Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2019, 09:54:33 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  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 68 69 ... 185 »
361  Other / Archival / Re: Enjincoin ICO team behaving suspiciously like a scam ICO operation on: August 09, 2017, 02:33:23 PM
Quote from: Bitcoin Forum
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Quote
...Since the majority of tokens are being distributed to create gameplay incentives, this doesn't dilute the crowdsale token pool very much.

That is an utter math fail. A pre-mine is a 'tax' by another name on the entire public distribution from day 1, whether you intend to distribute them slowly or otherwise. In this case (66% publicly sold and 34% retained by you) it is a 50% deduction in value, in real terms, to whatever the market price of the publicly sold coins is, regardless.

I am bringing this to your attention because it is extremely pertinent for investors to note the reality concerning the ICO price of this token and it is something which will definitely impact any market price expectations going forward. You would be wise to reconsider the size of this pre-mine if you want to have any hope of interest from experienced investors. Otherwise you risk attracting uninformed speculators who see the hype and not the numbers, and they rarely possess the means to offer significant funding for these ICOs. Well, not for long, anyway.

362  Other / Archival / Re: Enjincoin ICO team behaving suspiciously like a scam ICO operation on: August 09, 2017, 02:32:35 PM
Quote from: Bitcoin Forum
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Quote
16% Partnerships:
This portion of tokens will be used to promote Enjin Coin directly to gamers and game developers over the next few years.
For each of these four stages, we'll need to use some of the partnership tokens as incentives.
We're also going to distribute small amounts of coins to 30,000 existing gaming communities (the most active ones on the Enjin network).
18% Team/Advisors:
That is a huge chunk of money you are going to be diluting the pot with. You want people to buy 66% of the coin supply with ETH and then you are effectively in control of the other 34% which, as they are being sold on the market, rob those 66% coin-holders of value. So they are not just buying at the ICO price, they are buying at the ICO price and then facing a 50% 'tax' being applied to their market share value as those remaining 34% of coins are distributed and ultimately sold for ETH.

Who came up with those figures and thought they'd be an acceptable structure for an ICO-funded project?

World-class devs and staff don't come cheap and if we were to hire 6 additional developers and other supporting staff we're looking at an increased spend of $1m+ USD per year in salaries alone, not to mention a lot of additional costs involved.
You are running the crowdsale with the intent of reaching a minimum of 60,000 ETH, yes? That equates to about USD$12,000,000.00 at today's prices. Why is that insufficient for your project's spending needs to the degree that you also want to distribute another USD$3,000,000.00 dollars-worth (16% Partnerships) of coins from the pre-mine to pay for other aspects of the project which are not apparently covered by the initial ICO amount collected.

Would it not be fairer to use ICO funds to purchase coins from the post-ICO market for paying for these third-party 'community' distributions? That would at least mitigate the persistent down-pressure on the market from value dilution.

18% Team/Advisors:
This includes our core team and advisors... Each team member should have a personal stake in our success.
Indeed, they should, which is why it is *really* important to ensure the people you are listing as team-members are legitimate. Which leads me to the other issue of trying to establish the who's who of the Enjin team.

You listed Lilia Pritchard as somebody who 'works in the background', yet she is supposed to be a social media and marketing expert who happens to have no presence on the web, at all. Why is this and how can we be sure she is who you say she?

The same goes for these two people:
Quote
and
Quote

Neither of whom I can find any details for outside of your infographic. Please provide links to show these three exist somewhere on the web as actual people, as opposed to us having to simply take your words for it.

I am not being unreasonable in these requests and Vanbex, the excellent and highly professional marketing firm you are looking to pay with your ICO funds, will know exactly why I am asking these questions of you and will most definitely agree with the need to ensure that you and your project are exactly who and what you say you are.

If you doubt me, ask them.
363  Other / Archival / Re: Enjincoin ICO team behaving suspiciously like a scam ICO operation on: August 09, 2017, 02:32:14 PM
Also, you list this young lady:
Quote
Lilia Pritchard, as a team member and marketing and social media expert, yes?

Trouble is, whenever I do a search for her with the term 'enjin' I don't get any results other than your ICO page and a website listing a 'Lilia Pritchard' as an English language teacher.
Quote


Actually, even when I do a simple search on "Lilia Pritchard" I'm only getting 62 results, none of them leading anywhere useful.

Where would I find examples of Ms Pritchard's social media chops?

364  Other / Archival / delete [RESOLVED] on: August 09, 2017, 02:31:52 PM
[EDIT]

Issues raised were resolved and scam accusation thread archived and flagged for deletion.



365  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Tokens (Altcoins) / Re: ㉫ ENJIN COIN [ICO] Ultimate Gaming Currency + Virtual Goods Platform on: August 04, 2017, 10:39:38 AM
Alexa shows the ranking of our homepage compared to all other websites on the internet but this isn't a reliable indicator as the www.enjin.com domain only gets a small amount of traffic compared to the Enjin network as a whole.

So what explains the sudden drop-of from April onwards for the Enjin.com domain?

366  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Tokens (Altcoins) / Re: ㉫ ENJIN COIN [ICO] Ultimate Smart Gaming Currency. Instant Adoption. on: August 01, 2017, 09:53:42 AM
Quote
I meant did you have any links external to your own site that show these people as who you claim them to be? You're asking for many millions in investment from the public and yet three of your team slated for a share of the pre-mine are not easily found as actual people on the web. Given their stated roles and experience I would have expected to be able to find them quite easily somewhere on social media. I am asking that you provide a little more to substantiate your claims regarding who your team are.

Their entire work history is plain to see for everyone.

So that's a no then? I don't doubt that you have three forum accounts which have been providing support for your users for several years. I am just concerned that you cannot provide a link showing their existence as people outside of your community. Lilia, for instance, is claimed to be a 'social media and marketing expert' with years of experience, yes? In this day and age it is almost unheard of for such a person to not be found on major social media platforms.

Understand this simple fact - there have been ICO's conducted in the past whereby those running it listed multiple 'team members' who turned out to be either entirely fabricated, or were not who they were being portrayed as. It is unacceptable to be seeking millions of dollars in investment funding for your project and for there to be a question mark over exactly who 'everyone here' at Enjin actually is.

So, I ask you again, please provide links, other than your own virtual community, which show who these people are in RL.

367  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Tokens (Altcoins) / Re: ㉫ ENJIN COIN [ICO] Ultimate Smart Gaming Currency. Instant Adoption. on: July 31, 2017, 03:08:21 PM

Lilia, Chris and Brad are incredibly instrumental to Enjin and we’ve been working together for many years.

Please view their Enjin profiles and post history as follows:
I meant did you have any links external to your own site that show these people as who you claim them to be? You're asking for many millions in investment from the public and yet three of your team slated for a share of the pre-mine are not easily found as actual people on the web. Given their stated roles and experience I would have expected to be able to find them quite easily somewhere on social media. I am asking that you provide a little more to substantiate your claims regarding who your team are.

we don't intend to drop tokens on the market. We're happy to time-lock the release of the partnership tokens over 18-24 months with as we intend to release them very slowly, to promote adoption of ENJ over many years.
That isn't the point. You are still structuring your ICO in such a way that investors are facing a 50% 'tax' on their investment as a result of the 34% pre-mine being retained by you. Citing that other ICO's have done worse is not a rebuttal. You're still requiring that the investor pay both for the project to be funded directly as well as accept said 'tax' in order to pay both for the team 'bonuses' (which isn't unreasonable, per se), AND for making payments to collaborators and communities. Why are you not simply budgeting for the collaborators/community costs through the main token sale funds?

Regarding the 18% Team/Advisors portion of the coins, we have a lot of people working on Enjin Coin, and 18% gives everyone here a fair stake in the project.
Either you have people who form your team, in which case they need to be listed in order for the public to know where that 18% allocation is to go - in that you're not requiring they simply trust your word that it'll be disbursed to legitimate team members only, or you have other people, those who 'collaborate' and are part of the community, who are supposed to be being paid from the other part of the pre-mine, as mentioned above. You can't just say that 18% is going to go to 'everyone here' and not actually define what and who is meant by that.

Also, with regards to the holding of these many millions, are you intending on having the ICO funds and pre-mine tokens held in trusted third-party escrow, for release as and when required or as milestones are reached? It would add a much-needed layer of oversight to the process.

368  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Tokens (Altcoins) / Re: ㉫ ENJIN COIN [ICO] Ultimate Smart Gaming Currency. Instant Adoption. on: July 27, 2017, 02:32:03 PM
I have some questions:
Quote


You're conducting an ICO in order to earn funds for the project, yet are withholding 34% of the total coin supply as a form of 'pre-mine', why is this?

Your infographic states it is 18% for the team and 16% for bounties etc. (Although I do note your somewhat dishonest use of the assertion that 66% are to be "distributed to the Public Contributors", when you really mean 'sold to the public'). So if the team and other expenses are to be paid by this 'pre-mine', what are the ICO funds you collect to be used for?

369  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: [SCAM][UNSOLVED] BTC-E.COM REFUSING TO UNLOCK MY ACCOUNT (thousands of dollars) on: July 27, 2017, 10:53:28 AM
so there are still chances that btc-e comes back if they comply.

I don't see why they would come back.

Unless, perhaps, we're going to witness the usual 'we wuz haxxored so we're not allowing withdrawals right now' excuse, followed by attempts to convince people to make deposits under the guise of various promises to 'prioritise' their withdrawal requests etc. Given they are supposed to have many millions in bitcoin on their books, I don't see how they'd be bothered to go through that effort just to skim a few more from the desperate and gullible.

No, I think this is pretty much the end of the exchange and the best anyone can hope for is that they might be able to, eventually, file a claim to whichever legal authority has control of seized funds.

370  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: [SCAM][UNSOLVED] BTC-E.COM REFUSING TO UNLOCK MY ACCOUNT (thousands of dollars) on: July 25, 2017, 07:23:38 AM
"To complete verification of your account, please provide us with a notarized copy of a source of funds declaration equal to your deposit amount.

FFS, they are reaching now. This basically means they are asking you to provide a notarised copy of an undefined 'declaration' (Bank statement?) which supposedly shows where the original fiat funds came from before they were used to buy bitcoin. It appears they actually want to see the transaction details of the original deposit amount they were sent.

Yet another prime example of how there is clearly a concerted effort at BTC-E to deny people access to their funds under the guise of onerous, and largely arbitrary, AML and KYC rules which are not being applied correctly or evenly.

As has been mentioned already, it is entirely possible that this procedure whereby they keep requesting more and more details and ID documentation from their customers, is both a way to deny access to those locked out of their accounts and accumulate a lot of valuable Identity data.

These people are not Kraken, they do not have a public presence anywhere outside of electronic company registers and virtual offices. There is every reason to suspect nefarious intent with regards to the collection of so much information from customers they likely have little intention of making whole.

371  Economy / Securities / Re: Neo & Bee talk (spam free thread) on: June 22, 2017, 06:48:48 AM
He claims that expensive cars was one the fews ways people were able to move money into the country because they held value well. As far as I can tell people actually did do that. He claims that is what he was doing. He wasn't selling the bitcoin invested in Cyprus, obviously, and it was not possible to just transfer cash in.

Whether you believe him or not, it does seem to be a legitimate reason.

The fuck? Utter bullshit.

The limit on funds transfers shortly following the 2013 incident which saw the banks close for several days did not apply IN ANY WAY to incoming payments and, even in the case of outgoing transfers, if the money had originated from outside of Cyprus in the first place then the limits did not apply.

In any event, by the time he'd conducted his bitcoin IPO for Neo & Bee in September of 2013, six months after the banking crisis, the financial transaction system was largely back to normal.

Even his claims towards justifying purchasing these luxury cars as a supposed means for NEO & BEE to hold assets of value is bullshit, too, given how their sale proceeds weren't used to pay N&B's debts.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/23lt4p/neo_bee_the_full_picture/
Quote
2014
18th March: Brewster tells a member of the management team "we have 5,000 BTC left".

As from March 18th, Brewster, an active user of social media with daily presence for months, goes completely silent and absent from Reddit, Bitcointalk, Facebook and Twitter.

19th March: The next day Brewster shocks the management team by telling them that the 5,000 BTC have…..overnight become only 140! "Actually I thought we had 5,000, but I have checked the wallet and the coins are not there, I spent them somewhere but I don't remember on what.......we have only 140 coins left. I am going to the UK to find investors. I will send you the 140 coins left and also sell my Mercedes and Bentley and will send you the money to pay the March salaries and the creditors".

20th March: Brewster goes to N&B offices for 1 hour. Management team tells Brewster that they want him to step down from CEO. Brewster agrees to step down after transferring control of the company to “investors”, without these investors being identified.

21st March: Brewster goes to N&B offices for 1 hour and then disappears and remains out of contact with anybody from the management team.

21st - 27th March: The Mercedes is reported sold but the funds from the sale and the 140 N&B coins "travel" together with Brewster to the UK, instead of being sent to the management to cover salaries and creditors as promised. The Bentley is reported to be in a car dealership in Nicosia with changed plates, it is unknown whether it has been sold as well with proceeds being taken by Brewster, or whether it is up for sale.

372  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: [SCAM][UNSOLVED] BTC-E.COM REFUSING TO UNLOCK MY ACCOUNT (thousands of dollars) on: June 20, 2017, 06:20:46 AM
After 15 days, I have officially verified my account on https://xbtce.com as per BTC-e request. I'm waiting for a reply on their part now.

Good luck, perhaps this site really is a genuine attempt by BTC-E to address this account recovery problem after all.

If things go well and this matter is properly resolved I'll remove my negative rating for them.

373  Economy / Securities / Re: Neo & Bee talk (spam free thread) on: June 19, 2017, 07:55:00 AM
The answer seems to be: (paraphrasing) "I thought I had way (like thousands of coins more) money in another wallet that I had actually already spent". 

Was that before or after he bought himself the Bentley?

374  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: [SCAM][UNSOLVED] BTC-E.COM REFUSING TO UNLOCK MY ACCOUNT (thousands of dollars) on: June 06, 2017, 06:35:20 AM
Update: they are now requesting as per their "Terms of Service" for me to register on www.xbtce.com and validate my account there. I have absolutely no ideia as to why they want me to go through the exact same process on a different platform, but I'll just play along.

Where did you find that website address and instruction for you to register there?

Given that you're handing over ID documentation and more, you should make sure it isn't a phishing scam.

375  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] 【Crypto DAO】*NEW !! Casino Share*Trade Platform*Exchanger*Crypto Loan on: June 02, 2017, 04:06:46 PM
cryptodevil, what are the differences in registration between CryptoDAO.com, btc-e.com, LiveCoin.net, YObit.net, EXMO.com and many others exchanges registered off-shore?

What point are you trying to make with that question? All anonymous exchanges are sketchy as fuck and should be avoided.

I am trying to say, that in accordance with your principles you must give your negative trust to all other exchanges registered off-shore.
Please, go ahead...

Well, firstly, I don't have to do anything of the sort. If my focus is on exposing the dishonesty of this operation it does not require me to then expose that of all the other anonymous operations. Unless you're willing to provide me with the evidence I would need to do so, in which case I would be happy to negatively rate any platform for which evidence exists of their untrustworthy behaviour.

Secondly, however, if you'd actually bothered to check you'd see I have already tagged BTC-E a number of times.

376  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] 【Crypto DAO】*NEW !! Casino Share*Trade Platform*Exchanger*Crypto Loan on: June 01, 2017, 11:49:46 AM
cryptodevil, what are the differences in registration between CryptoDAO.com, btc-e.com, LiveCoin.net, YObit.net, EXMO.com and many others exchanges registered off-shore?

What point are you trying to make with that question? All anonymous exchanges are sketchy as fuck and should be avoided.

377  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] 【Crypto DAO】*NEW !! Casino Share*Trade Platform*Exchanger*Crypto Loan on: June 01, 2017, 08:34:52 AM
Soon we will be register our company in another country.
So is Mr Peter Smith going to be the name you give as the Director and Shareholder for that incorporation, too?
CEO & FOUNDER: Peter Smith

Because his Linkedin profile seems to lack any evidence that he is a real person.
Quote


378  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Service Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: Scrypt.CC | Scrypt Cloud Mining on: May 31, 2017, 01:38:43 PM
It is possible that Marcello is dead and the people left just shut it down an took everything.   We got scammed but it isn't really clear what happened. 

Jesus Henry Fucking Christ, are you out of your mind or perhaps you are 'Marcello' and are just desperately hoping the authorities don't catch up with you.

It is very clear what happened, mathematics proved that Scrypt.cc did not have the hash power they were selling to people.

This was absolutely proven to be a scam and your repeated defence of it even now is highly suspect. Your negative trust rating from back then is still correct now:
Quote
Continues to defend ScryptCC scam as partially legitimate. Continues to offer "fractional mining" defenses and continues to obfuscate factual discussions about this Ponzi. Refuses to acknowledge mathematical proof that ScryptCC isn't mining without any facts to back up this claim. See reference.
379  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] 【Crypto DAO】*NEW !! Casino Share*Trade Platform*Exchanger*Crypto Loan on: May 31, 2017, 12:28:09 PM
Comodo CA provide various types of SSL certificates. Some of there SSL certificate issued by only domain validation.
But there EV SSL issued by doing Company Validation it means they cross check the company details and also do phone verification.
What, pray tell, does such a process actually look like in reality? Does it look like a valid route towards verifying that your company and its officers are legitimate or, as is usually the case with these things, is it a system which can be easily manipulated to give you what you want without you giving it what it wants?

Let's start by looking at your domain registration details:
Quote


I've highlighted two important points there, firstly, that is the 'registered office' address for the company, as well as the given 'correspondence address' for 'Mr Peter Smith', the 'CryptoDAO Limited' sole director and shareholder.
Quote


Trouble is, there are a lot of other companies registered to that address, too. In fact it is quite obviously an address being used by a corporate service provider, whose nominee director is a 'Stefano Rossini':
Quote



So, we know you're using a company formation agent to provide your registered office/correspondence address. But the lack of other appointments for 'Mr Peter Smith' suggest that you didn't opt for a nominee because you'd still need to provide your details for the 'persons with significant control' section, as a nominee shareholder issues a Declaration of Trust document to the actual beneficial owner of the share and it is the B.O. who is legally recognised as having significant control over the company even when nominee directors and shareholders are used.

Still with me? I do hope so because I will now explain how you have played the system in order to fool your users into believing you have been validated and legitimised by it.

But, before I do, I'll just mention the relevance of the second item I highlighted in your domain reg info:
Quote

That phone number is not a UK phone network number, it is a VOIP line.

On to the EV SSL Certificate 'validation' of your company or, rather, how you gamed the system to get your EV SSL Certificate:
https://www.instantssl.com/ssl-certificate-products/ssl/ssl-ev-validation.html
Quote from: The EV SSL Certificate Validation Process

The EV SSL Certificate vetting process will validate the requestor's domain control and verify the requesting entity's legal existence and identity. The EV SSL validation process is the most extensive and rigorous in the Industry. This process ensures that the green trust indicator will only be awarded to trustworthy and non-fraudulent websites.

Unlike other validation processes in the SSL industry, a certification authority issuing EV SSL Certificate cannot rely on any kind of self-reported data (such as address and phone numbers) during the validation process. This means that all data provided by a company hoping to obtain an EV SSL Certificate will be checked against reliable third-party sources.

Before an EV SSL certificate can be issued, three important steps need to be performed by the EV SSL Certificate vendor. The steps are:

    Confirm the existence of the Company through 3rd party sources
    Verify that the request has been made on behalf of the company
    Obtain mutual confirmation of the request between the Certificate Authority and the requesting party


Typically this is a contract that will be sent at the end of the validation process to the requesting party. The contract must be signed by an authorized person.

For all three steps listed above, special guidelines outline in detail what background checks should be performed by all Certificate Authorities issuing EV SSL Certificates.

Domain name

A customer wishing to obtain an EV SSL Certificate must own and control the domain name that will utilize the EV SSL Certificate. A Certificate Authority will check website registration records (Whois database) or may ask the customer to make a change to the website under the domain name.

Individual's authorization

The Certification Authority must verify that the individual requesting the certificate is acting as a legitimate agent for the requesting company.

One way that a Certificate Authority may verify this data is by contacting the requesting company's human resource department.

The Certificate Authority will also verify the identity of the contract signer (in most cases this will be a C level management person). Usually this is verified with written documentation.

Legal existence and identity

A Certificate Authority will check to make sure that the business is legally recognized and that the formal name matches the official Government records. In cases where a trading name is used, the Certificate Authority must verify any alternative names that differ from the legal name of the customer in qualified databases.

Physical existence

The Certification Authority is required to cross-check the address listed in the certificate application against a qualified government database. If the listed address cannot be verified by consulting the government database, an on-site visit may be necessary to investigate the discrepancy. Investigators may need to take photos of business operations or speak with company personal.

Telephone number

The Certificate Authority will confirm that the telephone number listed on the certificate application is the primary telephone number for the requesting organization. This is accomplished by calling the number directly or by checking phone directory listings.

The bold components, utilising your anonymous structure, are gamed as follows:
Domain name - Yep, you have a domain name.
Individual's authorization - Yes, you have 'an individual' you have authorised (well, you have a name)
Legal existence and identity - Yes, you paid roughly twenty quid to get a UK company incorporated, so it definitely exists on the register.
Physical existence - Yes, the address you gave does actually exist. For your company and many many others registered to the same place.
Telephone number - You gave a VOIP number because that way you can receive calls to your 'Mr Peter Smith' who, no doubt, dutifully verifies that you are so totally legit, right?

So, in actuality, none of the process which you claim verifies the legitimacy of your operation actually proves anything about you, other than proving that you have taken the trouble to game the system without releasing any of your identity information, in order to lie to your users about the significance of an EV SSL Cert being issued in your twenty-quid UK incorp's name.

Now about Director,

Director name is Authenticated by CompaniesHouse, UK.
Click to verify
I see your 'Electronic Web Filing' link which supposedly 'proves' the legitimacy of 'Mr Peter Smith', and raise you another 'Electronic Web Filing' link which explains what that actually means.
https://ewf.companieshouse.gov.uk/help/en/stdwf/faqHelp.html

You either gave the incorporation agent the name to register as Director and Shareholder, which means the agent 'authenticated' the name 'Mr Peter Smith' (which simply means he confirms it to have been legitimately filed, not that it authenticates the identity of the person named), or you could have had your own authentication code sent to the 'registered office' (which is actually that of a formation agent) and they send it to you for you to 'authenticate' the details yourself.

As for your Dun & Bradstreet 'DUNS' number, well that is just self-selected registration again so it doesn't legitimise you either.

Absolutely none of what you claim proves your operation is legitimate actually does anything of the sort. In fact, given the lengths you have gone to in order to game the system as you have, it pretty much proves just how untrustworthy you are and how nobody should be sending their cryptocurrency to your exchange.


380  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] 【Crypto DAO】*NEW !! Casino Share*Trade Platform*Exchanger*Crypto Loan on: May 31, 2017, 09:18:56 AM
Any exchanger/market should shown their identity for legitimate proof

This is absolute bullshit. Please tell me how many people have returned their funds from the legitimized Mt.Gox and Cryptsy?
Why they gone with my coins and can't return them, but anonymous btc-e.com could and continue to work?!
Stop thinking with the stupid templates...

So because there were identifiable people behind Mt.Gox and Cryptsy, and they ultimately went on to scam, then there is no justification for calling for centralised exchange operators to be run by identifiable people?

Mark Karpeles and Paul Vernon are being dealt with by the legal system, so these are ongoing cases which both offer investors a chance of recovering some of their lost funds. Fully anonymous exchanges where the operators cannot be identified yet they control their users' funds are absolutely not legitimate exchange platforms and should be hounded out of this industry before they have a chance to establish themselves and fool newbies into believing they are legit.

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 68 69 ... 185 »
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!