|
They are mostly or maybe even exclusively DT2 members, who found themselves included by current DT1 members years ago because they used to be very active and their judgement could be relied upon. Personal dealings could also have influenced some DT1 members' decisions. I cleaned up my Trust list some time ago, there's no point in having people who never even used the Trust system on the lists.
|
|
|
|
The difficult with Bitcoin is the massive gap between the Satoshi and one Bitcoin, and one can only assume that Satoshi's vision was for Bitcoin to achieve such a stratified value, that the Saroshi became the practical unit of exchange. Satoshi wasn't the one to come up with the idea to name the smallest unit of Bitcoin after its creator, it was ribuck's idea: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=407442.msg4415850#msg4415850 |
|
|
|
BTW I still don't consider them a "scam exchange," but at this point I would say they do have questionable ethics.
Even after their Monero scam? The flag created by Izormood was removed and he got his account back. All the reasons for the flag dropped in my opinion. Additionally, this scam accusation should be taken as a support issue because only one very complicated case is not enough to call such a big exchange with thousands of happy customers a scam (in my opinion of course). It hasn't been removed: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=308 |
|
|
|
I believe coincidence happen overtime, but occurring the statement exactly as everything (comma, spacing, letter) is not possible, a letter --just one letter could be different if you made the statement yourself. He said he misquoted but I don't see why he would even quote him, that post was kind of nonsensical. One plagiarism can end one of your account, so if your sorry just start over again.
FYI, ban evasion is a bannable offense. |
|
|
|
If it's for running a business, you can check this list. If you're just trading, then I don't think it matters much. Of course, If there is unusual activity in your account (large sums), a bank being friendly to crypto or not won't matter much, they will still investigate. Depends on what the money is used for, certain industries, cryptocurrencies among them, are generally considered 'high risk', and banks will start giving the account owner troubles a lot sooner. |
|
|
|
|
You can't get the cool down below 4 seconds, I'm also stuck at this limit which I sometimes run into while reporting several posts or topics in succession.
|
|
|
|
People claim that honest users may want to use their services for privacy reasons but lets be real, most people using their services have gotten their coins in a shady matter. Usually theft, drugs, or other crime.
 |
|
|
|
Mamy zatem 1 token o wartości kolekcjonerskiej za pobranie aplikacji i możliwy atak na urządzenie. Chyba nie warte ryzyka, przynajmniej dla mnie. Chyba, że ktoś chce potestować nową apkę za darmo.
Jak już pisałem wcześniej w innym wątku, na takie sytuacje najlepiej odpalać apki z emulatora androida, jak np. bluestacks. |
|
|
|
To be fair to BitPay, the fee might be higher when they need to spend the coin they receive in what could be weeks in the future. They could be combining unspent outputs/spending when transaction fees are low, they're also probably big enough that they could get fiat first from someone else and then settle the bitcoins with them later. |
|
|
|
What's even funnier is that they insist the majority of bitcoins being mixed through ChipMixer are legally obtained. Bestmixer was shut down precisely because the majority of its coins came from illegal activity. Why would this trend apply to Bestmixer but not ChipMixer? Bestmixer actively advertised the use of their mixer to evade the law, Chipmixer does none of that. Why is the chipmixer services need? i don't see the relevant of their service if it can be mostly use for criminal activities, who knows this is what many hackers use so that those stolen coins will be hard to trace, funny how their signature is been paraded by top members of this forum.
Some recommended reading as this has been answered again and again: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Privacy#Why_privacyhttps://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Privacy#Examples_and_case_studies |
|
|
|
Thanks for the tip, but this seems like a solution for people with more time and patience than money.
The context I would be interested in hearing people's experience with would be real and legitimate exchanges with a good track record and the capability of doing reasonable volumes. My associates have no need or interest in USD or EU and would prefer to avoid these monetary instruments just because of the hassle factor and to avoid needless monitoring by and interference from third-parties who have no business in the transactions. Bitbay isn't as bad as some other exchanges, but BTC/PLN (Polish złoty) is the only currency pair there with a reasonable liquidity. They've been around since 2014 and I had no problems with them, but unfortunately they started asking their current customers to go through verification again by sending selfies, so they aren't heading in a good direction. |
|
|
|
I think now we have to be very choosy about exchanges now a days almost all exchange is high risky we can't store our tokens and coins in exchange I also use this exchange called livecoin I have also doubts on it and you clear it now thanks for update mate
Don't use exchanges as a place to store cryptocurrencies or tokens, get a hardware wallet. Other exchanges can also get hacked or start stealing from their customers. |
|
|
|
I believe this is to cover the cost to spend the coin that bitpay receives from the payment of the invoice. That's a BS excuse they like to pull to encourage people to switch to bcash. They wanted me to pay an extra ~$0.70 when the 6 blocks fee was 1 sat/B. Since I just wanted to buy a pizza that would amount to an effective fee of almost 10%.  |
|
|
|
Now that that milk has been spilled your recourse is reporting this to the police / hiring a lawyer. Next time do your due diligence, Bitstamp has been known for pulling this KYC scam trick since 2014 at least like in the link I posted above. Different thread, similar issue: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/26apno/bitstamp_will_not_process_withdrawal_unless_you/If you do decide to provide false documents, at least know what you're doing, unless the amount is small, contacting the police/lawyer would be more sensible. |
|
|
|
It won't happen without strong leadership from honest people.
Strong leadership is a potential weak link if they have a change of heart, get hit by a bus, move on to other things, etc., the Trust system is supposed to be largely self-regulating. I think a better solution is needed to ensure some degree of accountability on part of those that are DT1 and also a different mechanism in place for others to be able to achieve DT1 level.
Enough people trusting/distrusting them will result in DT1 members being added/removed from DT1. For dealing with the worst Trust abusers theymos can still intervene manually. DefaultTrust membership should mean your Trust ratings are accurate, that's it. Someone can be a trustworthy person but their judgement may still be subpar. Or they might not trade much with other forum members but they may be good at spotting scammers.
Vod’s trust ratings on me are 100% provable lies, yet he sits in DT1 even after theymos told him he would be removed for posting such lying trust ratings about me. How is this justified? Why is this allowed? If that's case I think you may bring this matter to theymos and he can be removed from DT1 manually. For now theymos has just distrusted him. |
|
|
|
Not that I agree with the way the show this, but wouldn't this be the same if it was just a QR code with the 2FA secret code? How would you be able to activate it in your phone without actually seeing it in the screen? And most services will only require the 2FA code to disable it, something you can also get just from the secret code/QR. And a malware/anyone with access to your screen would be able to see it/screenshot it/scan it/etc... Anyone with access to your computer within the first 24 hours after 2FA is added could quietly disable it, and without needing to know your password. Anyone with access to your ACCOUNT. And if they have this, your code is probably compromised anyway. They shouldn't be showing the code after 2FA has already been enabled. It's being displayed for an unnecessary 24 hours and a lot can happen within that time frame, and they're making it slightly and needlessly easier for bad hombres to hijack accounts. |
|
|
|
and as an early adopter he's probably a tech geek indeed (and rich enough to make scamming very unlikely).
At one point his site just-dice held over $30M worth of investors' bitcoins (back when the site used bitcoins instead of clamcoins), if he didn't embezzle the money back then when he had ample opportunity, he can easily be considered one of the most trustworthy people in the Bitcoin community. For not running away with my money I gave him a positive rating, but that's still a separate thing from a Trust list. But I have no objections to his ratings, and trust his judgement so put him on my Trust list too. |
|
|
|
2. 2FA isn't an unbreakable fortress. To verify the 2FA signature your device generates, LBC has to compare against a copy of a shared secret, so anyone who possesses that secret (eg employee, hacker) will be able to generate a valid 2FA signature.
If you don't trust Localbitcoins employees not to defraud you, you shouldn't be using their site. I think a bigger worry (with exchanges and similar sites in general) is that someone may successfully socially engineering their customer support to take over another person's account. (maybe not anymore in 2019 with selfie verifications being common but still) I haven't logged in in a while, but can your really see the 2FA key when logged in? That doesn't sound like a good security practice. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
