The thing that happened with the digger was even worse. He pushed the price constantly, lowering his profits on the way even further by pushing others to go out.

On the other side, maybe selling such a huge amount of clams would have been too hard? Don't know if so big buyers are out there.

Sorry for zombificating this thread but I think there are valid reasons allow a message in the profile page at least. I mean it is already possible to ask in the meta thread about why an account was banned. So a users is not completely speechless. He could ask to contact someone there too when he has taken loans or so.

So for the banned user it would not be a problem being banned. The problem is that account sales are allowed and accounts are taken as collateral often too. With collaterals it would not be a problem when trading without escrow but for normal trades without escrow the user would send the bitcoins first. The buyer would get a worthless account and that's it.

And I doubt the risk of being imporsonated is much higher then. There is a warning in every pm about newbies and even when an account is not banned it would be possible to impersonate practically the same way. Someone getting suspicious would not deal with such a person anyway so informing the real account owner would not serve much purpose.

I tried to compile a list of checks for users that want to trade an account without escrow or don't find an escrow for it. In order to lower the amount of scams. The info about a banned account would be a very important one and I was astonished to find out that I only could see if an account was banned because i logged in as an escrow to secure it. Normal buyers would not be able to.

Sounds a bit like the hotwallet runs dry. When I remember that mostly happened on exchanges when they got hacked and people could only withdraw the coins that others deposited in the meantime. Well, I might be paranoid with exchanges by now. Though it served me well in the past. there is no risk good enough to take it.

Hm, that's unfortunate since the list of tips was meant for users where I don't want to take over the escrow. So that they might be able to help themselves. Not that accounts are mostly known but everyone buying an account without having checked it himself or letting some other person check it would risk a lot.


Hm, I will read that thread and see what it is about. Thanks for finding it for me.

I doubt that since random users would not check out other users accounts to read if they are banned. And instead banned users most of the time nag moderators with question threads in meta anyway. So I doubt that is the reason.

You know how to give me a great laugh. Though i think you did not mean that too serious anyway. It looks way too impossible anyway.

I always was wondering who gets on default trust 1. Probably only persons theymos knows personally? It's a lot of trust involved so it might be theymos is wary of adding more people because of the risk for his trust or so.

Edit: Only see now you mention being added on default trust so congrats.

*lol* Not bad... I did not check mine since I have many users on my personal trust list, so I lost focus on my trust that is showing up normally.

I asked myself if pm'ing users that can put one on default trust is a good idea, asking to be put on default trust 2, though I think that would not be appropriate nor really needed.

Edit: Meant level 2.

I think I now know what error in thinking I had. I watched the whole hashrate on the losing chain. Though that doesn't matter to the individual miner since his time to find a block is the same as it was before. The whole chain will find less blocks only.

So in theory as long as there are enough users supporting that chains bitcoin then the reward should stay the same. Though I think uncertainty will lead to a big drop in price on both chains. People will cash out and watch what is happening out there. Though that risk applies to both chains then. Maybe a bit less to the winning chain because... it looks like being the winner.

But i think i see now what you meant.

Sorry, no movement as of now. The issuer did react though no security was created yet. I hope to hear more on monday from the shareholder who speaks with him.

I assure you that I do what I think has to be done. I don't want to say much more now.

Regarding the collection and verification of shareholders, we still have three shareholders who filled the form but did NOT verify their email. Those shareholders own 397, 14 and 6 shares. Please verify when you read that.

No new claims happened in the last days and since we only confirmed a minority of the shareholders i guess most gave up on cannabit totally or even gave up on bitcoin and left.

It is not a problem since we have confirmed nearly 94% of all confirmable shares.

What we wait for is that the issuer gets in contact with the shareholder and they set the thing up. Then spread divs.

We are still behind this and I will stay behind this.

This case is really puzzling. If the biggest shareholders really were paid out than the bitcoin communities biggest heads would look pretty disgusting. Though I can't imagine that not a single soul of those would have the character and at least post something anonymously. I'm very sure if someone was paid out then we would hear about something like that.

Or am I thinking too good of the community? Hope not.

There is no police case? I thought some pages ago something like that was mentioned, probably hearsay then.

Anyway, another possibility would be that the biggest victim are simply working behind the lines, joined forces and try to hunt him down. They would not state anything to not get the investigation at risk.

But like I said... really puzzling.

So he moved from canada to london and is actually employed... well, another police that is in charge. Maybe another chance in another countries laws.

Maybe he though he is safe by moving. Really matching the amateurish scam that happened.

He has so much to lose now. Being found in england, checking out his companies boss, finding his facebook and so on there, checking out relatives and friends.

Man... how could he think that this will end well for him.

And i still don't get why no other victims show up. It seems he did a lot of scams already. Why not clean up this community from scammy rubbish? I think they don't grow back like hydra heads. Maybe it would make the community a step safer?

I think what he complaints about is that he was pushed to post the doxx publicly, which at the end did not serve much effect since he gave the doxx to the victims before already.

I know from experience that having a way to push an issuer or something is worth a lot. People fearing to lose their anonymity is a great push worth for scammers to pay back most of the time.

If you give that away without a real purpose or effect, remember the victims already had the doxx, then you lose alot of power.

Or... the mediator gets reputation, then establishes alot of selling trades as being a seller with another account, then delays everything a bit and at the end he, as the mediator and he as the buyer... releases the bitcoin to his scammy address.

No, as long as I do not miss a point the same thing like with master-P could have happened there.

I admit I did not check bitrated out so I might miss something.

It's possible that it is correct. I only think most scammers would have been smart enough to fake this. Should have been not so hard since I can imagine many ways, some are used by carders too to receive their stolen goods without revealing their identity.

Might very well be that he paid some back just to lower the amount of risk of being sued. And because he knows no one will track him down. So at least some info would have been correct.

If he really scammed knowing their real address was out there then this was a pretty stupid scam. Maybe he was badly in need of money though when he has time to play counterstrike all day then this need surely would have the wrong reason.

Unfortunately that's true. Rarely miner deals. Mostly accounts, digital goods and sometimes consumer goods.

Generally i have the impression that trading is less then before. Instead practically worthless objects are traded in masses.

I think you are right on the last paragraph. But why do you say that a tx needs to be confirmed on both blockchains when traders deceided on one chain?

I think the safest way would be to make payment on both chains the standard. Obviously many will not want to do that so traders might to negotiate sometimes what coin to take.

Well, a tip on the wrong chain would be unfortunate for sure. Though it is completely open yet if a trading of some kind will be allowed on exchanges... one chain against the other. Well, if not that, some members will specialize on exchanging such things anyway in the service section.

I found that the btc-fiat price is pretty losely following the indicator rules that work on forex. When on forex then some of the indicators follow the rules pretty good, probably because more traders know these indicators and will follow them. Though on bitcoin... i don't really know... it is way more random.

Probably because of the much lower volume.

Sure they should be allowed. In fact those complaining complain only because the worth of their own clams are dropped and they can't sell it anymore now for the higher price... for the moment. So it really is not worth a complaint, when one would have no intention of selling at one point in time, which no one can say of itself, then it wouldn't matter what the price is. So these complaints are only saying someone other dropped my potential selling price.

Well, now it is a buying price.

Though i think for a seller it would be smarter to do a public auction or something. There are enough people who would buy and most probably this person would receive way more than he would by dumping a big amount of clams on an exchange.

Hm, that's unfortunate for account buyers which makes buying banned accounts a pretty safe thing since most probably bans will not be mentioned by mods and only show up as info when the account holder complains about it.

I was posting a list of checks someone can do to not get scammed by buying accounts or taking accounts as collateral. I simply see that way too many buyers or loaner does not even know what to check at all. Most missed thing is already the valid signature.

So I only was able to see if an account is banned because I was able to log into that account for securing it? I'm pretty sure I saw such info somewhere in the profile or trust page. I doubt I'm completely wrong on that. Or am I?

I think there is no reason to hide the fact that an account is banned. They get banned for a reason and this reason mostly is of concern for the community. It might make sense to make it public knowledge. I wonder why password changes are shown, probably to track sales, but bans are not shown to public.