has.

And ralobot never complained at all anyway.

Well, one thing you should consider is not using the same password on different sites. That already lead to many damages.

Instead better use a password manager like keepass 2. You only need one really strong password you remember and don't user elsewhere. All other passwords can be get from that database and there is a plugin for firefox to fill out password information automatically.

Otherwise I would do a malware scan. But I wonder if he really compromised your pc or got your pass elsewhere and your pc is free.

Did you create the pass with a strange site?

I reported all three pm's after checking that the User-ID of the buyer is the same in all PM's.

And I negrepped the scammer, which must be the seller then: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=561660

I already was wondering why the seller was a bit aggressive in wanting that deal to happen. Like "you wasted our time, sebastianju might negrep you" or so. It sounded scammy and since the trade already was done I asked the buyer if he wants to trade anyway. He wanted so the deal went through after I mentioned that the buyer only should proceed when he is aware of chargeback possibilities of PM. Well, it might be that PM is not chargebackable since the buyer wrote me so so I told him that I can't tell for sure and that he should inform himself and only proceed when he is aware that my protection ability only can go as far as the actual deal, it ends after I release the bitcoin.

Well, so far the deal was normal as buyer and seller were unique persons negotiating a deal. The real buyer sent the money and the hacker sent a fake email from buyers account.

I wonder how it happened that the account was compromised and it is a first for me that a hacker shares the account with a bitcointalk member. But thinking about how he wanted to deal I assume that he already had hacked the account at that time. Maybe he approached him because of that.

---

amartin99


Yes, the transaction is confirmed since some time already. :/ Though probably it would have gone through anyway.

I really would like to know how your account was compromised. The password of the forum should be sent encrypted with ssl, so even an VPN should not be able to read it. Must be more near your pc since it should not be the BCT-Server. Otherwise bigger victims would have been chosen.

---

Quickseller


The scammer wrote:

I did not read all messages in this thread to be able to answer fast. amartin99 first asked me about a trade some days ago. I answered a bit late and he wrote that he already dealt with another user. Well in the meanwhile I already had sent out the escrow details and after hearing that I cleared the address.

Then the other trading partner got back and wanted the deal to happen. I asked amartin99 if he still wants to deal and he said yes. After negotiating the deal I sent a new escrow address. Though he sent to the old escrow address. I said it's fine, no problem should appear from that.

After a while I received a pm from him claiming that the trading partner had sent him the goods and that I should release the coins. After that I received a pm of the trading partner telling me his bitcoin address to release to.

Well, I released the coins of course since both parties were ok with it.

Now I received a pm of amartin99 that he got a pm from me that I released the coins even though he had not received anything. Well, first scare went over when I checked my inbox and found that exactly the same user amartin99 had send me the pm telling me to release the coins. I answered on his complain pm and found that only the trading partner received this answer because the forum told me that amartin99 has blocked me for receiving pm's from  me.

This sounds like a strange situation. I will read the thread now.

Of course admins and staff can check my pm's.

Take it like you want. Ripple started with wanting to be decentralized at some point. LN will be from the start. But that is not the point. The point is using another system than your beloved bitcoin.

It simply will not work out the way the devs think. And forcing them by showing them how "notworking" bitcoin is will turn against them. People would cry out louder to fix the network and it doesn't matter what we think, they would accept the bitcoin solution fixing it. (No, I don't want to discuss that we can push "Bitcoin" around in LN.)


I'm a coder myself with years of experience though I don't like coding in C and similar languages. I studied but stopped when I worked what I would have worked after studying anyway.

And it is no question of going around claiming that they are right only because they have a master in informatics or something. Facts can be stated and surely they stated all facts that support their position. Still, what was given is mostly guesswork, no facts. It can't be guessed perfectly fine what will happen in 5 years with blocksize raisings. There still will be technical development and hardware advancing.

And trying to fix a network by telling the users to stop using it and using another network is something that never worked. Bitcoiners will be bitcoiners and want to stay as bitcoiners.


So another guesswork for the future. And yes, LN contains the risk of being like a bank at one point. When the bitcoin fees will be so high that no normal user can use it reasonable then what will happen? People will be told to stop buying bitcoins at all and buy and trade them directly and only on the lightning network. Who will use bitcoin then? Those that offer these services and those that still can pay the bitcoin fees. Which will be big companies and exchanges, which are some kind of bank. Well... not exactly the freedom satoshi had in mind.


As long as you only ignore and don't ban me, maybe that would be better. I'm tired of you pushing around the same accusations over and over by mostly pointing out proofs, to support your view, that are guesswork. Or finding a tiny bit of unrelated thing to try to go against my words... even though that thing does not really have anything to do with what I wrote.

Interesting read. Did not know all the points...


The only have done so in the past because it was the default setting in the client. I believe it was at 750kB. Even with spam attacks there were often blocks with that size so the soft limit kicked in because those miners were not aware of that setting. That limit was set higher on default later, I believe, and the miners were informed to raise it.

But they did not set it down themselfes. Maybe some did but it was not the big mass.


Well I hope you are not one of the persons that live in a black and white world. I had tiring discussions on political topics with people like that and everyone who saw things a little bit different than they... were on the black side.

There is still the option to not use Segwit and use, or wait to use, a client that supports bigger blocks.

This is simply no black and white question.

I sent him an email now. I don't know if he can say anything. As far as I know the lawsuit is still going on and I think such things can be drawn to years. He really fears damaging the case or losing it by speaking about anything. Well, surely shareholders would not be happy with that outcome too.

I surely would not want to be in his skin in this situation. It sounds pretty troubling and stressing.

You sound like you tried and failed with trading. You know that it takes ALOT of trading experience to actually do it successfull?

I know people that trade constantly successfull. They have losing trades though over time constantly profit.

I have to agree. I think it's pretty rare that someone, especially on bitcointalk, goes to such lenghts to fix the errors he did.

And it looks like he has ideas that turn out well at the end... if he can stop bad habits until realization.

I hate closed threads. Especially when I want to answer and I can't anymore. Even worse when the last answer to me let it look like I was completely wrong and I can't explain why Iam right. It's like being forbidden to speak.