LOL - that one I just listed on The most iconic bitcointalk threads. History on Bitcointalk.

The discord link was posted on their website. Twitter is their official media channel.


Andrew - you can keep on acting like an asshat but I'm unsure what it will achieve other than earning a spot on my ignore list.

Both myself and Lafu and are just trying to provide as much information to others as possible while staying positive.

Nothing in the media has been confirmed either way. The Stuff website has been factually incorrect on a number of occasions.


Prior speculation will have no influence on the outcome. The results of the police investigation will establish the facts.


Archived

Thule - this is proof you have absolutely no standards or credibility at all when you leave feedback like this.



...and you complain about feedback left by the DTs when you leave false feedback yourself.

Proof it is factually untrue.

I have nothing much to add....

I've left negative feedback to the accounts that got 50 merits and a neutral to the one that got 12 (The post that got 12 is not a bad post) but still suspect due to the hacking accusation against the person that left positive feedback to that hero account.

Your refusal to answer the question and use of an alt account to post speaks volumes. Which 51% attacked coin are you representing ?

I don't think it is legal that the blockchain is dishonoring the blockchain balance it initially confirmed prior to being exploited and fraudulently altered by a 51% attack.  Do you ?


There are numerous things a coin can do if it does not have sufficient hashrate to protect the network:

Checkpointing. 
Changing to a less vulnerable algorythm
Introducing a hybrid system.
Utilising masternodes.

The only thing that would be stopping payments in such a scenario is the blockchain ledger balance which was fraudulently altered by the 51% attack.

I think the words Before you list, be aware of your obligations - makes it quite clear.

A "Terms Of Service" is a contract. A reference to their policies is specifically mentioned in their TOS.

I don't work for Cryptopia so I'm not privy to the discussions that coin devs have with their staff.

However - I know that they have had a similar listing & delisting policy published on their site since early 2016.

https://support.cryptopia.co.nz/csm?id=kb_article&sys_id=5d7482d2db9e9bc032a664a14a96199f


 

But the coin developers also didn't detect the 51% attacks and act on them. They have only one network to monitor and are contractually obliged to monitor it.

I think the majority in the Russian community are aware that every board has its outcasts and trouble makers. It is not wise to align with people that start petty squabbles.

The Russians are smart and resourceful and know that the best solution is to work together rather than against each other.

The Russians have acted with dignity and tact in this whole situation and have my respect. Once a decent deal is made I can see the community as a whole grow stronger against scammers.

It is also a matter of self preservation.

In large cities people tend to be more self centered and mind their own business more.

Bystanders are reluctant to get involved and get hurt in disputes or "get involved".

Getting involved also can take time if it turns out badly - making people late for their appointments.

Waiting and talking to police, ambulance of firemen.

There have been a number of times that I have got involved in other peoples issues. Whether health or violence.

Sometimes they have turned out to be drug addicts having a seizure but once it turned out to be an epileptic seizure by someone who looked like they were going through a drug overdose.

It was a serious seizure and if I hadn't intervened he possibly would have dies. As soon as I took action others came to help but for about 5 minutes nobody had done anything.

Drug addicts potentially have transmittable diseases (bleeding from the fall) and can act violently and unpredictably.

I've also got involved as a bystander in violent situations. Most of the time things turned out OK and I was able to calm the situation down but once I got hit with a brick.

I'd still stop and intervene every time if a life was potentially at risk.

Quoted and verified

I think you missed the point. I totally agree that coins that are unable to secure their blockchain have no place on an exchange and need to be delisted / not listed.

While it is important for exchanges to monitor blockchain operation and developments - ultimately the security of the blockchain is the responsibility of the developers of that blockchain.

Saying the exchange is responsible is like saying a reseller of software is responsible for the software itself. Ultimately the responsibility of the reliability of the operation of the software lies with the software developers.

If I sell something and the bank (blockchain) confirms the deposit and then I send the goods based on that advise - and later the bank reverses the transaction (after I sent the goods) then the problem has occurred at the bank (blockchain). Whether it is "open source", "decentralized" or whatever  - it is irrelevant. The initial failing is at blockchain level.

There are certain things that an exchange can monitor.  Ultimately if a blockchain gets attacked then the blockchain needs to fix the problem or get delisted.

Some blockchains have realized that and solved the issue while other conveniently shift the blame.

You will find that there are always those that disagree in opinion over this but by nature of a 51% attack - it cannot be detected until after it has occurred. Therefore if it can occur easily - the blockchain no longer has a valid commercial use.


Don't forget that coins pay to be listed and part of that they agree to the conditions of listing. It is a binding contract.
Some of the coins were listed well before 51% attacks became a valid security issue.


When a coin is exploited and fail to meet the conditions of listing (breach of contract)  then they are to blame.

Legit coins take their responsibilities seriously:

https://medium.com/floblockchain/flo-team-response-to-51-attack-8c9ef683d7ba
https://blog.zencash.com/zencash-statement-on-double-spend-attack/



https://www.cryptodigest.com/exchanges/vertcoin-experiences-a-51-attack-coinbase-takes-advantage/

This verticoin block 1044331 Had a re-org depth of 310 blocks and two double spends targeting exchanges.
http://explorer.vertcoin.info/block/5313791a34a89e55c41b1522f6b5b607dad88b839e05432cbe9620e2f5e46bf1

It is confirmed real. It is a generic letter that was sent to people who had contacted the police regarding the Cryptopia investigation.

It would be a huge co-incidence to have never received merits and then get 50 merits randomly from a hacked account.

Why would a hacker give away free merits (maximum allowable) to random accounts when they can sell them ?

I have strong suspicions that the accounts are either associated to the hacker or th merit was bought - either deserves red tagging.

Mr Felt got merits from a hacked account AND got trust from a different account with a hacking accusation against it.

What happened::

Legendary account erre was hacked and recovered.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3652698

Before recovery large amounts of merit was sent to three accounts.

One of those accounts has feedback from DT2

EDIT: Additional proof was found that Aleks09 , Mr Felt and zTheWolfz are alts of the same person who has been vouching for themselves as an exchanger.

All accounts show strong signs of being hacked or bought. (see proof in the thread)

Profile Link:

Aleks09
Mr Felt
zTheWolfz
shdvb-assistant
shdvb

This DT2 prolfile gave positive feedback to one of the profiles. This user also has hack allegations against it.



https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3061930.msg31532524#msg31532524  shdvb hacked account accusation.


Gave feedback to the "mr felt" account around the time of the hack.

shdvb
shdvb-assistant



Additional Notes:

"MrFelts" appears to have received that "trusted feedback" from an account that has a suspected hacking allegation against it.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=318030

I've sent a message to vod who appears to know / trust him.



All three look extremely suspect.







It would be nice to hear their response before deciding to paint them red.

I opened a scam accusation here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103001.msg49459272#msg49459272

(I think hacking falls under scam rather than reputation)