If someone has enough time on their hands, I might have an interesting case here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5135934.0 This user seems to have multiple accounts which use the same " Subpar Thread Creation" way to get merits and rank the accounts. As you can see in my post, I connected him with an user using the same merit earning tactic having a similar username. OP of that thread never responded to me and locked the thread. I think this could be a big alt and merit sharing ring. I will investigate when I have enough time but just in case, dropping it here. Can you describe what you mean by “subpar thread creation”? Also are those accounts sending merit amongst each other? |
|
|
|
This is good, if someone has the time it would be nice to find all the exchanges that have these bullshit ToS and flag them all. If anything the newbie/high probability of loss of funds flag should be placed on all of their active main forum accounts. Saying that Livecoin.net can do it because other exchanges located in belize..malta..cyprus and every other non regulated country do it is wrong and a non-argument.
Having that term in their TOS doesn't mean they withhold deposits for arbitrary reasons. None of the above cited exchanges are withholding deposits for arbitrary reasons, and to my knowledge are only doing so when there are KYC/AML, probable stolen funds, or very similar issues. Some exchanges also delay withdrawals when they suspect the customer's account is hacked, and when they are upgrading their systems, and performing other maintenance. No exchange is disallowing the withdrawal of a coin for in excess of a year. |
|
|
|
Changing the narrative? No. I am just pointing out that you are unwilling to put your money where your mouth is in claiming that what LiveCoin is doing is not a scam.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
Are you extorting me then? Since my options are either A) Send 0.15 BTC to you and expect nothing in return or B) call Livecoin a scam. Am I understanding you correctly here?
lol, so you admit that you would not actually be receiving anything valuable in return? Your reading comprehension is way off today QS, I'll get back to you when you have something worth replying to. Which is it? Would the 0.15 give you nothing of economic value? Or would it actually allow you to speculate on the value of 10 ETH? BTW, 10 ETH is currently worth 0.267 BTC. |
|
|
|
Changing the narrative? No. I am just pointing out that you are unwilling to put your money where your mouth is in claiming that what LiveCoin is doing is not a scam.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
Are you extorting me then? Since my options are either A) Send 0.15 BTC to you and expect nothing in return or B) call Livecoin a scam. Am I understanding you correctly here?
lol, so you admit that you would not actually be receiving anything valuable in return? |
|
|
|
edit: How about this, you can send 0.15BTC to 3P1o6BafmQomjKjakbK4ske8Lq8hCkJhiU to "speculate on the price of" 10 ETH -- I will not allow you to ever receive this ETH but you can sell this right to "speculate on the price" of ETH to anyone else who is a willing buyer. In my specific case, I am not scamming because I am disclosing your inability to receive ETH ahead of time, but LiveCoin did not do this, and as such is scamming.
Wrong again  They did notify users that withdrawing/depositing MONA had been suspended until further notice would be given. Wonderful. Please post here once you have sent the tx, since you are such a strong believe that this arrangement is entirely ethical, and in no way a scam. So you are just going to keep changing the narrative time and time again? How about retracting your statement that Livecoin did not notify their users? Changing the narrative? No. I am just pointing out that you are unwilling to put your money where your mouth is in claiming that what LiveCoin is doing is not a scam. Feel free to prove me wrong. |
|
|
|
edit: How about this, you can send 0.15BTC to 3P1o6BafmQomjKjakbK4ske8Lq8hCkJhiU to "speculate on the price of" 10 ETH -- I will not allow you to ever receive this ETH but you can sell this right to "speculate on the price" of ETH to anyone else who is a willing buyer. In my specific case, I am not scamming because I am disclosing your inability to receive ETH ahead of time, but LiveCoin did not do this, and as such is scamming.
Wrong again They did notify users that withdrawing/depositing MONA had been suspended until further notice would be given. Wonderful. Please post here once you have sent the tx, since you are such a strong believe that this arrangement is entirely ethical, and in no way a scam. |
|
|
|
Snip from Poloniex terms:
"We reserve the right to restrict or refuse to permit withdrawals from your Account if (i) your Account has otherwise been suspended or closed by Poloniex in accordance with this Agreement; (ii) to do so would be prohibited by law or a court order or we have determined that the Digital Assets were obtained fraudulently; or (iii) you have not undergone the required identity verification procedure such that your identity has been verified, as indicated by your Account.
You can check whether or not your Account has been verified by reviewing your verification status under the “My Profile” section of your Account.
Upon closure or suspension of your Account, you authorize Poloniex to cancel or suspend pending transactions."
They are saying they will restrict your ability to withdraw if you deposit stolen money, laundered money, or have a court order to not allow you access to the money, or very similar. They don't have the ability to not process withdrawals for arbitrary reasons as is happening with LiveCoin. Further:
edit: How about this, you can send 0.15BTC to 3P1o6BafmQomjKjakbK4ske8Lq8hCkJhiU to "speculate on the price of" 10 ETH -- I will not allow you to ever receive this ETH but you can sell this right to "speculate on the price" of ETH to anyone else who is a willing buyer. In my specific case, I am not scamming because I am disclosing your inability to receive ETH ahead of time, but LiveCoin did not do this, and as such is scamming.
|
|
|
|
Reputable exchanges don't keep trading assets they suspect are under 51% DDoS attacks. Coinbase shuts down assets at the slightest inclining of an attack. It pisses off their customers to no end, but guess what, nobody loses hundreds of thousands of dollars This doesn't make them scammers Yes it does.... They are selling an asset to someone and the buyer will never be able to take possession of said asset because the seller is refusing to deliver. This would not be unlike if I were to sell a gold coin that I do not have and have no intention of delivering to any buyer (I would never do that). That is actually very different since they have a market where you can speculate on the coin. If you were to sell a physical good that you wouldn't deliver that would be an actual scam since the buyer could never get anything back for it. Surprised this one goes over your head QS. Any market can be used to speculate on the price of the asset. When you are buying a coin on an exchange, you are buying the actual coin, not a derivative. If I were to sell a coin I did not have, and did not intend to deliver, the buyer could sell the rights to the coin to someone else if there is a willing buyer. edit: How about this, you can send 0.15 BTC to 3P1o6BafmQomjKjakbK4ske8Lq8hCkJhiU to "speculate on the price of" 10 ETH -- I will not allow you to ever receive this ETH but you can sell this right to "speculate on the price" of ETH to anyone else who is a willing buyer. In my specific case, I am not scamming because I am disclosing your inability to receive ETH ahead of time, but LiveCoin did not do this, and as such is scamming. |
|
|
|
Perhaps you could explain exactly how he is abusing the trust system?
Perhaps I could but TECSHARE will delete it again so I'm not gonna bother. Hopefully this retaliatory feedback will cement his exclusion from DT1. I saw the post he deleted and it is exactly the same as this post. I don't think you can explain how TECSHARE is abusing the trust system because his rating is very similar to those of many people on your direct trust list, and of those whom you support on a regular basis. I don't think whataboutism and lying is helping TECSHARE here, but it's possible that logic works differently for thin-skinned narcissists such as him and yourself. So in other words, your argument boils down to: "Rules for thee but not for me" The proof Koshgel is sold is in the OP. The OP is unedited, so it was there when you first posted. |
|
|
|
Reputable exchanges don't keep trading assets they suspect are under 51% DDoS attacks. Coinbase shuts down assets at the slightest inclining of an attack. It pisses off their customers to no end, but guess what, nobody loses hundreds of thousands of dollars This doesn't make them scammers Yes it does.... They are selling an asset to someone and the buyer will never be able to take possession of said asset because the seller is refusing to deliver. This would not be unlike if I were to sell a gold coin that I do not have and have no intention of delivering to any buyer (I would never do that). |
|
|
|
Perhaps you could explain exactly how he is abusing the trust system?
Perhaps I could but TECSHARE will delete it again so I'm not gonna bother. Hopefully this retaliatory feedback will cement his exclusion from DT1. I saw the post he deleted and it is exactly the same as this post. I don't think you can explain how TECSHARE is abusing the trust system because his rating is very similar to those of many people on your direct trust list, and of those whom you support on a regular basis. |
|
|
|
It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.
All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2
It appears that you are supporting a flag created by someone that appears to have violated the specific conditions of the alleged agreement. (i.e. trying to sell a hacked account) The agreement is not alleged, the screenshots posted by bob (who is the accused) document him agreeing to purchase the forum accounts in question upon receipt of a PM, which he received. Bob has confirmed that he had no intention of completing the purchase despite his promise to do so. The account that is "hacked" has not proven to be hacked, nor was it part of the specific agreement bob violated. |
|
|
|
I think there is a possible conflict of interest, and therefore campaign managers should not be merit sources. I don't see how that would be a conflict of interest: the campaign manager doesn't get anything out of meriting those posts. The conflict is that it allows the campaign manager to point out that the people *they* choose to be in their campaigns have and are receiving a lot of merit, and therefore should be hired to manage additional campaigns. |
|
|
|
So your solution to trust system abuse is to abuse the trust system?  The rating that TECSHARE left says: Sold account. Most likely an alt of a more well known member. Abusing trust system.
I see a number of people on your trust list who have left trust for very similar reasons, in masse. Perhaps you could explain exactly how he is abusing the trust system? |
|
|
|
Who are these dt members thst are influenced to not give negative rep when they're paid also?
I'm going to take a stab and say he's talking about Hhampuz, though there really ought to be prizes for guessing what he's talking about.  Yea the OP is referring to Hhampuz. Hhampuz is taking 0.06 btc/week to run the LiveCoin signature campaign and is opposing the flag against LiveCoin, in addition to keeping the signature campaign open despite evidence of their scamming that has been admitted to by LiveCoin. This is very unethical and shows he can be bought. |
|
|
|
I do not disagree with the use of escrow as it installs trust. Unfortunately, this is not as cut and dry as one may think.
If DarkStar (or any other) is willing to sign a contract, and hand over KYC i.e. two forms of ID, proof of address (utility bill no older than 3 months or equivalent [and for each director of the comapny]) and have on hand a valid tax return for the past financial year (personally or for their company), we can work with them. Otherwise, we can not risk working with individuals who wish to remain anonymous and at the same time handle our funds. If for any reason the individual or company we use is in any way linked to drug money, fraud, money laundering, etc. we stand to lose more than a few bucks thrown at a marketing campaign.
I trust this is clear. If you do not agree, then we will simply not work with you.
I suspect that participants are not going to get paid. The OP could be closely associated with game-protect or is making the claim that he is acting as escrow without his knowledge, but in either case, I do not have confidence that anyone will receive payment.
From the looks of it, this is not going to stop many people for advertising this business.
My money is on the OP being closely associated with Game-Protect I have also messaged game-protect to confirm/deny that he is holding money in escrow to guarantee payment of participants. |
|
|
|
An escrow is def good, thats why we have chosen game-protect, the name says its all "game" and "protect", everyone wins.
Is this an out of season April fools joke? (reference)I suspect that participants are not going to get paid. The OP could be closely associated with game-protect or is making the claim that he is acting as escrow without his knowledge, but in either case, I do not have confidence that anyone will receive payment. From the looks of it, this is not going to stop many people for advertising this business. |
|
|
|
I get it, a lot of income is on the line for people who can't afford to lose it. I empathize, and for that reason I won't be tagging anyone participating the sig campaign. I would think this would be exactly why someone should get tagged— they are receiving money in order to effectively vouch for someone they know to be a scammer. They have been pointed out that they are advertising for a scammer and have not disagreed with the conclusion. I think it's worth giving people some time to come to those conclusions for themselves. I may change my mind about this in the future, but for now I am not tagging the participants of the sig campaign. Many have been participating for weeks, and jumping in and tagging them this early in the process would be heartless, and very likely counter productive to the overall health of the community. It's not my intention to bash people over the head for promoting something that weeks later turns out to be a fraud. The first step to an amicable resolution is to convince LiveCoin to make things right with their clients, and revise their terms of service to comply with the laws of the countries where they operate. If LiveCoin refuses to make these concessions then it's time to request that the signature campaign be put to rest. Only then would it be right to start tagging people who continue to promote known fraudsters. I believe the time to stop advertising for LiveCoin was when there was sufficient evidence to support the flag against them, or perhaps very shortly thereafter if they quickly resolve the issue, which I would say has already elapsed. If LiveCoin were to resolve the issue, it would then become appropriate to resume advertising for them, if desired. I would give participants some time to reach the conclusion they LiveCoin has in fact scammed the OP, so they can review the evidence. I have notified every participant in the campaign of the scam accusation, that there is a valid flag, and that LiveCoin has admitted to sufficient facts to conclude that they are scamming the OP, so they cannot claim ignorance. I am not sure what the appropriate amount of time to wait would be, however the next payment for participants is on Tuesday, and I believe that would exceed the amount of reasonable time to decide to stop advertising for LiveCoin -- this is in part based on that once payment is received, they have crossed the line into receiving payment for advertising a scam. My notification to participants that they are advertising a scam was not taken kindly. I was effectively cussed out by some in the German sub, received negative trust from babo for what can only be described as retaliation for asking participants to consider stopping advertising for LiveCoin, and some users are trying to get me banned for trying to stop them from advertising a scam. None of this will prevent me from doing the right thing. All of those who are taking affirmative actions to try to prevent and/or punish me from pointing out they are advertising a scam are, in my view inherently untrustworthy -- these people are aware they are advertising a scam and are taking affirmative steps to silence criticism of this fact. |
|
|
|
|
Incorrect information is not removed simply because it is incorrect or inaccurate.
You can create a self moderated thread if you wish. You can also provide a fact based set of reasons why he is wrong and others can make their own conclusions.
|
|
|
|
the evidence of the scam claims is largely circumstantial, but in this very thread they admitted they are treating the victim as he reported. After several claims of folks being mistreated by livecoin, and their own terms of service full of illegal business practices, I'm baffled anyone can continue to stand behind them I think they have admitted to a sufficient number of facts for someone to conclude that they have effectively scammed the OP if you only believe LiveCoin and do not believe the OP.
I get it, a lot of income is on the line for people who can't afford to lose it. I empathize, and for that reason I won't be tagging anyone participating the sig campaign. I would think this would be exactly why someone should get tagged— they are receiving money in order to effectively vouch for someone they know to be a scammer. They have been pointed out that they are advertising for a scammer and have not disagreed with the conclusion. I fail to see how this is difficult from someone vouching for someone asking for a loan they know has no intention of repaying, in exchange for a percentage of the loan received. It would be different if they were disputing that LiveCoin is scamming, but for the most part they are not. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
