Bitcoin Forum
October 23, 2020, 12:01:30 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [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 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 ... 152 »
901  Other / Meta / Re: The BCH value in forum wallets on: December 03, 2019, 09:26:54 PM
- Not asking was unprofessional.
I agree that OG not discussing this with theymos was a mistake on OG's part, but I doubt it was done out of malice..
I think he could have casually claimed airdrops from all of his keys, not skipping this key, and didn't really think anything of it, but should have consulted theymos about it..

I think this is an interesting philosophical question of who has the right to these sorts of miscellaneous fork/airdrop values based on who owns the keys or what is contracted with the contents of the keys..
Ideally, it should be handled explicitly in the agreement, but this agreement predated the concept of forkcoins.
This situation occurred mostly because their was little to no foresight into this evolutionary step of cryptocurrency where fork coins and airdrops exploded out of the middle of nowhere.. With the ever changing world of crypto situations like this are likely to even come up again in the future as things change, especially in relation to long term contracts..

the agreement definitely didn't require it, demanding it now could be perceived as exploiting the political atmosphere here to shake down a counterparty.
It is a slip up but it is being over exploited IMO..

I find it interesting a lot of the most vocal people here attacking OG Nasty were silent when this exact scenario occurred under Lauda's custody.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4895354.0
It also seems like many of the people who are attacked by Lauda the most are defending OGNasty.
FTFY..
I was just attacked with Red trust by Lauda partially in reference to my postings in this thread.. I deserve a negative rating for speaking my mind and exploring contrary points of logic? I don't think so..
Do you want a diversity of ideas or an echo chamber?

I donít like the idea of myself being subjected to mob justice, so I felt obligated to defend him.
Same here, but see what happens?


As of an hour or so ago last I checked OGNasty is still on theymos's trust list so I don't think this whole thing is as big of a deal as many are trying to make it out to be, or I imagine he would have been removed/excluded..
902  Economy / Reputation / Re: P2PB2B - resolving "scam alerts" and misunderstandings on: December 03, 2019, 01:09:27 AM
I "forced" them to find a reputable escrow for securing funds.

any bounty campaign of any project even with one scam accusation must be escrowed via any reputable member, who offers such services.

This is incorrect..

You should never "force" anyone to escrow.. They rightfully can choose not to escrow..

If you look here in the Overview of Bitcointalk Signature-Ad Campaigns [Last update: 01-Dec-2019] thread you will find that roughly half of the current Bitcoin paying signature add campaigns are not escrowed..

You very well should recommend escrow or warn participants that their is no escrow, but you don't "force" escrow..

If they are a scam then escrow is the least of your worries because then you red tag every participant for advertising scams.. Which is done ALL THE TIME..
And, I'm not sure a reputable escrow would escrow a signature campaign for a scam..
Would you escrow a signature campaign for a ponzi?
 

I just do not understand, why did you get involved in this conversation with some "smart statements" and ruined your legendary account with a red tag?

That has come to my attention and I have been thinking about it so thank you for bringing that up for me..

My "legendary account" and greater identity are in no way "ruined" by Lauda's comment..
If it diminishes me in any way it would only be to those who are ignorant..

In fact, it does Lauda more harm than me.. Or will do..
If you are in the know around here, when you see it, you will immediately realize that it is abuse of default trust, and basically just nonsense..

This will make Lauda look very bad for doing it, to anyone who's opinion I care about..
If you think it is right, you may want to think about it again..

I may mount a full defense if I have to, but it is so blatant that I'm thinking, I might not even have to mount a full defense myself..

Go ahead and get some talk going on about it before Lauda has a chance to rethink their decision here to save face..


I think @Lauda the sooner you remove it, the better it will be for you, before I, or anyone else, takes a stand against it..
903  Other / Meta / Re: The BCH value in forum wallets on: December 02, 2019, 07:55:55 PM

Did the contract even specify which Bitcoin fork would be the real Bitcoin? I don't think it said anything about the longest chain or most POW or anything of the sort. What if theymos and Og had different opinions about that and asked you to arbitrate. What would you say?

Also interesting..
I was thinking a few posts ago how crypto is still a new frontier where contracts can become obsolete due to the changing technology..
We are all concerned with forks now but it wasn't even really though of when the contract was made..


What is difference between bitcoinshith fork and GBYTE airdrop except theymos didn't know about it?

Forks require you to move the BTC befor you claim them because claiming them can compromise your private key and they can take everything..
Airdrops you can just sign a message, doesn't risk the keys..
904  Other / Meta / Re: The BCH value in forum wallets on: December 02, 2019, 07:42:16 PM
this does bring into question all the other airdropped coins like XLM..

I hope he claimed everything possible and dumped hard on them all..
I hope he made a million bazillion BTCs..
905  Economy / Reputation / Re: P2PB2B - resolving "scam alerts" and misunderstandings on: December 02, 2019, 07:32:39 PM
There is no conflict of interest other than you trying to attack me for calling you out on your bullshit virtue-signalling on everything.

if someone else was to escrow this you'd keep quiet as always. Roll Eyes

Their is conflict of interest in your opinion of their scamminess now that you are in business with them..
I'm still trying to decide if it is a "scam" that should not be advertised, or not, and now your opinion on the matter is possibly biased because you jumped in bed with them..
mosprognoz seems to still think it's a scam..

I was mostly interested by the "forced" part TBH is why I ended up making the post..
906  Other / Meta / Re: The BCH value in forum wallets on: December 02, 2019, 07:21:35 PM
Interesting quandary.  As a loose analogy, isn't this roughly equivalent to what commercial banks do?  They hold the funds, then use that value to generate additional value?  It's not like they seek permission from you about how they use that wealth.  Maybe you earn some interest in the process, but when you eventually withdraw your funds, the bank do keep the profits they made from the value they generated from you.  

Yes, but he couldn't exactly engage in fractional reserve banking, or gamble/invest with those funds, because I think the contract stated that the coins were to remain in the specific escrow address, not to be moved around and such..

But signing a BTC signed message from the address did not breach that contract..

Another way to look at it, if OG was claiming airdrops from all of his keys, why skip that key?

But you don't pay a bank to hold your money do you?

It happens..
Many accounts have fees for the use of them..
Negative interest rates happen sometimes too..
Escrow agents are not free..
907  Other / Meta / Re: The BCH value in forum wallets on: December 02, 2019, 07:11:23 PM
I don't think that matters because the keys are his and technically so were all the BTC in the keys at the time according to the code..
If he didn't return the 500 BTC that wouldn't be a scam then? Because the BTC was all his according to the code.

Well yes, that would be a breach of contract..

An interesting question is, while OG held the coins, did the forum own those coins, or just owned a contract?
I'm not sure.. What do you think?

I often look at it as, if you don't own the keys, all you own is a contract..
908  Other / Meta / Re: The BCH value in forum wallets on: December 02, 2019, 06:35:27 PM
did OgNasty claim the BCH for himself or not?  It sounds like not.  
Not only did he give the BCH but also gave ALL of the other "major" forks worth much of anything at all.. Very admirably..

Then why did the Treasurer hand over BCH and whatever other shitcoins?
Because he is nice..

This is kind of the same argument that was made against Lauda a while back in that escrow deal (if I'm recalling correctly).
And how did that go? Who ended up with the BCH value eventually?
Can you refresh my memory on that?



All I see is more witch hunt for OG going on here..

Better get to digging into all of those addresses you can link to OG to find something to complain about..
909  Other / Meta / Re: The BCH value in forum wallets on: December 02, 2019, 06:18:10 PM
He claimed them from HIS keys.. HIS keys..

Forum Coins, Forum Coins.

Forum contract, HIS coins..
You own a contract with that escrow or exchange you deposit to, they (the keyholder) own the coins..
910  Other / Meta / Re: The BCH value in forum wallets on: December 02, 2019, 06:14:12 PM
So that proves that Mr Nasty had not communicated his intention to claim GBYTE from the forum funds.

He claimed them from HIS keys.. HIS keys..
It possibly would have been a nice thing for him to offer this claimed value to theymos, but I do not think it is or was a requirement to do so..
I don't know if it was a requirement for him to hand over ANY forks or anything claimed from HIS keys in order to abide by the contract, which was for the return of BTC only, but it is awful nice of him to have done so, because he is a good guy and it's the right thing to do..

He owned the keys period, so even giving the BTC back is nothing more than a testament to his morality and trustworthiness, because when those Bitcoins were on HIS keys, the Bitcoin code says he owned them too.. Bitcoin doesn't give one shit about anything you write, be it a joke or a contract, unless you fork/insert it into the Bitcoin code itself, he who owns the keys owns the contents..

We preach all the time about owning your own keys guys, lol..

The wallet address had forum funds, without the escrow in that wallet the address would not of been eligible for the airdrop....
Yeah but most airdrops depended on the amount of BTC in that address, except maybe CLAM, but even that required a certain minimum. Og is entitled to sign a message with that address and to get 0 GBYTE for the 0 BTC he had in it.

I don't think that matters because the keys are his and technically so were all the BTC in the keys at the time according to the code..

Is an exchange a scam if they claim airdrops on their keys that are full of customer funds and not disperse these claimed values to the customer?
I would consider that quite shady, if not technically a scam (because they didn't promise me any airdrops).

I wouldn't consider it shady at all..
I consider it if you cared about it you should have owned your own keys or atleast had an agreement with the keyholder on the topic of forks/airdrops, as is usually how it goes..

Why should they NOT claim anything they can?
It's just nice of them to give it to you if they do, if it wasn't stipulated in any contract..

Handing over the airdrop funds also seems like the only ethical thing to do.

Only if theymos asks for them..

his reputation will suffer

He returned the huge amount of BTC and now all the "major" forks..
His reputation is only getting better, lol..
911  Other / Meta / Re: The BCH value in forum wallets on: December 02, 2019, 05:47:25 PM
If OG simply had to sign a BTC message from HIS keys it is debatable if the airdrop value should be his or not anyway, because they are OG's keys..
The amount of GBYTE airdropped was based entirely on the Bitcoin holdings on the address. So if someone joined by signing a message from an empty private key, he got nothing.

Right, but the keys are his property..
You can't claim an airdrop with a screenshot of your balance in a 3rd party wallet/exchange either, or by showing an escrow contract..

Some exchanges have indeed done that. But what if it's just their local system administrator who claims it for himself instead of the company?

Well, is the local systems admin the owner of the keys or just contracted to manipulate the keys owned by the company?
I would think the keys would be owned by the company, and an employee doing anything with the keys outside of their job expectation would be unethical up to the point of stealing the same as if they were to take everything off of the company's keys..

OG claimed the Airdrop coins without Theymos's consent or knowledge
I don't ask theymos for consent on what I do with my keys either..

OG handed over the BCH, president has been set there.
But did he have to hand over the BCH and other "major" forks in order to fulfill the contract, or was he just a good guy for doing so?
912  Other / Meta / Re: The BCH value in forum wallets on: December 02, 2019, 05:28:10 PM
So Theymos "wastes" the opportunity for free coins

Yes I would consider this a "waste" of an opportunity to..

1. Dump on shitcoins..
2. Increase holdings of BTC by dumping shitcoins for BTC..
3. Increase the general value of BTC by dumping on shitcoins, taking that value out of the shitcoin and putting it back into BTC..

From the perspective of a self admitted Bitcoin supremacist (me), relentlessly dumping on any airdrops and forks is good for Bitcoin..


The question of if the topic of airdrops was discussed between OG and theymos is a question.. I wonder if their has been any mention of this subject between them at all..

If OG simply had to sign a BTC message from HIS keys it is debatable if the airdrop value should be his or not anyway, because they are OG's keys..
The forum's BTC on OG's keys is the forum's bitcoin, but the keys themselves are the property of OG and not theymos or the forum..

Understanding this, I think it could be debated that if not stated otherwise in any contract all forks and airdrops are the property of the key owner period, and therefore ANY value from forks or airdrops given to the escrow customer along with the BTC could be considered nothing more than a good deed, even as far as a donation..

At what point is an escrow responsible to claim all forks and airdrops for whoever they are holding coin for?
I think many escrows, exchanges, etc. now have disclaimers about this as in "I will not be held responsible for getting your forks/airdrops for you. I may, but may not." now that forks and airdrops are common, but back when the escrow contract for the forum funds was made I believe was before them to be common or of any concern..

Is an exchange a scam if they claim airdrops on their keys that are full of customer funds and not disperse these claimed values to the customer?

I think this is an interesting philosophical question of who has the right to these sorts of miscellaneous fork/airdrop values based on who owns the keys or what is contracted with the contents of the keys..
913  Other / Meta / Re: The BCH value in forum wallets on: December 02, 2019, 04:52:41 PM
I don't think he handed back anything.

Ummm...
All the Bitcoins a while ago and just now all of the "major" fork coins..
As in the title of this thread..

I'd bet OG would hand over anything related to the escrow that theymos asked him to..
Lmao. Everyone on this earth would bet that OG would give back the fork coins if theymos asked him. What kind of statement is that are you kidding me

"anything related to the escrow" would include airdrops.. Guy..

If airdrops have not been claimed on forum funds it would just be a waste..
914  Economy / Reputation / Re: P2PB2B - resolving "scam alerts" and misunderstandings on: December 02, 2019, 04:42:17 PM
I forced them to start an escrowed campaign.

You forced them did you?
I'm not sure what to think about "forcing" them to escrow anything.. Escrow is an option and not something that should be "forced" I think..  


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5203715.msg53170993#msg53170993

That was the only thing I could do, to ensure that participants will be paid. And I guess they found Lauda as an escrow, which means 100% safe campaign. There are a lot of scam accusations and some People think that this exchange is a scam (Including me). Exchange representatives are denying accusations. So, let potential traders read what is mentioned in scam accusations, study supporting evidence and make up their own minds.

How convenient.. Surely it will be 100% safe now...

There are a lot of scam accusations and some People think that this exchange is a scam (Including me).

It is suddenly OK to advertise scams as long as they are using escrow?

In that way, you wan't be able to scam anyone who will participate in the campaign. I wan't remove any tag from you or other accounts that are related to p2pb2b because I still consider it as a scam exchange. But I will not tag any participant and you can go ahead if there will be a reputable escrow for this campaign.

So you would have tagged participants if they didn't escrow? Or, you won't tag if they do use escrow?
WTF does them escrowing campaign funds have anything to do with it being a scam or not?

Are you some sort of authority who can "force" them to escrow and give them the "go ahead" to advertise a scam?

That is correct. This exchange has a lot of scam accusations and as I said, I still consider it as a scam, but as you said a lot of users eager to make a living off bounties. As far this dudes are promising to pay in BTC and escrow the funds, let the mentioned users (Bounty hunters) make some money out of the offered campaign.

Well no shit bounty hunters are eager to make some scratch by spamming advertising no matter if it a scam they are shilling or not.. They/many don't care as long as they can get their piece of the action..


So, does this set the precedent that DT is going to allow the advertisement of scams as long as they escrow their advertisement funds?
All these poor bounty hunters should be able to make some coin by advertising scams and ponzis as long as it is escrowed for the sake of protecting these poor bounty hunters from the scammers that they are advertising for?


I forced them to start an escrowed campaign.
they found Lauda as an escrow
Yeah, it should start any day now and that's the very least that I can do.

This could be interpreted as facilitating a scam or at the very least now a conflict of interest..


-
No, there is nothing you can say that would change the opinions that users have formed on p2pb2b and its sister scam coinbit
I'm about to accept escrowing their campaign
Sure, if you are happy to proceed that way then that something you have thought through but my issue remains with the scam aspect.

Just because they might in future run a scam-free bounty campaign does not make it a scam-free project because the bounty campaign is directly related to p2pb2b being promoted.

p2pb2b2 have been selective scamming users

Hmm....
915  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Bounties (Altcoins) / Re: P2PB2B Signature Campaign. Weekly Rewards in ETH 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 on: December 02, 2019, 04:41:39 PM
Oops, posted https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5205331.msg53242039#msg53242039 in the wrong thread(this thread), but very related..
Can't delete..
Might as well quote it..

I forced them to start an escrowed campaign.

Your forced them did you?
I'm not sure what to think about "forcing" them to escrow anything.. Escrow is an option and not something that should be "forced" I think.. 


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5203715.msg53170993#msg53170993

That was the only thing I could do, to ensure that participants will be paid. And I guess they found Lauda as an escrow, which means 100% safe campaign. There are a lot of scam accusations and some People think that this exchange is a scam (Including me). Exchange representatives are denying accusations. So, let potential traders read what is mentioned in scam accusations, study supporting evidence and make up their own minds.

How convenient.. Surely it will be 100% safe now...

There are a lot of scam accusations and some People think that this exchange is a scam (Including me).

It is suddenly OK to advertise scams as long as they are using escrow?

In that way, you wan't be able to scam anyone who will participate in the campaign. I wan't remove any tag from you or other accounts that are related to p2pb2b because I still consider it as a scam exchange. But I will not tag any participant and you can go ahead if there will be a reputable escrow for this campaign.

So you would have tagged participants if they didn't escrow? Or, you won't tag if they do use escrow?
WTF does them escrowing campaign funds have anything to do with it being a scam or not?

Are you some sort of authority who can "force" them to escrow and give them the "go ahead" to advertise a scam?

That is correct. This exchange has a lot of scam accusations and as I said, I still consider it as a scam, but as you said a lot of users eager to make a living off bounties. As far this dudes are promising to pay in BTC and escrow the funds, let the mentioned users (Bounty hunters) make some money out of the offered campaign.

Well no shit bounty hunters are eager to make some scratch by spamming advertising no matter if it a scam they are shilling or not.. They/many don't care as long as they can get their piece of the action..


So, does this set the precedent that DT is going to allow the advertisement of scams as long as they escrow their advertisement funds?
All these poor bounty hunters should be able to make some coin by advertising scams and ponzis as long as it is escrowed?


I forced them to start an escrowed campaign.
they found Lauda as an escrow
Yeah, it should start any day now and that's the very least that I can do.

This could be interpreted as facilitating a scam or at the very least now a conflict of interest..


-
No, there is nothing you can say that would change the opinions that users have formed on p2pb2b and its sister scam coinbit
I'm about to accept escrowing their campaign
Sure, if you are happy to proceed that way then that something you have thought through but my issue remains with the scam aspect.

Just because they might in future run a scam-free bounty campaign does not make it a scam-free project because the bounty campaign is directly related to p2pb2b being promoted.

p2pb2b2 have been selective scamming users

Hmm....

916  Other / Meta / Re: The BCH value in forum wallets on: December 02, 2019, 05:41:23 AM
OG handing back more escrow value is reason for concern?

Theymos is giving OG the minor forks and shows no concern for minor airdrops..

What about clams?

I'd bet OG would hand over anything related to the escrow that theymos asked him to..
917  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: CRYPTSY stopping withdraw locking accounts without notifying users! Class Action on: December 02, 2019, 05:37:54 AM
Bump!

Check your watched addys..
Anything happen?
918  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Your thoughts about Greta Thunberg on: December 01, 2019, 07:09:59 AM
People could stop polluting with toxic chemicals and littering.. Other than that their is no problem..
CO2 is not a problem..
919  Other / Meta / Re: The BCH value in forum wallets on: December 01, 2019, 06:46:16 AM
Due to having low value, other forkcoins on this 500 BTC were not transferred.

Are the remaining minor fork coins still held in escrow for the forum by OGNasty?
920  Economy / Reputation / Re: A Song of Vices and Ire: Alternate Account Campaign Enrollment on: December 01, 2019, 06:21:06 AM
Interesting argument..

To me it breaks down to: Is a user breaking a campaign's rules scamming the campaign? Should they be tagged for scamming? Is it a deceptive breach of contract?
I think I would trust someone less if I knew them to break such petty contracts..

I don't think it should be a forum rule and that campaigns should be able to make it a private rule for their campaign, or not..

Some can post well from multiple accounts, like TP..

What has always confused me... is the fervour with which some folks seem to hunt out these alt accounts who are "abusing campaigns"... I'm not sure if they see it as an "easy" way to score some merits, as opposed to other forms of contribution to the forum? Huh

I have thought about this also... It seems like an effort that can be made to increase social status, and maybe some just really like lording over others..

One could also see it as battling spam, which it may in many cases, but may not in all cases..

TP could have HB on chipmixer and it wouldn't bother me a bit unless TP was breaking contract with CM by doing so..
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 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 ... 152 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!