Selling invites is allowed, but there are some restrictions in order to prevent people from selling accounts and invites obtained through hacking. In order to sell invites or accounts to invite-only sites, you must:
- Have some history here, with more history being required for trades of invites/accounts in bulk. Or,
- Have substantial history on reputable invite trading forums such as torrentinvites.org which prohibit selling hacked accounts. Or,
- Be vouched for by someone from one of the above two categories.
|
|
|
|
@malevolent 1- You don't know the torrent world , to say forum invitescene.com Unknown forum 2- 13 positive ratings since 2016
Yes I have 13 + feedbacks , because i will not trade or sell every day , I can trade or sell 1 per month Also all positives feedback not negative feedback Also you can check my feedback on other forum : https://arabhardware.net/forum/showthread.php?t=476379It's not the most popular of invite trading sites. Even if it were, you should have linked there in your first post when you first started selling along with a proof that account actually belongs to you. |
|
|
|
|
System Trust został zmieniony, żeby nie wymagał tyle interwencji od theymosa, teraz będzie w większym stopniu samoregulujący się, a theymos ma czas na inne rzeczy.
|
|
|
|
Have there been any actual rules made, or are they just jumping the gun here? I'm not fully familiar on money laundering rules, but I don't think they were this strict.
They might have decided to introduce these restrictions to appease the legacy fiat institutions they cooperate with to send merchants fiat currencies. I could be wrong but that's the first thing that comes to mind, especially considering the country they're incorporated in. |
|
|
|
A question for you : 1- How do you know that the account is hacked or not ? The answer is You won't know 2- - How to make sure I am not a hacker and i will not sell accounts by hacking ? - You can check my feedback in other forum there : https://www.invitescene.com/topic/27138-trade-for-torrent/- You can ask my buyers here about me , And ask them for my acconuts with them still accounts work or banned https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2552158- All my accounts are working with all buyers 3- Almost a month and a half ago you were deleted my old thread here ! The reason as you mentioned in private messages is : I don't have any a good feedbacks to trust your buyers So I also deleted my previous topic a month and a half ago Now that I have completed several successful business transactions I have also deleted my new topic The reason this time I am selling hacked accounts What we deduce from these different opinions that mate "malevolent" ?! 4- You deleted my threads and posts and destroyed my business here This is not fair I'm now waiting for justice from forum owners here no more . Again, here are the requirements one of which you should fulfill if you want to sell invites or accounts to invite-only sites on bitcointalk: Have some history here, with more history being required for trades of invites/accounts in bulk. Or You have four ratings, all from relatively new Newbie accounts. I'm not convinced this requirements has been fulfilled. Not to mention you shouldn't have even sold these accounts to them. Have substantial history on reputable invite trading forums such as torrentinvites.org which prohibit selling hacked accounts. Or, 13 positive ratings since 2016 on some unknown invite trading forum. Requirement not fulfilled. Be vouched for by someone from one of the above two categories. Requirement not fulfilled. If you're actually legit then sorry about that, but it is what it is, others have ruined it for you. |
|
|
|
Well some ppl borrowed BTC and converted to usd when BTC was record high 19 000. And returned loans when BTC went to 3 500.
I doubt there were many, that's a year-long loan, most loans are for several weeks max. Even in the barely active Long-term offers child-board you don't see people getting such loans. |
|
|
|
Czyli zdecentralizowanej sieci, która nie należy do nikogo i jest praktycznie nie do zatrzymania/zablokowania/znacjonalizowania. Nie ma innego takiego waloru jak bitcoin, odpornego na wspomniane czynniki. Podobnie zadziała sztabka złota zakopana w ogródku. Ale sztabka a nie kontrakt. Jednak jest to o wiele mniej wygodne.
Też uważam, że jest to naciągane, ale jednocześnie nie zaprzeczam z pewnością równą "HELLO!!!", że nie może to być podstawą najbliższej bańki. Kopiący bitcoiny (i inne kryptowaluty) z roku na rok coraz więcej zużywają energii na kopanie, ze względu na globalne ocieplenie mogłoby kiedyś dojść do koordynacji na poziomie międzynarodowym, aby ucinać zużycie prądu na 'bezużyteczne' działania. FATF i inne międzynarodowe organizacje chcące mocno ograniczyć użyteczność kryptowalut, mogłyby wywierać presję na ISP i innych operatorów sieci, aby utrudniali działanie kryptowalut, jeśli dana kryptowaluta nie wprowadzi jakichś zmian w kierunku pro-KYC. Raczej dalekosiężne wróżenie, bo wymagałoby to bliższej koordynacji krajów jaka dochodzi dopiero w przypadku umów/traktatów, których negocjacje zajmują dużo czasu, ale można by kryptowalutom (ich użyteczności) mocno zaszkodzić), e.g. https://www.noction.com/blog/bgp-and-cryptocurrencies |
|
|
|
As I've already told you: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3629.msg1435427#msg1435427https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134779.0Selling invites is allowed, but there are some restrictions in order to prevent people from selling accounts and invites obtained through hacking. In order to sell invites or accounts to invite-only sites, you must:
- Have some history here, with more history being required for trades of invites/accounts in bulk. Or,
- Have substantial history on reputable invite trading forums such as torrentinvites.org which prohibit selling hacked accounts. Or,
- Be vouched for by someone from one of the above two categories.
Theymos didn't institute these rules because he was bored, he most likely came to a conclusion that (too) many invites and accounts to invite-only sites people were selling on bitcointalk were obtained through hacking/phishing/etc. As to your 4 buyers, you shouldn't have been allowed to sell to them in the first place, and that's not enough to convince me you're legit anyway. Other mods/admins are free to chime in if they disagree. |
|
|
|
No i wraca jak bumerang problem z KYC. Jeżeli specjalistyczne serwisy nie daja rady się zabezpieczyć, to jak można zaufać airdropom albo kampanią bounty, że będą w stanie nas zweryfikować, a co najważniejsze, później przez kilka lat przechować, bezpiecznie te dane?
Nie można. Można ewentualnie znaleźć sobie kogoś kto zgodziłby się za małą opłatą czy tam 0.7 przechodzić za nas weryfikację. |
|
|
|
I honestly wish it was a full time job of mine, but life gets in the way. I think I've grown attached to this forum over the years, and have some sort of passion for it. It's annoying to see spammers destroying what we've all worked so hard to achieve. Eventually, I can see it happening that signature campaigns will be removed for good, despite theymos being against the idea I think the spam problem as Bitcoin popularity grows will force his hand. It would be a tremendous shame that we would have to lose a sort of ecosystem within the forum because of that though. We could put warnings out to those that are spamming, about the long term implications they are having to their "career", but it would likely yield more negative results than positive.
Nah, I don't think so. I think as long as theymos is an admin here, signature campaigns will stay. There might be more restrictions on using signatures, or penalties for sig spam, I don't know, but I think he'll still try to make it work. I think I found a farm, where to report it?
You can report individual posts, or PM Global mods, or post here, or start your own topic in Meta. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Niestety potrzebne są regulacje dla ICO. Bez tego w dalszym ciągu będą miliardowe wyłudzenia i będą z nami robili co chcą tak jak do tej pory. Nie ma szans, żeby coś się zmieniło bez odgórnych regulacji lub chociaż wewnętrznie wprowadzonych standartów jak nowe IPO, które są o wiele bezpieczniejsze od ICO.
Scamy z KYC są właśnie dlatego, że transfer pieniędzy, a w niektórych krajach także kryptowalut jest obwarowany rozmaitymi regulacjami. Im będzie więcej tych regulacji, tym szersze pole do nadużyć, pt. "przejdź KYC, aby odzyskać kasę". Swoją drogą nie spotkałem się jeszcze z sytuacją, żeby ktoś żądał od kogoś pieniędzy za przejście KYC (chyba że ktoś oferuje usługę KYC). |
|
|
|
Any idea what the success rate is on those loans?
Wondering if anyone is keeping tabs via a thread for example, on how many people default on such loans.
Would be interesting to see actually.
Check their threads yourself (I posted links), not that much of a problem if you're picky enough with whom you lend to. "most"? i don't even know of a single case of a loan that is given without a collateral or at least some sort of guarantee for the lender to get his money back. i would love to take such a loan without collateral if you know, let us know with an example  Here are lending threads of some users offering uncollateralized loans: ~~~ they are all working based on the bold part in my comment, they don't just give out no collateral loans to anyone. your account has to be trusted and they do a risk assessment whether you are going to run away and abandon your account or will you pay it back. so in a way the "collateral" can be considered the account and the reputation itself, even though they may not take control of your account. Potentially tarnished reputation of the lendee is not a guarantee the lender will get their money back. The borrower cashing in on their reputation doesn't make the lender whole. |
|
|
|
Trochę naciągane to dla mnie  Tzn. fajnie by było, ale Bitcoin jako 10-letni eksperyment społeczno-ekonomiczny nie jest czymś co można nazwać bezpieczną inwestycją, w porównaniu do złota, które ma w założeniu nie zarabiać, ale utrzymywać wartość. Ostatnie wzrosty prędzej bym tłumaczył nadchodzącym halvingiem (między innymi). |
|
|
|
You don't have to encourage money laundering, mixers only exist for money laundering. No, they exist to mix coins. What someone uses them for is up to them. Even if they don't put mixer operators in jail, why would you think law enforcement does not want the data on the servers? Of course they do, it is just a matter of time until more mixers get shut down. I'm sure they do, but they can't just take down every website they think might facilitate crime. I'm not talking about countries without a rule of law, though. |
|
|
|
Did they ever allow a user without KYC before? not sure about merchants, but purchasers have never had to complete KYC before. spending on goods and services was never seen as money transmission before so it didn't seem to imply AML/KYC requirements. the FATF rules seem to have changed things for the worse. leave it to bitpay to comply before any countries have even passed laws to enforce the FATF rules yet.  It also says the numbers are subject to change. In time every transaction above $100 will require KYC, and they can sort of afford to do it with their market share, I think. I was asked to go through KYC once when trying to buy computer hardware with a card (long time ago), but that was in a foreign country when the store was suspicious that the card may have been stolen, but this is something new, even a single Macbook can be above the $3k threshold. Anyone know how long do they store the users' KYC info? |
|
|
|
Bitblender was Tor only and closed the site themself.
They closed because they made enough money and did not want to end in jail.
He claims he 'got spooked' which is BS because he was just fishing for an excuse to exit-scam and when it was convenient he didn't hesitate (gave people 2 days + several hours to withdraw their coins). He didn't even act like he encouraged money laundering and this is what did Bestmixer in. |
|
|
|
You just hope that no law enforcement agency will ever try to infiltrate your server? Why would they want to do that? No arrests have been made in Bestmixer's case, and ChipMixer isn't even acting like their service could be used to assist in breaking the law, which was the case with their competitor. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
