"Mycoin.hk", a bitcoin thing in Hong Kong, apparenly closed without warning and owners disappeared with all clients coins. Losses seem to be about 3 billion yuan, or 500 million USD -- on the same level as the MtGOX collapse. The nature of mycoin.hk's business was not clear. It apparently involved mining, and perhaps some Ponzi-like scheme. I could not tell whether it also worked as a live exchange. Article in Chinese: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20150208/19034053Google translation: WASHINGTON virtual currency Bitcoin (Bitcoin) once touted, Hong Kong discovered bust incident involving three billion yuan. Legislative Councillor Leung Yiu-chung received nearly ten investors in Bitcoin for help, said the suspect was a bit currency trading scams and storage platform, the largest loss of over $ 10 million estimate amounted to 30 the number of people affected, involving an amount or up to three billion yuan, victims today collective police. […] EDIT: See also the reddit thread. One comment in there claims that the report is incorrect. If this turns out to be true then China or the PBOC will probably ban Bitcoin in China once and forever. With all the chinese money disappearing Bitcoin will probably crash to ~50$ according to financial bitcoin experts.   500 US$ million is more than 2 BTC million at actual price. I remember MtGox scammed only 850k BTC but at the price of the time it was 450 US$ million so quite similar in value. Not sure how to rate impact since MtGox affected more adopters than this Hong Kongese 'exchange' (it apparently affected only 30 people). |
|
|
|
Was an awesome time for me and so far no chargebacks and I'm hoping it stays that way too lol that's why I only tried it out with a small figure $650 odd justtttttt in case so it wouldn't hit my pocket too damn hard and the missus chases me with her steak knives lolll If no chargebacks occurred to you as well as to others, I will definitely try such a service. A 60% off seems to be really a good deal even if I have to roam around with a stash of spare cash just-in case.  |
|
|
|
si ne ho circa un 100aio (dovrebbe esistere un limite di 10 al giorno) non lo ho installato da troppo tempo....considerando che qui https://usecryptos.com/market/MCZ-BTC vengono scambiati a 0.000047 BTC l'uno , ho fatto circa 0.005 BTC. non sono tanti ma neanche male considerando che fa tutto da solo. in più se vuoi è un bell'incentivo per una bella camminata scusa mitus-2 ma sai mica + o - quanti se ne fanno a kilometro? Perché visto che quando sono a lavoro tendo a farmi tra gli 8 ed i 12 km a piedi tutti i giorni...potrebbe essere interessante.  |
|
|
|
Thank you, I got it. Starting now, I'll keeep only Bitin.io personal message ad on since I subscribed to Bitmixer.io campaign. |
|
|
|
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=902576.msg9916747#msg9916747 Is this the image that bitcoin users and bitcointalk wants to support... The raffle that supported... Feed the children ... Was a scam to start with.. Was the people's funds returned  1 bitcoin worth of USD .should have been Sent to>> Feed The Child << even if the raffle went bust... More Proof ...... WOODCOLLECTOR is a scammer...... What a shitty thing to do at Christmas on the skin of poor hungry children! I think you should leave him a -ve trust feedback if Woodcollector or Dabs cannot confirm a donation tx of 50% of the Raffle earnings. Edit: I left him -ve trust feedback; however, I'll remove it if evidence will be provided of him returning funds to donators/ticket buyers OR him donating 50% of the Raffle earnings to Dabs' charity. |
|
|
|
bitcointalk should not allow any cloudmining or gambling advertisments. Just hardware manufactors/sellers. It's easy as that. Problem solved.
Wrong! Hardware manufacturers and sellers scammed too. As an example...Have you never heard of BFL? |
|
|
|
Because you're making people jump through hoops and put their identity on the line just to sign up and post on a forum, a forum where most people value their privacy or wish to remain anon for whatever reasons. Most people tend to think the newb time restrictions and previous newbie jail are bad enough without adding more complications to just signing up in the first place. Bitcoin is not anonymous. So why is Bitcointalk trying to be anonymous? The admins also never said alts are allowed because of anonymity. The reason given is difficulty in enforcement. Bitcoin is as anonymous as you want it to be, and difficulty in enforcing them is one of the reasons but alts are allowed for whatever reason you want them for and that includes anonymity. Mods/staff/admins have stated multiple times alts are allowed if you don't want certain things being tied to certain identities so it's not just because it's unenforceable. Unless there has been a dramatic change, Bitcoin protocol is not anonymous. Never has been. Yes, you can hide, but you are not anonymous. So is it one of the reasons or whatever reasons? As far as I remember, theymos or badbear has always maintained that alts and account sales are allowed because of difficulty in enforcement. Here is a solution that will make it enforceable unless someone is willing to purchase x number of unique IPs tied to one particular account, social account and email and hope they always remember to flush their browser before switching accounts. Or are you saying Bitcointalk admins decision behind alts and account sales has nothing to do with enforcement? That puts a new spin on everything. Even then, I remember users could post anonymously on this forum without creating an account, but doing so will not let them accumulate posts, rank and reputation. As for jumping hoops. I would argue legitimate and honest users are asked to jump through more hoops to navigate through the scammy minefield here.
If you really want to talk about hoops, the six minute posting requirement for newbie accounts is the biggest hoop around. Yes, so you're proving my point here. Don't add more restrictions, especially pointless unnecesary ones. The time limit goes down after a while anyway but at least newbs make it past the sign up stage which many won't if they see you need to link a social media account to it. How am I proving your point? I just poked a pretty large hole in it. The biggest restriction is the six minutes barrier between posts. Linking your social media account takes seconds, once. I don't want to let peepers and other people here (or around the net) to see my private things on social media (even if the most private are not there) or social media companies know what i do here on this forum. I don't mind if BTC protocol is not completly anonymous but linking also my social media profiles is really giving out to much details of my life for me to bee still confortable enough. |
|
|
|
The first thing I did when I found out about the new Trust system was to remove DefaultTrust and just set up my own. I assumed everyone else did the same. Through my trades it added various layers of the "DefaultTrust" back in, but at least then there were clear indications of why it was added.
I suppose that when you started doing so, You were already an established member here or at least knowledgeable enough to be able to not needing decentralized trust networks to assist you when dealing with other forum members. I'm not in DefaultTrust but I've realized when i was a junior member that, while useful in giving me a feedback on someone new, I cannot blindy trust it and so I started adding my own exclusion to it by prefixing known scammers, ponzi operators & other people that i cannot trust with a tilde (~) before their usernames. Sometime I also add a few people i trust to my own trust list. I try to do my best to keep my trust list update but I suppose that until I reach Legendary status I cannot have a trust list complete enough to avoid having DefaultTrust included in it. I think there's two users of the Trust system, people like me, that just have ratings of actual trades done and scammers they have caught themselves and folks that use it to actually point out and filter potential scammers even though they have never traded with them or verified they are bonifide scammers on their own. Maybe the problem is that I'm using it wrong and what we really need is basically just a scammer-detector system like what the other folks are using it for?
I don't think you are wrong, since the two behaviour can co-exist between the same user. Feedbacks can be given both if you were actually scammed or if you STRONGLY believed that the person is a scammer.  Of course you have to base your feedback on evidence you have link in the reference field. If you follow such rules I think your feedback maybe legit and can be verified allowing other members to independently consider if following such advice or not. I think feedback without a reference link should not be given and if they are they should not trusted due to the impossibility to be independently verified by others. Also if a user give such unverifiable trust feedbacks you could prefix his username with a tilde (~) in your own trust list to exclude his feedbacks. |
|
|
|
|
Total time logged in: 16 days, 22 hours and 0 minutes.
|
|
|
|
Total time logged in: 16 days, 22 hours and 0 minutes.  |
|
|
|
|
io sarei per chiuderlo questo thread. Ormai è vecchio e riappare solo quando qualcuno lo fa tornare su con un 'bump'.
|
|
|
|
Theymos, i think this is almost a must if you expect this forum to continue to have any credibility in the future. Regardless of how many alt accounts are used to vote against it. This is about one of the only ways this place will survive with any credibility.
I've said this in another thread, the problem with surveys is people are only willing to accept votes that validate their own opinions as valid - the others are just fakes or shills, right? I'm not saying that the poll was rigged. But, can you deny that the poll got very short time span to reflect any substantial opinion ? It started on Januray 5, 2015 and ended on January 10, 2015. Only 5 days to take public opinion about whether DefaultTrust is here to stay or not ? Even the YES was leading initially. NO was leading on the last day and the poll was closed !!! I would request theymos to re-open the poll and keep it running for at least a month. Active people here already expressed their views. If you cannot deal with the fact a majority expressed their preference to keep the actual Trust system instead of expensive and time consuming one which will be no better or at least equal to the actual one, You have no right to cry havoc hinting the admin rigged the pool!You are putting a word on my mouth which I never stated. Read my post again. If I remember correctly, YES was leading for 4 days. NO led only for a day and the poll was closed. I just wanted time. Never said it was rigged. Time to grow more sockpuppets to alter poll results and force theymos' hand? You seems to have the most to gain from such an outcome and you seems to already have an habit to create accounts for such purposes. Yah... I'm under target of a LOT of people because I got someone removed from DefaulTrust blessing with proper proofs. Read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=888960.0 ...Moreover, I am not in -ve as you are showing, because the person who left me -ve is not blessed by DefaultTrust. You are seeing it because of your trust settings. You can also create a 100 sock puppet and leave -ve on me... that does not matter unless you have the DefaultTrust blessing. I kicked the hornet's nest and I know there will be some sting. The point here is you could not come up with a logical reply to my point and hence trying make things personal. Shows your depth indeed.  p.s. Unless you remove your signature, for which you get paid for trolling, do not expect any more reply from me. I agree with users giving -ve trust feedback to Cloud Mining and Ponzi operators and promoters. I'm also not agreeing with your justification of them being biased because some of them may own shares of one cloud miner. If all (or at least enough) Cloud Mining and Ponzi operators and promoters give -ve trust feedback to rival Cloud Mining and Ponzi operators and promoters, since newbies and other users arewill be made aware they should exercise extreme caution when dealing with ALL them. Moreover, I know my trust setting to be appropriate to me since while I use DefaultTrust I also "modified" it with some addition of people their judgement I trust and also some (more than the addition, of course) exclusion of people their judgement I cannot trust (e.g. known scammers, Ponzi operators, etc.). My reply to you was not to be personal since I have no interest in discreting you; but, instead it was directed to point out the flaw of your idea since such re-opening of theymos' poll can easily be hijacked by trust abusers' sockpuppet accounts to win their desidered outcome. Moreover, since the Poll was aimed to have active forum members opinion of modifing the Trust system people who were committed to forum were able to say their opinion and even discuss it in this thread. Probably at the time you weren't committed enough to catch the Poll time frame; but this is IMHO not a valid reason to ask for the Poll be reopened. It's like someone who on Election Day not having reached the legal age for voting yet and after him/her being old enough to vote asking to have vote recast since he was not able to take part in it. P.S. Have you got no better idea to prove me wrong than accusing me of trolling only because I have as scores of people here a paid signature? Poor boy.... P.P.S. Oh shit! You will not reply any more to me? What a pity. However, You don't need being worried about my signature advertising since you're going to be added to my Ignore list soon. |
|
|
|
Total time logged in: 16 days, 19 hours and 45 minutes. 
|
|
|
|
io sono rimasto deluso perché ero in fibrillante attesa di leggere la querela , come da btcstore annunciato per questa settimana ma ormai arrivati a fine settimana tutto tace ....  In settimana entrante renderemo pubblica la querela nei confronti della signorina per calunnie e diffamazione con danni ammontanti a circa 50.000 euro ( questo è il guadagno mancato dal momento in cui ha cominciato a calunniare in giro )notare che per guadagnare 50k€ (250 BTC) bisognerebbe vendere almeno 3125 btc all'8%  Una querela di quell'entità, espone a un rischio btcstore non indifferente. Se poi la finanza gli fa un controllo deve risultare che lui paga tasse annue per qualcosa come 75.000 euro (a spanne) per la sola vendita di btc. Perché se in 3 mesi ha ricevuto un danno di 50.000 euro, in un anno chissà quante vendite avrebbe dovuto aver dichiarato Bè...50k€ in 3 mesi sono circa 200k€/anno. Insomma btcstore avrebbe delle entrate mensili che rivaleggerebbero con quelle di un parlamentare (a spanne). Se ho fatto i conti giusti con 200k€ all'anno l'IRPEF che dovrebbe pagare ammonterebbe a 63660 €. |
|
|
|
I dont.
Well. You may start soon! |
|
|
|
Theymos, i think this is almost a must if you expect this forum to continue to have any credibility in the future. Regardless of how many alt accounts are used to vote against it. This is about one of the only ways this place will survive with any credibility.
I've said this in another thread, the problem with surveys is people are only willing to accept votes that validate their own opinions as valid - the others are just fakes or shills, right? I'm not saying that the poll was rigged. But, can you deny that the poll got very short time span to reflect any substantial opinion ? It started on Januray 5, 2015 and ended on January 10, 2015. Only 5 days to take public opinion about whether DefaultTrust is here to stay or not ? Even the YES was leading initially. NO was leading on the last day and the poll was closed !!! I would request theymos to re-open the poll and keep it running for at least a month. Active people here already expressed their views. If you cannot deal with the fact a majority expressed their preference to keep the actual Trust system instead of expensive and time consuming one which will be no better or at least equal to the actual one, You have no right to cry havoc hinting the admin rigged the pool!You are putting a word on my mouth which I never stated. Read my post again. If I remember correctly, YES was leading for 4 days. NO led only for a day and the poll was closed. I just wanted time. Never said it was rigged. Time to grow more sockpuppets to alter poll results and force theymos' hand? You seems to have the most to gain from such an outcome and you seems to already have an habit to create accounts for such purposes. |
|
|
|
Theymos, i think this is almost a must if you expect this forum to continue to have any credibility in the future. Regardless of how many alt accounts are used to vote against it. This is about one of the only ways this place will survive with any credibility.
I've said this in another thread, the problem with surveys is people are only willing to accept votes that validate their own opinions as valid - the others are just fakes or shills, right? I'm not saying that the poll was rigged. But, can you deny that the poll got very short time span to reflect any substantial opinion ? It started on Januray 5, 2015 and ended on January 10, 2015. Only 5 days to take public opinion about whether DefaultTrust is here to stay or not ? Even the YES was leading initially. NO was leading on the last day and the poll was closed !!! I would request theymos to re-open the poll and keep it running for at least a month. Active people here already expressed their views. If you cannot deal with the fact a majority expressed their preference to keep the actual Trust system instead of expensive and time consuming one which will be no better or at least equal to the actual one, You have no right to cry havoc hinting the admin rigged the pool! |
|
|
|
It's UP, at least to me.  |
|
|
|
Disma probabilmente intendevi 3,5 mBtc (e sono cmq tanti con un faucet)
no no,mi sono fatto proprio 3,5 BTC..per un totale in € di circa 500..se non sbaglio :-) Posta una screenshot senno nessuno ci crede! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
