Bitcoin Forum
October 23, 2018, 08:53:59 AM *
News: Make sure you are not using versions of Bitcoin Core other than 0.17.0 [Torrent], 0.16.3, 0.15.2, or 0.14.3. More info.
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 »
421  Economy / Reputation / Re: marlboroza - about the red trust - Nel.network fake team on: September 14, 2018, 08:35:26 PM
snip

I wrote a topic regarding this on bounty board; Bounty Hunters ! Must read before join any bounty campaign. But unfortunately not much people interested to read it. No one want decent work. Everyone just need money, hunters are more greedy from managers. But eventually hunters and investors are getting scam due to irresponsible managers.
422  Economy / Reputation / Re: marlboroza - about the red trust - Nel.network fake team on: September 14, 2018, 06:02:55 PM
I respectfully disagree with people who say managers shouldn't go and check for fake teams and stuff like that. A campaign manager's only job isn't just to count posts and reward participants for their work. While this maybe a tedious task, they should at least take certain precautions(mentioned by suchmoon),it should take a couple of hours. Or if you want hire a Private Investigator sort of a person to take care of it.

Yes, that's the point I always try to highlight. But the problem is most of managers just think their work is only manage the campaign. They never care they have more responsibly. On the other hand I noticed most of managers are Jr. Member. I am not sure how experience they are. I don't think they are able to investigate an ICO or just avoid it. Still I can't see managers not much encourage to investigate or search about project before start the work.
423  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Scam - GENKI Token- fake team - Plagiarized whitepaper. on: September 14, 2018, 11:28:33 AM
Their airdrop thread has been trashed. And OP got temp ban. Thanks to moderator.

Trashed thread and temp banned the OP, thanks for the heads up.
424  Economy / Reputation / Re: To Bounty Managers - How I do my due diligence for ICOs on: September 14, 2018, 10:42:21 AM
It's look good to me at least you accept that there is few responsibility of managers. Whatever you describe here it will not take more than hour to check. But by spending hour can safe hunters and investors. As I always say that we can't do anything if they exit with fund. But we can check before start any campaign that there is something wrong or not. If there is something wrong or any suspicious activity it will be better to leave.

One of things that can be done is *verify* that the claimed 'pictures' are actually individuals that are behind the project. This can be done via a video. You, however, can't verify their identities.
Strongly agree. You described what is on my mind. This is most important to check there are real team or not. Fake team is on of strong indicate of scam.
425  Economy / Services / Re: [OPEN] ⚡BQT Signature Campaign | Member - Hero | 0.0007 BTC /Post ⚡ on: September 14, 2018, 10:24:55 AM
Got payment. Thanks. Reapply for next week.
The devs have asked me to make this rule change. Instead of being able to do a maximum of 30 posts a week, the limit has been increased to 35 posts. Any posts that exceed this limit won't be paid for.

Well, you can update on OP.

There is any bonus offer who made maximum post overs whole signature campaign?  Wink
426  Economy / Scam Accusations / Should we stop expose scam ? And how working trust system. on: September 13, 2018, 10:04:56 PM
This is an open discussion no one should take it personally.

Since I am beginner & learner, few question around on my mind. It's not my complain or not I am blaming someone. Especially two subject I combine on this thread instade of post multiple thread.

Should we stop expose scam ICO?
Few people's are exposing scam ICO lately. I am not saying that all the accusation is 100% accurate. As we know when we report a post we can see;
Quote
one accurate report is worth many inaccurate reports.
I would like to consider this sentence for scam accusation also. What we see from began, most of exposed scam are exit with fund. However scam isn't moderated by forum and we can't blame to forum as well. We just exposed the reality, whoever want to invest we can't stop them. We just make a report about activity of ICO and post it on Scam Accusation  board. We can't judge it, unfortunately no DT also handling this kind of case lately. I know it's much difficult to judge, but it doesn't mean we should leave forum free for scammers. Usually we tagged OP ourself once we found suspicious activity or fake ICO, in fact most of ANN and bounty managed by ICO team. Sometimes we mention DT to tagged those almost obvious or possible scam, because our tagged will not reflect on their profile and forum members will not aware about their scam activity. But unfortunately we getting very low response from DT. Sometimes they tag them but very rarely. By the way they might be busy or it's depend of their own judgment they will tag or not. We can't blame also them in that case.
Question is, sometimes we found few ICO posted by higher ranked account that we called managers or whatever. For clarity, in that case we should leave him/her negetive feedback if they don't want to lock thread ? And what about  if a manager post multiple fake/ scam ICO. what should we do ?

Personally l am not much encourage to tag a higher ranked account in that case for first time. So I ask managers to lock their thread and also sometimes we get positive respons from them. Problem is if multiple accusation against a manager than what should we do ? We should leave him/her free to make more scam ICO post?

So why it's necessary exposed a scam. Should we stop expose ? Although someone no tagged but it's helping people who visiting accusation board.

I expect appropriate answers from reputed member's. We just don't want to increase our enemy and negetive feedback.

Edit: Personally I believe for become this forum most popular there is a huge role of hunters and ICO's. So I think we should care about it.


Trust System:
To be honest, I noticed lot of positive rating (green trust ) is for succesful trading, like bought some token or coin. I can't see much green trust for forum activity. Is this really need to give positive rating for successful trade ? Can't be use neutral feedback ? Why there is neutral feedback option? Shouldn't use it ? Sometimes green trust made confuse. May be someone will trust him/her blindly without check trust comment. Although green trust isn't mean a person couldn't scam but it has a value.

However please don't take it personally and I don't have aguemnt if someone not agree with me. I just want to acquire knowledge. Because recently I saw different reaction from different reputed member's. You can see here.

Sorry for broken English.
427  Economy / Reputation / Re: marlboroza - about the red trust - Nel.network fake team on: September 13, 2018, 08:03:01 PM
We really need to stop giving out 'positive trust', which is obviously seen as something *prestige* (unfortunately), as references to successful trades. Positive trust from DT for e.g. 0.01-2 BTC trades is ridiculous at best, naive and stupid at worst[1].

Strongly agree with it. I have seen lot of positive rating only for trade. I don't think it's necesarry. But leave a neutral feedback for such as trade appriceated.
428  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: ⚠ List of SCAM ICO! [PROVED] on: September 13, 2018, 05:41:00 PM
What is role of BitcoinTalk forum administrative team in scam accusations being made about all ICO's

No role from forum. Scam isn't moderated by forum. It should be moderate by trust system ( imo ). You can post here if you found any scam ICO or bounty thread. DT will handle it hopefully.
429  Economy / Reputation / Re: marlboroza - about the red trust - Nel.network fake team on: September 13, 2018, 01:33:58 PM
And how do you define minimum responsibility? Using google search for the picture or reverse image matching doesn't count as 'minimum responsibility'.More than the managers it's responsibility of the participants to do all that knowing managers will get paid anyway but if the project turns out to be a scam, it's the bounty whores who'd suffer.

How you expect payment for participant if ICO team or ICO itself if fake from began? Will you join any bounty if you know the team is fake & plagiarized whitpaper , steal content from others website. Is it trustable, even no one can say exactly they will scam. Will you like to buy this token or will you like to join bounty? Thats I mean minimum responsibility. We can't check their physical location but we can check on web about their face. We can't realized they will scam but we can check their website content whitepaper they did steal or not. I expect you got my point it will take max. 1 hours but it can minimized scam. Whatever I exposed fake team most of them skip with fund. So how can we believe them ?

I am not blaming only managers, I have a thread about it. Please read it : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5018435.msg45272968#msg45272968
430  Economy / Reputation / Re: marlboroza - about the red trust - Nel.network fake team on: September 13, 2018, 01:14:27 PM
That is not his responsibility.
So who is responsible?
To be honest I can't agree with this sentence. You don't think a managers should have minimum responsibility? I am agree if it's exit scam. No one can stop exit scammers , not important team how potential. But before start any project should search minimum. At least use Google search for picture. Just forget about marlboroza and woshib case. I am not against OP or not just blindly supporting marlboroza. I am also not much interested to tagged any managers for first mistake especially higher ranked. I don't know OP previous case. However tell me honestly, you never think about your hunters ? You never care about them? Who are trust you blindly and joined your campaign? If a project become scam is it good reputation for a managers ? So how can skip a managers that he has no any responsibility. I noticed you had tagged also new OP of bounty. That's called responsibility.

someone should counter it.

Simply you can do it. Still you are in DT 2.

431  Economy / Reputation / Re: marlboroza - about the red trust - Nel.network fake team on: September 13, 2018, 07:17:52 AM
Was there no ANN thread/official team account?

There is , ANN thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5006712.0 ( locked )

Bounty thread : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027551.0 ( running )
Both is by team.

Quote
You shouldn't receive red trust for something like this
Perhaps this is his second mistake.

I am not sure why OP opened this thread. Accusation against you was valid, for your info others people opened scam accusation against you, not by marlboroza. From your statement marlboroza excused you before.  This time people's make sound against you. Others managers also got tagged for similar case. That's why also you got tagged accordingly. Perhaps he can removed if you work decently on future ( IMO).
432  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: [Motivational post] Don't be disappointed, still you can upgrade your rank. on: September 13, 2018, 07:05:35 AM
Up for new comers
433  Economy / Scam Accusations / Scam - Acommax ICO - Fake team & ponzi scheme on: September 13, 2018, 06:48:47 AM
ICO Name: acommax
Website : https://www.acommax.com
Archived ( Archived by someones on 09 sep 2018.)
ANN thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4935971.0
Archived: http://archive.is/b3KS2
ICO status: Up comming.
Valid reason if accusation: Fake team & High ROI.

They used team from stock image. Their high return plan is a ponzi scheme.

 

They edit picture on victor file.


Photo source from : Shutterstock

Domain information
Code:
Domain Age: 49 Days
Last Refreshed: Just now
Website Speed: Very Fast
Website Value: $242.05
Owner: WhoisGuard Protected

Tagged scammer. Waiting for DT reply.
434  Economy / Scam Accusations / Scam - GENKI Token- fake team - Plagiarized whitepaper. on: September 13, 2018, 05:28:02 AM
Website : https://www.thegenki.com
Archived: http://archive.is/ssi5u
Airdrop thread : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027171.0
Archived: http://archive.is/vhy3d
ICO live on: https://www.thegenki.com/ico
Archived: http://archive.is/r7Ox2

Reason of Accusation: Fake team & whitepaper plagiarism.

They used cartoon for picture with fake LinkedIn profile those are only 5 connection . That means just newly create LinkedIn profile.


Plagiarized whitepaper: They direct copy whitpaper content from well known website quora.  

 

Copy paste from: https://www.quora.com/Is-going-to-the-gym-good


Only 7 page whitpaper with no details information. I believe there is more plagiarism content. Right now I am on mobile just found it now. Whatever copy paste it's consider plagiarism. They steal others content without permission.

Although I am not experience coding but look like to me there is something wrong. They just copy paste others coding and never change details except Name , symbol and supply. I know open source code can copy anuyone but nothing change means developer of smart contract not professional.
Let's check  smart contract code

Code:
pragma solidity ^0.4.23;



/**
 * @title SafeMath
 * @dev Math operations with safety checks that throw on error
 * Project : Genki (GENKI)
 * Decimals : 8
 * TotalSupply : 100000000000
 *
 *
 *
 *
 */
library SafeMath {

    /**
    * @dev Multiplies two numbers, throws on overflow.
    */
    function mul(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256 c) {
        if (a == 0) {
            return 0;
        }
        c = a * b;
        assert(c / a == b);
        return c;
    }

    /**
    * @dev Integer division of two numbers, truncating the quotient.
    */
    function div(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
        // assert(b > 0); // Solidity automatically throws when dividing by 0
        // uint256 c = a / b;
        // assert(a == b * c + a % b); // There is no case in which this doesn't hold
        return a / b;
    }

    /**
    * @dev Subtracts two numbers, throws on overflow (i.e. if subtrahend is greater than minuend).
    */
    function sub(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
        assert(b <= a);
        return a - b;
    }

    /**
    * @dev Adds two numbers, throws on overflow.
    */
    function add(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256 c) {
        c = a + b;
        assert(c >= a);
        return c;
    }
}

contract ForeignToken {
    function balanceOf(address _owner) constant public returns (uint256);
    function transfer(address _to, uint256 _value) public returns (bool);
}

contract ERC20Basic {
    uint256 public totalSupply;
    function balanceOf(address who) public constant returns (uint256);
    function transfer(address to, uint256 value) public returns (bool);
    event Transfer(address indexed from, address indexed to, uint256 value);
}

contract ERC20 is ERC20Basic {
    function allowance(address owner, address spender) public constant returns (uint256);
    function transferFrom(address from, address to, uint256 value) public returns (bool);
    function approve(address spender, uint256 value) public returns (bool);
    event Approval(address indexed owner, address indexed spender, uint256 value);
}

contract GenkiProjectToken is ERC20 {
    
    using SafeMath for uint256;
    address owner = msg.sender;

    mapping (address => uint256) balances;
    mapping (address => mapping (address => uint256)) allowed;    

    string public constant name = "Genki";
    string public constant symbol = "GENKI";
    uint public constant decimals = 8;
    
    uint256 public totalSupply = 100000000000e8;
    uint256 public totalDistributed =  10000000000e8;    
    uint256 public constant MIN_CONTRIBUTION = 1 ether / 1000;
    uint256 public tokensPerEth = 20000000e8;

    event Transfer(address indexed _from, address indexed _to, uint256 _value);
    event Approval(address indexed _owner, address indexed _spender, uint256 _value);
    
    event Distr(address indexed to, uint256 amount);
    event DistrFinished();

    event Airdrop(address indexed _owner, uint _amount, uint _balance);

    event TokensPerEthUpdated(uint _tokensPerEth);
    
    event Burn(address indexed burner, uint256 value);

    bool public distributionFinished = false;
    
    modifier canDistr() {
        require(!distributionFinished);
        _;
    }
    
    modifier onlyOwner() {
        require(msg.sender == owner);
        _;
    }
    
    
    function GenkiProjectToken () public {
        owner = msg.sender;    
        distr(owner, totalDistributed);
    }
    
    function transferOwnership(address newOwner) onlyOwner public {
        if (newOwner != address(0)) {
            owner = newOwner;
        }
    }
    

    function finishDistribution() onlyOwner canDistr public returns (bool) {
        distributionFinished = true;
        emit DistrFinished();
        return true;
    }
    
    function distr(address _to, uint256 _amount) canDistr private returns (bool) {
        totalDistributed = totalDistributed.add(_amount);        
        balances[_to] = balances[_to].add(_amount);
        emit Distr(_to, _amount);
        emit Transfer(address(0), _to, _amount);

        return true;
    }

    function doAirdrop(address _participant, uint _amount) internal {

        require( _amount > 0 );      

        require( totalDistributed < totalSupply );
        
        balances[_participant] = balances[_participant].add(_amount);
        totalDistributed = totalDistributed.add(_amount);

        if (totalDistributed >= totalSupply) {
            distributionFinished = true;
        }

        // log
        emit Airdrop(_participant, _amount, balances[_participant]);
        emit Transfer(address(0), _participant, _amount);
    }

    function adminClaimAirdrop(address _participant, uint _amount) public onlyOwner {        
        doAirdrop(_participant, _amount);
    }

    function adminClaimAirdropMultiple(address[] _addresses, uint _amount) public onlyOwner {        
        for (uint i = 0; i < _addresses.length; i++) doAirdrop(_addresses[i], _amount);
    }

    function updateTokensPerEth(uint _tokensPerEth) public onlyOwner {        
        tokensPerEth = _tokensPerEth;
        emit TokensPerEthUpdated(_tokensPerEth);
    }
          
    function () external payable {
        getTokens();
     }
    
    function getTokens() payable canDistr  public {
        uint256 tokens = 0;

        // minimum contribution
        require( msg.value >= MIN_CONTRIBUTION );

        require( msg.value > 0 );

        // get baseline number of tokens
        tokens = tokensPerEth.mul(msg.value) / 1 ether;        
        address investor = msg.sender;
        
        if (tokens > 0) {
            distr(investor, tokens);
        }

        if (totalDistributed >= totalSupply) {
            distributionFinished = true;
        }
    }

    function balanceOf(address _owner) constant public returns (uint256) {
        return balances[_owner];
    }

    // mitigates the ERC20 short address attack
    modifier onlyPayloadSize(uint size) {
        assert(msg.data.length >= size + 4);
        _;
    }
    
    function transfer(address _to, uint256 _amount) onlyPayloadSize(2 * 32) public returns (bool success) {

        require(_to != address(0));
        require(_amount <= balances[msg.sender]);
        
        balances[msg.sender] = balances[msg.sender].sub(_amount);
        balances[_to] = balances[_to].add(_amount);
        emit Transfer(msg.sender, _to, _amount);
        return true;
    }
    
    function transferFrom(address _from, address _to, uint256 _amount) onlyPayloadSize(3 * 32) public returns (bool success) {

        require(_to != address(0));
        require(_amount <= balances[_from]);
        require(_amount <= allowed[_from][msg.sender]);
        
        balances[_from] = balances[_from].sub(_amount);
        allowed[_from][msg.sender] = allowed[_from][msg.sender].sub(_amount);
        balances[_to] = balances[_to].add(_amount);
        emit Transfer(_from, _to, _amount);
        return true;
    }
    
    function approve(address _spender, uint256 _value) public returns (bool success) {
        // mitigates the ERC20 spend/approval race condition
        if (_value != 0 && allowed[msg.sender][_spender] != 0) { return false; }
        allowed[msg.sender][_spender] = _value;
        emit Approval(msg.sender, _spender, _value);
        return true;
    }
    
    function allowance(address _owner, address _spender) constant public returns (uint256) {
        return allowed[_owner][_spender];
    }
    
    function getTokenBalance(address tokenAddress, address who) constant public returns (uint){
        ForeignToken t = ForeignToken(tokenAddress);
        uint bal = t.balanceOf(who);
        return bal;
    }
    
    function withdraw() onlyOwner public {
        address myAddress = this;
        uint256 etherBalance = myAddress.balance;
        owner.transfer(etherBalance);
    }
    
    function burn(uint256 _value) onlyOwner public {
        require(_value <= balances[msg.sender]);
        // no need to require value <= totalSupply, since that would imply the
        // sender's balance is greater than the totalSupply, which *should* be an assertion failure

        address burner = msg.sender;
        balances[burner] = balances[burner].sub(_value);
        totalSupply = totalSupply.sub(_value);
        totalDistributed = totalDistributed.sub(_value);
        emit Burn(burner, _value);
    }
    
    function withdrawForeignTokens(address _tokenContract) onlyOwner public returns (bool) {
        ForeignToken token = ForeignToken(_tokenContract);
        uint256 amount = token.balanceOf(address(this));
        return token.transfer(owner, amount);
    }
}

Perhaps they copied from ForeignTokens but they never change it. I am not sure about coding case. Developers can confirm it.



Domain information
:
Code:
Website: thegenki.com
Title: Genki Project
Domain Age: 45 Days
Last Refreshed: Just now
Website Speed: Slow
Website Value: $141.58
Organisation: Statutory Masking Enabled
Owner: Statutory Masking Enabled
Owner Address: Statutory Masking Enabled
Owner City: Statutory Masking Enabled
Owner Postcode: Statutory Masking Enabled
Phone Number: Statutory Masking Enabled
435  Economy / Reputation / Re: Boldman Capital badly bumping Airdrop thread by newbie account. on: September 12, 2018, 07:17:55 PM
Thread already moved on trash by the way  Grin
436  Other / Meta / Re: how to open an account that was banned 7 days on: September 12, 2018, 07:08:08 PM
My account was banned 7 days, now it's more than 7 days but my account is still banned, what should I do? Can anyone help? Huh

You should add your banned profile link on original post. If I am not wrong this is your profile link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1037938 . By the way , if got banned for 7 days, should be remove ban since over 7 days. Only moderators can answer you. Just wait..
437  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Nel.network - SCAM - Fake Team on: September 12, 2018, 06:55:45 PM
After some discussions with Lucas from Nel.network, I decided to stop the campaign: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5011826.0

They will apparently continue here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027551.0

Thanks for your initial reaction. As well they are running bounty by themselves , we should tagged them by the way. Tagged by me , need DT action. Stealing other people's identity isn't good practise.
438  Economy / Reputation / Boldman Capital badly bumping Airdrop thread by newbie account. on: September 12, 2018, 05:22:01 PM
   
[BOUNTY] Boldman Capital - Airdrop to everyone!
Airdrop thread bumping badly by newbie account. Perhaps they are using paid service.

Also I was opened thread on scam accusation about their team long time ago. Although I report so many reply include thread but there is too much spam. I think thread should moved on trash.
439  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: [SCAM ALERT] Boldman Capital anonymous team. Be careful !!!!! on: September 12, 2018, 05:13:08 PM
Be careful from their Airdrop https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027475.msg45586620#msg45586620 
They are using bumping service.
440  Other / Meta / Re: In which forum can one post a competition thread? on: September 12, 2018, 04:52:27 PM
I think, the Bounties (Altcoins) would be more appropriate for that.

Yes, since OP mention Token that means  competition thread should post on Bounties (Altcoins) board. Because contest if for Alts coin.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!