interesting, but what is the average similarity index of any academic thesis ?
in this field, knowledge proceeds generally by continuous progression, naturally with remarkable exceptions.
I totally agree with your observations. Ideally it needs to be checked by a good plagiarism checker in its entirety and the results manually compared for relevance. He has been accused of plagiarism previously: https://news.bitcoin.com/craig-wright-shrugs-off-plagiarism-accusations/ |
|
|
|
3rd party KYC processing
Which gets hacked and everyone's KYC becomes worthless or even hazardous because hackers can now impersonate whoever they want (think Equifax-scale hack). That's not to say it can't be done in a safe manner... but it won't be done because there is more money in doing it in a shoddy manner and then selling all sorts of "identity protection" shit etc. Also KYC information can easily be passed onto the authorities. If an exchange gets hacked the whole database can be cloned and forever accessible to the police and who-ever they share it with. The exchange has no choice with it if they are either raided, have search warrants executed on them or their host, change ownership, have liquidators appointed or worse still - like Suchmoon suggested - get hacked and the private information is revealed. Livecoin being an exchange which probably is a shell company run in Belize by anonymous Russians. The actual control of the exchange could be in any country. Sending your passport details for KYC could be risky. |
|
|
|
As far as the legal ramifications of his testimony is concerned, well I'm no lawyer but I don't think he would have said what he did if he didn't think he could get away with it.
I think all this is proving that his understanding of legal processes is largely non existent. If you accuse a person of drug dealing and child pornography you're slightly better off doing it when they're already in prison and convicted of it. If they're not then that's a teensy weensy problem. Anything said in court is covered by absolute privilege. It means it cannot be used in defamation proceedings. It can also be reported. However the trick is to get CSW to REPEAT the accusations outside of court. Preferably while he is in the UK where they have good libel laws. I haven't read the full transcripts and haven't been paying much attention but perjury for a start (assuming theymos isn't actually one of the many DPR's  ). I'm really hoping the court actually goes after him for these lies. Asking for any sort of proof of half of what he's saying would be enough. He basically just keeps lying to get himself out of another lie and he's going to slip up under pressure and contradict himself if he hasn't already. I was thinking more of what's the endgame here for him? A small fine? A huge fine? Prison? The latter two? He doesn't seem to be planning more than several weeks ahead... Don't forget CSW has a masters of laws. He also endured a substantial investigation by the Australian tax office. https://bitsonline.com/wright-supercomputing-liquidated/So he is not unfamiliar with legal problems and legal strategy. He also has plenty of misguided fools supporters to spread his rhetoric and shit tokens crypto to exchange for money to pay for legal costs. I personally believe his untruths will eventually catch up with him. I don't think the US judge will have endless patience with him. Taking legal action should only be done as a last resort - but if you do - throw all your resources at it. I wouldn't recommend anyone to take him to task unless you have ample time and deep pockets. But if he sues you - give him WW3   If he repeats it outside of court he cannot claim absolute privilege. His supporters can quote the court testimony but CSW can potentially be seud for libel or defamation if he repeats it outside of the courtroom. But Martti had the best reply:   |
|
|
|
I can 100% tell you now that TradeSatoshi is not at that address listed on company house. For any US people who don't understand company house for a fee of £18 yes only £18 you too can list your "fake" company on there and no one will care.. TradeSatoshi is not a UK company they are not based in the UK nor do they have a office in the UK there servers are not located in the UK either and they have failed to submit ANY tax information as required BY law in the UK.. Also the company was dissolved on 24 Jul 2018 via voluntary strike-off Final meaning they did not keep there records up to date and decided it better to strike the company off. Another thing I find strange about the is the directors name. Francesco ALIBRANDI a quick google search turns up.  which turns out to be a doctors my thoughts are tradesatoshi is a fake company pushing fake paperwork to company house in order to aid in there "long term fraud" I wonder if anyone actually know's where TradeSatoshi is based.. office / servers... Because it's not the UK like they told everyone at the start. <snip> And as always Do Your Own Research!
It pays to read what others have posted previously.
Personally I believe every crypto exchange should have their legal contact details displayed clearly in their terms and conditions. Not everyone knows how to do a companies office search.
Tradesatoshis registered office according to the HK companies office (HK$22 which is about US$3 + 1 minute search)   <snip> It appears to be the address of a shared office space (business bureau) and mail forwarding service.<snip> You are unlikely to find anyone from tradesatoshi at that address because it appears to be the address of a business bureau that offers shared space, virtual offices and mail forwarding. https://www.bridges.hk/en/ |
|
|
|
I had a custom trust list well before the new system was introduced. TripleHeXXX dislikes bitcointalk and would not be suitable as a DT. For this reason I removed trusted feedback from him and later removed him from my trust list and I assume Lafu did the same. I thought I had removed him from my trust list but realised that I hadn't whe I did a periodic review. I was away for work most of February, March, April and off work with an injury during May so I did not have much time as normal to spend online.
You put far too much importance on yourself. I rarely read your stuff or give it much thought. Someone messaged me about your post.
The reason YOU and Lavajumper are on my distrust list is because there is an open and unanswered accusation against you and sexcoin since February.
But you know why you are distrusted by me because we already had this conversation numerous times.1) You are on my trust list as untrusted - because I don't trust you. The reason I don't trust you is on your reputation thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5105851.msg49797331#msg49797331 In addition to the reasons stated in your reputation thread - You have personally attacked me on a number of occasions and encouraged others to put me on their distrust list. You have been trying to bully me into removing you from my distrust list which simply will never happen now. You are dishonest about the reason why you are on my distrust list. Yes I've been made aware that you have cited that post multiple times as the reason <snip>
|
|
|
|
If you stretch your narrative any thinner, it is going to pop. Supporting the flag does not mean we support everything the creator ever said, it means that we support the claim of the flag, which is supported by bob123's own admissions. This is pretty cut and dry regardless of how badly you wish to distract from that. The only reason the escrow was not arranged was because bob123 accepted the terms that he would pay a set price up front upon consideration of a PM from the user name (as proven by bob123's submissions). He knowingly entered into a contract he did not intend to honor, with intent to take the legal rights of the seller by causing damages. Just because you think the ends justify the means does not change the facts.
 It is not about "everything the seller ever said". It is about the specific reasoning he gave when he created the flag. The OP has been flagged as a scammer by the account he tried to sell that he does not own. How much more scammy can it possibly get ? |
|
|
|
Another good suggestion. As per your numbers, requiring 2 inclusions would cut the current DT2 list down to 128 from 378 - a much more reasonable number. 3 inclusions would cut it down to 65 which I think is probably on the small side.
I think that 3 inclusions from DT1 members for DT2 members is a better one. I don't think more DT2 members will help to solve things better. There are abusements on DT2 already, so if there will be a implementation to cut it down, it should be 3. It is nearly the same as when merit system started in 2018, people complained and proposed to require 5 merits for Member rank, 50 merits for Full member rank and so on. More DT2 members will result in more fake DT2 members, and annoying wars from users and DT2 members if they use their role wrongly. Maybe they are good users, but who knows when they have power in hands, they might change somehow, more arrogantly, and arbitrarily use their power, then wars will occur. I think we should have a vote on which cutoff should be chosen, 2 or 3 inclusions and consequent estimated DT2 members?
Quality should be prioritized than quantity. I think part of the Theymos experiment is to decentralize the power. By having DT1 effectively vote on all the DT2 there is a lot of power by the existing DT1. (I have a lot of respect for some of the DT1's) In my opinion this is the Theymos gold dredge experiment. By putting all the sluice into the dredge (including the nuggets and grains that were already found) and tossing it around the theory is that all the gold gets stuck behind the riffles. The risk is that the gold that was already found gets washed away in the process. But in terms of trust lists and trust networks being build the process appears to be working. |
|
|
|
Well at least I can say that I tried. I am not happy with the response LiveCoin gave in here and I have given them my notice that the Campaign will end after payments have been sent out tomorrow. And as I previously stated, flag me or neg me I really could not be bothered but I'll be damned if I ever succumb to bullying by users who's entire existence appears to be spreading negativity and putting others down. But then I've come to expect nothing short of just that which is why this forum matters less and less with each day passing by.
@OP. Hope your situation gets a resolution, I'm officially done and I'm out of here.
As campaign manager and in business you will get into situations where you are uncomfortable. It is not always possible to anticipate these things in advance. In my view you did the right thing. You tried to resolve it and am now distancing yourself from the client because they did not react in a way that is consistent with your ethics. |
|
|
|
|
I can see this thread becoming a thread that will keep on giving entertainment.
Scammers using mugshots of criminals for scams. LOL
Reminds me of the inheritance scammer years ago that sent me a photo of himself "to prove he was real". It was a photo of Bernie Madoff.
|
|
|
|
I think Salty said it pretty accurately the basic definitions of financially harming someone doesn't apply because you don't like them. Thats not how things work, and it speaks very poorly to all of your characters. It feels like I'm in the flat earth thread. I post "did someone lose money as a result of another person's action" and the response is, PROVE THIS PERSON IS ROUND IF THE SUN IS 1000 MILES AWAY.
I agree with what SaltySpitoon said. But I don't believe that applies in this case. He made an agreement for both of us that he will buy the account if we prove ownership and use SebastianJu as an escrow if proved that the accounts is within our hands and we are not scammers by sending a message to him which trustedseller has done but he broke the agreement/contract and compromised a confidential information about our transaction.
The claim for creating the flag by the seller was clear. The parts I higlhighted in red in my opinion contradict what occurred. Theymos made it absolutely clear that the onus of proof is with the person creating the flag and those supporting it - that you cannot create or support a flag containing incorrect fact-statementsBy supporting the flag your are certifying that escrow was arranged with SebastianJu and that the seller is not a scammer. Because that is what the OP claimed when he created the flag....
Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.
|
|
|
|
 Above you can see that bob123 agreed to purchase a legendary account for $600 upon receiving a PM from the account. You can see from the above screenshot of PMs posted by bob123 that a PM was sent from narousberg, which is a legendary account. Further, you can see based on bob123's actions that he did not have any intention of actually buying the accounts up for sale, despite making the representation that he wishes to do so, which is a breach of an implied agreement. I would have to scrutinize the details further to find additional agreements that bob123 broke, however the above more than demonstrates a breach of agreement(s), and as such proves the flag is valid. Is contradicted by this which was posted by the seller.  Seller posted the entire chatlog here: http://archive.is/rlBTDThe agreement was to “prove” ownership via sending a PM. Although this would not actually prove ownership, it is stipulated in the agreement that it does. Therefore for purposes of the agreement in hand, the OP held up his end of the agreement.
It was later shown that at least one of the accounts the seller was attempting to sell was stolen. The claim by the seller is: He made an agreement for both of us that he will buy the account if we prove ownership and use SebastianJu as an escrow if proved that the accounts is within our hands and we are not scammers by sending a message to him which trustedseller has done but he broke the agreement/contract and compromised a confidential information about our transaction.
I don't see escrow being used and by trying to sell the stolen / account that was not for sale the seller is by definition a scammer. The claims made by the seller do not pass scrutiny. Theymos made it absolutely clear that the onus of proof is with the person creating the flag and those supporting it....
Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.
|
|
|
|
Let's see how Bittrex will protect against attack 51%  I also spoke about it earlier
Unfortunately 51% attacks are cheap the perform on small coin networks. Even 100 confirmations will not guarantee network safety. I've seen longer 51% attack double spends. It also will make things like arbitrage much more difficult for the honest users of the exchange.
My understanding is that Livecoin expected them to orchestrate some sort of bailout/rollback fork to reverse their losses. The Monacoin developers refused, which is a perfectly respectable position for developers of a POW protocol. An impasse was reached and Livecoin never did anything to rectify the issue and compensate their customers.
Same with Monero. Livecoin simply expects the Monero developers to pay them $1.8 million to reimburse their losses. Legally, the developers have no liability. It's right in their software license! On the other hand, Livecoin is legally liable for the deposits its customers made and now won't pay out.
The way Livecoin is acting, you really have to wonder how deeply insolvent they might be.
It depends on the agreement that livecoin has with the developers. A lot of times developers pay to get their coin onto an exchange - that often is accompanied with contractual obligations. With a 51% attack with double spend the exploit does not occur on the exchange. The coin networks gives valid confirmations that are later tricked into being orphaned by privately mined blocks. It means that those mined blocks are neither from a decentralized coin network and also shows that the blockchain is not immutable. Coin developers have the ability to introduce check-pointing or utilizing a hybrid system that makes it more difficult to mount such an attack on the network. How does a double spend 51% attack work ? Explanation and examples. |
|
|
|
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.
Someone has done that already with several of the common exchanges. |
|
|
|
<snip>
Can someone tell me? Why was the coins valued after the attack? It's not normal but you are still accusing only LC. I think the Mona's team also responsible from this attacks because investors warned them multiple times but they choosed let that happen. They preferred not to do anything to prevent the attack. Why?
I would like to thank Livecoin and Hhampuz for accepted me to this nice signature campaign.
I'm leaving the signature campaign, good luck everyone.
This is exactly why markets need to be frozen after an attack. When a coin wallet is closed on an exchange it means arbitrage is no longer possible so the only trading that occurs is with the coin balances that already exist on the exchange ledger. It means that people who have a large coin balance on there (e.g. whales, coin developers and the exchange themselves) can manipulate the price because more coins at a lower price bought at another exchange or from a HoDL cannot be sent to the exchange. |
|
|
|
Not everyone, just DT1 members should be This was already addressed when the flag system was created. A newbie warning flag only needs a simple majority, but a scammer warning flag needs a majority of 3 to become active So it is more about supermajority. Okay then Suggesting that all DT1 member should be in agreement over every situation is to suggest that every situation has a "right" answer and a "wrong" answer, which is simply not the case That's why only such cases should count, i.e. where every DT1 member agrees Otherwise, it is not "black and white" as you say yourself, and the verdict should be better left undelivered where such conflict arises (until it gets settled via an "upper hand" or through unanimous decision). The major problem is that DT1 members are part of the game (unlike jury), which can cause potential deadlocks like the one described above. Basically, one DT1 member may request you to do one thing while the other quite the opposite, with no in-between ground, and then you are instantly stuck Getting all the DTs to agree is like herding cats But that's not what I suggest Well, it is assumed that the DT1 members are sort of forum elite ("crème de la crème"), i.e. only the best and most respected members of the forum society can become DT1 members. If this is the case and there is no agreement among them on a certain issue, that pretty much means that the issue in question is far from being "black or white", right? If so, shouldn't it be better left unsettled until there is such agreement or a higher authority steps in (if it is urgent and requires immediate resolution)? At the moment the criteria for DT is reasonably low. There are some good people on DT but some of it is quite randomly selected on DT2. The new system still has teething problems and infancy issues. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
