|
Do you guys really believe that this isn't possible? It absolutely is, but it's scummy as hell. This is the same reason why, if you ever directly sell bitcoins for Paypal, you need to check for a middleman by confirming your deal and the destination address with the Paypal email address. For a time, this "special market" was bitcoin itself.
|
|
|
|
Scenario 5
A Bitcoin stock exchange goes down and Account A posts a screenshot saying they own an asset's stock owned by Account B. The Account B refuses to pay. Are they worthy of a scammer tag? Depends on the evidence. If the stock exchange were to get Zhou Tonged and lose all data and backups, I'd lean towards "no". Scenario 6
Account A is owned jointly by a husband/wife team that promises to deliver 100 Bitcoin over time, 5 Bitcoin per year to Account B. The husband and wife separate, and the husband decides he's not going to honor the deal, but he'll let the wife own the account. He takes his 50 Bitcoin and walks. Does Account A deserve a scammer tag now that it is owned by the wife? (What if it is revealed the husband/wife was actually made up and it was run by one account?) Yes, because the tag is to warn people about the fact that the account cannot be trusted, regardless of who owns it. If the wife also had a personal account, that one might be left off the hook, though. Again, this is just in the general case, since this kind of issue will likely be much more complicated than you make it out to be. What happens will depend on the contract, the evidence that more than one person used the account, how the separation went down, and possibly more that I can't think of. Scenario 7
Accounts A-C jointly invest in a scheme offered by Account D, with a contract written up that he'll perform certain spending of the Bitcoin with each of the other accounts getting an equal vote in the deal. Account D announces later on to Account A that Account B is his sockpuppet and as long as A gives him 50% of what Account C put into the operation, he'll agree to however Account A wants to spend the other 50% of his money. Later on everyone finds out Account B is Account D's sockpuppet. Which of the four accounts gets the scammer tag and why? In the general case, none of them. Unless D went to extremely lengths to cover up that he is also B, to the point of fraud, and the only reason A and C didn't know that D and B were the same person was because they never did their due diligence, then that's just fine. But again, this is also one that is anything but straight forward. (I'm actually surprised scammers haven't tried these last two before, or maybe they have to some extent) Why bother? Sure, you might not get marked as a scammer or suffer any real-life consequences, but you'd still have to start over with gaining trust. For example, Zhou Tong never actually did anything wrong (we think), but I'd guess that you still won't take part in any of his future ventures. Same for Team Intersango. |
|
|
|
|
Unofficially, if you message theymos and make a donation to the forum, we'll whitelist you, but the reality is that most newbies don't have bitcoins, yet, so it wouldn't be very useful to automate this.
Of course, we will always (at least, as long as I'm here) whitelist people for free who seem to have done their research and have a basic understanding of Bitcoin.
The reason why I didn't whitelist you is that I personally don't feel that we should be whitelisting clear troll accounts, even if they were made by an existing member of the forum.
|
|
|
|
The original thread was deleted by the mods AFAIK.
I think that the November 3, 2011 thread was the original thread. Supposedly he was initially running the program over IRC with a small group of people. I don't know much more than that, though. |
|
|
|
I'd like to request people using bitcoind to NOT upgrade and force the devs to deal with changes properly.
These 2 changes above are ridiculous.
Can we expect the next version of bitcoin to remove other things that people are using and simply say - bad luck - see you later?
Have any of the bitcoin devs ever worked in a real production environment?
This sort of change suggests the answer to that question is 'no'.
We already had a nightmare of problems back in April due to not dealing with change properly, why are we still seeing this lack of proper procedure here with this 0.7.0 release?
This is a major version update, so things like this can be expected. Even if they had left those features in, the upgrade still might not be seamless for business users. If you don't want to update immediately to the new version, old versions still receive bugfix-only updates for about 1 year or so. 0.6.4 is currently being tested here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110231.0 |
|
|
|
Q: What's going on?
A: In short, one of my largest clients decided they would make things difficult for me. In the heat of the moment I made a move to secure the USD backing the coins when they were not returned and has made things much more difficult.
Q: Where have you been?
A: I realize not having information is annoying and somewhat concerning. I’ve stopped responding publicly until hard information was available due to some legal concerns that developed. Once the attorneys (both mine and my clients) got involved, everything slowed down while everything was sorted out.
Q: When will we get our coins?
A: As of today the earliest estimated time that coins can begin moving is Friday, Oct 12th. I can only keep you updated on this date as I have more information.
Q: Why did you require PPT operators to submit their account holders information?
A: There’re a few reasons for doing this. The largest of which was to remove the PPT operators from the added risk of their users claiming they were not paid once the main account was paid. The other reasons can not be disclosed.
Q: What is going to happen with bond issuers?
A: Since bonds can be traded and have taken a large hit due to the closure of BTCST, I’ll be working with the bond issuers to find a solution that best suits their investors.
Also...
Those looking to file a suit against me or BTCST will not be eligible for repayment.
GPUMAX has never been associated with BTCST nor have any of it’s partners. GPUMAX shared a wallet with one of the BTCST operating wallets for security and is now running it’s own secured wallet which is no longer associated with BTCST.
Threats are taken seriously by myself and my attorney. A few of you will find out how serious I mean.
That’s all for now, I’ll be providing updates here when more information is available.
Thanks Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110152.0 |
|
|
|
Hope this helps!
Absolutely! I've been looking for the answer to this question on and off for a few months, so thank you. |
|
|
|
|
Back on the subject of defamation, what are the legal liabilities/responsibilities of the operator(s) of a website when someone who is not related to the operator(s) posts a defamatory message on their site (i.e. a forum)?
|
|
|
|
So police officers come to pirate's house and ask him if everything is alright. He says yes and they leave. Am I missing something?
The purpose of doing this? I'm missing it too  The idea was that the police would confirm that the address is where Pirate lives and that he's home. Why bother? They will take care of that themselves during the criminal investigation. Guys, you've really done enough. Leave the verification of your data to the police and pass any new information to them directly. |
|
|
|
|
Not the best way to request it, but whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
BadBear and everyone else: Please don't purposely push Atlas into trolling. Give him a chance to do well here. If you really think he hasn't changed, just sit back - he'll show that on his own.
|
|
|
|
Now I am all for the forum getting money, but as I was thinking about this, its really not fair to the little guys who have a right to advertise their business too. I mean I could of bid right a long with him and got my slots but there are a lot of people around here who dont have the means to do that but should be allowed to advertise if they want to.
The forum itself automatically wins 2 slots per week (except this week, as a special circumstance) for this very reason. One of those slots advertises the ad auction, while the other one displays useful tidbits as well as free ads requested by donators. This is besides the fact that other businesses have several other opportunities to advertise, even within this forum. For example, they can make an announcement thread, buy people's signature space (see my sig for an example  ), and bring up their services when it's on topic for the thread. And, of course, this forum isn't bitcoin, so they can also advertise in the several other ways out there. |
|
|
|
As a scam investigator, here are my thoughts: Scenario 1I will give each user 0.1 BTC, up to a maximum of 100 BTC.
After paying out 50 BTC: Sorry, I ran out of BTC. I know I said 100 BTC maximum, but please respect my situation here.
This one needs more information. If the BTC were being given away while nothing was received in return, this would not be considered a scam. If it required someone to do something, it would be a scam. For example: "Everyone who signs up at my affiliate link will receive 0.1 BTC, up to 1000 users!" Of course, they can still close the offer early, but they would still be responsible for everything prior to that (maybe with a few minute leeway right before they closed the offer, though) Scenario 2Send me 0.1 BTC, and I will double it in a week! I will double 100 users!
After doubling 50 users, refuses to double 51 st user, paying it back in a week: Sorry bro, ran out, and I need to minimize my losses. I paid you back your 0.1 BTC, sorry it took so long. I don't know what I was thinking when I made the OP.
This is a scam. Imagine this simpler scenario: I take out 2 loans: one from Hashking, and one from Kluge. Both loans are for 100 BTC and have 10% interest for a one-week term. I pay back Kluge 110 BTC after the week, but I only pay Hashking 100 BTC. If I'm unable/unwilling to work something out in good faith with Hashking AND nobody else is willing to loan me the 10 BTC difference AND several days have passed without any kind of resolution, I deserve the scammer tag. Scenario 3I'm going to bet up to 100 BTC that the Penguins will win the Stanley Cup this year. Just send to [address] and I will return to one of the inputs if I lose. 1:1 odds, normal rules apply. I'm well trusted here, so don't worry about escrow.
After the Rangers win the cup: I'm so sorry! I intended the bet to be a joke. I never expected anyone to send. I returned all the money sent, plus 1% extra as compensation for the time.
Unless you can prove that you wouldn't have been paid if the outcome had gone the other way, you're a scammer. Even that would be shaky, though. Scenario 4I'm going to bet up to 100 BTC that the Blue Jays will lose tomorrow’s game. Anyone interested, post your address and amount here!
After the Blue Jays win: Look, I'm not going to lose this bet on poor umpires. It was clear that the umpires were biased, deliberately calling a few shady Jays runs "safe". I'm not going to ask you to remit the funds, but I won't pay out either.
Umpires are part of the game and should have been considered when the bet was initially made. If you try to claim otherwise, I'd ask you to explain why sports that can clearly afford it aren't completely refereed by computers. |
|
|
|
Also, we need to evaluate this statement: You say these 1% and 1.25% deposits are insured. Who is insuring them? Do you have a link to where this is explained somewhere? Thanks.
These deposits are guaranteed by me. Which means no one will lose any money if I make any bad investments. Again, this brings up the issue of time. However, he was never specific about what he meant by "me". You could argue that he guaranteed the program with his personal assets. Should hashking be required to liquidate all assets that can be forcefully liquidated by law? |
|
|
|
It's obviously fraud if he doesn't pay the insurance within some reasonable time. But I'm thinking it's possible 3 years is reasonable if he was using the profits set aside for insurance to buy mining hardware. Of course, since the insurance was based off of mining, regular payments towards the debt would be expected. That way, he can't just ignore the issue for 3 years. As for the timelines for paying out, it's fairly obvious that the original terms applied only as long as the insurance wasn't needed. As for how long insurance can take to pay out if they don't state a timeline for insurance payouts, it'd be interesting to see the case law on that. I'm absolutely shocked that nobody requested a clarification on that while the business was still running. |
|
|
|
|
Konichua still has 11 hours...
|
|
|
|
Sure, if cablepair thinks so. |
|
|
|
|
Since I have seen evidence that the mining farm that was used to back the insurance exists, it doesn't appear to me that any scam took place. Next time, invest in programs where the insurance pays out faster.
|
|
|
|
Matthew N Wright has a scammer label for welching on a bet. Yup. Hashking does not have a scammer label for lying about "insured deposits" Investigation is in progress. Nckrazze also lied about having "guaranteed deposits" First I've heard of this... pirateat40 does not have a scammer label for failing to pay back 500 000 bitcoins. Marked as scammer. This should be corrected and goes for anyone who used the terms "insured" or "guaranteed" As you can see, we eventually get to these things, but it takes time. |
|
|
|
Whoever would have predicted that the slick high school kid would end up as the honorable guy, and the notorious pirate would end up as the scummy thief?
I always thought both of these things, as shown by my post history. I'm glad to see that I was right. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
