What are some of the best reasons you've ever seen for leaving somebody negative feedback?

This could probably be its own thread, but I'm just adding this one here because it gave me a laugh. Hope you'll forgive me for going off topic.



Taken literally, it insinuates that a member made a thread where he chronicled his quest to suck his own dick, couldn't do it, then somebody felt that was a good enough reason to warrant suspicion about the trustworthiness of said member, and warn the community about their behavior.

This is even worse than the other scams. Bitconeect for example, was a scam you could foresee for economic and marketing reasons. But this project you would only have to know about this backdoor if you were a programmer and had read all the source code. This demonstrates how difficult it is to analyze a project even with open source.

We are very dependent on the curiosity of other people. I have never read a source code from start to finish and would have difficulty understanding something like what was done with Oyster.

Perhaps it would be very interesting to have a group of hackers whose sole purpose was to exploit flaws in those projects. Could even have a bounty paid in BTC. Certainly, those who believe exclusively in the BTC could finance something like that just for fun.

but will most likely be executing a contract swap on the block just prior to this all happening (e.g. All 98.5 million PRL prior to the contract vulnerability will be exchanged on a 1:1 ratio to PEARL (or something to that effect)). We will also be evaluating how we can help those that were taken advantage of from this incident.

PRL now trades around $0.03, after diving from levels of $0.22. PRL was appreciating and even having a short-term rally when the news of smart contract abuse and exchange dumping caused irreparable damage. It turned out the Oyster Protocol founder and developer, going by the moniker “Bruno Block”, had disagreements with the project’s CEO, Bill Cordes.

Bruno's message
Focus everyone:

When Oyster boomed in December I wanted to go on a huge hiring spree. I was always very product focused but people only wanted to hear about marketing. Chris Bamber approached me along with Bill. Bill turned out to be an honest and hardworking guy (as CFO), but Chris did next to nothing. I paid each member of c-suite 1 million PRL each which was evaluated at half a million dollars each.

Chris bailed on us for the exponential hiring. Why was I so pushy about hiring? Because I knew Bitcoin and all of crypto was in a bubble. I sold a lot of my own PRL and PRL for the treasury but Bill preached hesitation instead.

Then ETH went from $1200 to $200. It became difficult to keep hiring people, my plan for a large robust team of developers was blocked. I spent downtime to start healing from trauma I was going through.

Then Bill told the group that we got accepted on Binance. That’s when the problems started. The price immediately started pumping from 4c to 26c. I warned Bill against insider trading, he didn’t care. So instead of him and his VC friends dumping on you, I dumped on him.

I advise all of you to get out of crypto. Go educate yourselves about what is happening with Tether. The entire crypto sphere is a giant Ponzi scheme. I warned all of you, multiple times, in private and public, and nobody listens. Ethereum is going back to $5, if you want to sell back to a greater fool then you will only find yourself to be that fool.

https://twitter.com/Bitfinexed/

https://reddit.com/r/buttcoin

What will now happen:

Bill, you’re fired.

I am going to program the protocol on my own, gradually. If someone wants to help me they can do so free of charge. No marketing, no nonsense.

PRL will still be the valid token used by the protocol (no contract swap).

I reject the Binance listing and I don’t want Kucoin to re-activate our listings.

Focus on the storage peg, that is what brings value to the token, not your Ponzi-Shenanigans.

If you want to buy only to sell to a greater fool, then you are that greater fool. PRL and SHL are not to be listed on an exchange until they are actual functioning products. I will also consider revealing my identity over the next few days. I will be posting updates on development after I straighten out this situation.

I am now going to dump as many chat logs as I can to show what happened with Oyster.

UPDATE:

If you want to play greater-fool games with Bill and co, and there is an overwhelming vote in support for Oyster becoming a permaponzi, then I will leave you all to have fun with it.

If you want PRL to operate as I've described in the whitepaper, everyone is fired and I will slowly but surely work on the protocol and post progress publicly. The last time I hired a bunch of people and threw money at them they turned it into a circus.

However, I don't believe there will be electricity running through the power grid soon. I sent this video and others like it a long time ago to this chat:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOMWzjrRiBg

Go learn about peak oil and the fractional reserve banking system. The stock shale bubble is an obfuscated means to subsidize the price of oil. In Brazil, Indonesia, and other developing nations, the price of oil is subsidized with debt directly by the government. When the debt bubble pops, the price of oil will skyrocket, trucks won't be bringing produce into your city let alone computers won't be spending energy to secure the blockchain.

I believe in Oyster as a product, but I don't believe there will be a future to host it. I will program it since the program is a promise from me, but don't complain that Oyster isn't running when a banana costs $5,000.

Anyone here who has swiped a credit card or taken an interest-bearing loan has the blood of the incoming collapse on their hands. Billions of people will die, there are massive droughts and food shortages as we speak. I've made a lot of dollars by selling PRL, I immediatelly ditched the dollars to buy real things so that I can protect myself and my family from the collapse. That's all I ever wanted, and now that I have that secured, I will deliver the protocol which I promised myself. Give me some time to get my head straight after these dramatic few days, I will gradually post progress on github.

You can also buy popcorn futures on /r/buttcoin

I've made a lot of dollars by selling PRL, I immediatelly ditched the dollars to buy real things so that I can protect myself and my family from the collapse. That's all I ever wanted, and now that I have that secured,

Because I knew Bitcoin and all of crypto was in a bubble. I sold a lot of my own PRL and PRL for the treasury.

I advise all of you to get out of crypto. Go educate yourselves about what is happening with Tether. The entire crypto sphere is a giant Ponzi scheme. I warned all of you, multiple times, in private and public, and nobody listens. Ethereum is going back to $5, if you want to sell back to a greater fool then you will only find yourself to be that fool.

Then ETH went from $1200 to $200.

I am going to program the protocol on my own, gradually. If someone wants to help me they can do so free of charge. No marketing, no nonsense.

I believe in Oyster as a product, but I don't believe there will be a future to host it.

2) That there are "european directives" applicable to this case, when I informed him more than a month ago that directives don't apply to private relations only to states. Clear lie.

3) That he is going to keep my money "forever" ("or we will have to wait forever"). Confession that he is willing to appropriation my money no matter how many evidence there is that is mine. Thank you!

4) That he doesn't care for the absolute evidence that the money is mine and keep raising suspicions about my ownership that no honest person can raise, which is confirmation that these are just pretexts to keep my money "forever" (his words).

If he wants to gamble his exchange, his money and his freedom on a criminal court, I'll be forced to comply and make a criminal complaint.

There is nothing we can do. For sure the law and security prevails on all our arguments.

Either the customer provides to us, or to the authorities, his/her Id or we will have to wait forever.  Also, let's assume we will release the coins, without following the rules.... the same person could come back to us claiming a hack and sue us for negligence......  I wouldn't be surprise.....

Believe me, I'm the first one that would like to see this saga ending and close the account.....

Isn't strange he/she threatening us to go to the authorities, talking about jail sentences etc. and non acting accordingly??

Quite strange I would say.... or,normal if he/she is not the account owner....

I still hope this is not the case but, so far, everything is pointing in that direction.....Will see....

If somebody does not trade and just deposits, then wants his fund back in the same format he sent them, then there is no need for ID verification.

The main anti-money laundering duties (enshrined in Italian law)  relate to:

Customer due diligence
Data retention duties
and
Reporting duties.

At this regard, the obliged entity shall:

carry out an adequate client and/or beneficial owner due diligence in case of ongoing business relationship or occasional transaction involving the transfer or the handling of payment of an amount equal to or higher than 15,000 Euro or in any case, i) in case of doubts concerning the truthfulness of the data obtained or suspects of money-laundering or terrorism financing regardless of any exemption applicable; ii) clients located in high risk countries identified by the European Commission; iii) cross-border correspondence with a corresponding credit institution or financial institution in a third country; iv) ongoing professional relationships or transaction performance with clients and in case of politically exposed persons.

shall retain a copy of the documents collected during the customer's due diligence, indicating: i) the relevant date of the establishment of the business relationship; ii) personal data of the customer and/or the beneficial owner iii) the scope and nature of the legal relationship or of the transaction in place; iv) means of payment used by the customer.

shall submit without delay a suspicious transaction report to the UIF (Financial Intelligence Unit for Italy) when they become aware of, suspect or have reasonable grounds to suspect that terrorism financing or money laundering are in process or terrorism operations are being carried out or attempted, or whatever funds, regardless of their size, come from criminal activity.

I started wondering what could be the new aliases for all those legendary members that have been banned in the past.
I'm sure "Goat" or later "El Cabron" could not resist to make a comeback with new account (and is that also banned and an other comeback etc)

I read about the incidence in a news and it stated that oyester protocol CEO scam exit.this is very saddened for a ceo to get involved in such mess. I hope this don't affect the holders

He knows very well that european directives don't have direct effect on private relations. Only bind states to adopt internal legislation.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(European_Union).

I told him that more than a month ago:

He is invoking european directives (only the 5th AML european directive of 2018 applies to crypto exchanges, but Italy hasn't yet execute it with internal legislation) well aware that they are irrelevant to this case.

But as I said, Italy adopted their Legislative Decree No. 90 of 25 May 2017 on AML and KYC duties, but his article 3, n.º 5, says that crypto exchanges are restrictively ("limitatamente") subject to this duties only on their operations of conversion from crypto to fiat. That is, to customers who ask for fiat withdrawals. I left clear 4 years ago to him on an email exchange that I wouldn't ask for any fiat withdrawal. And he confirmed their TOS: that in this case verification was voluntary.

What they are doing is completely contrary to their own TOS/FAQ and to italian law.

Again I want to thank r34tr783tr78, Mirae and now JollyGood for their attention to this case.

qq) virtual currency: the digital representation of value, not issued by a central bank or a public authority, not necessarily linked to a currency that is legal tender, used as a medium of exchange for the purchase of goods and services e-transferred, stored and negotiated electronically.

<snip>
I have on the Rock Trading exchange 35519 euros
<snip>

n) identification data: name and surname, place and date of birth, residence and domicile, where different from residence of the registry, the details of the identification document and, where assigned, the tax code or, in the case of subjects other than natural person, the name, the registered office and, where assigned, the fiscal Code;

Where is the link to your claim ?

You clearly have an ego issue or maybe even mental issues.You are adding negativ trust calling people scammers who simply asked for a small loan without colleteral.
Myself i got a negativ feedback from you asshole for buying an account for a customer so he can publish pictures on this board.
You are clearly abusing that system and you should be banned from this forum ASAP

d) The Pharmacist, actmyname, Vod.. didn't tag all scammers on this forum? yes they dont for the member who pay $$$$$

Authorities claim that Davis received weekly remittances from Ulbricht exceeding $1,000 during 2013 in exchange for his work as part of a three-man team that is believed to have operated the anonymous market on behalf of its founder, Ross Ulbricht. Davis served as a forum moderator from May 2013 up to June 2013 for Silk Road, and as a site administrator from June 2013 up until Oct. 2, 2013.

All,

Earlier today, it was discovered that the transferDirector function was utilized on the Oyster Protocol token contract. This allowed the new director to re-open the ICO for PRL and re-issue new tokens (1 ETH = 5000 PRL / .04 per PRL). The individual in question then sent these tokens (upwards from 3M PRL) to KuCoin where the tokens were market sold. They were able to extract ~$300,000 in funds prior to us being able to shut down trading and withdrawals on KuCoin.

Despite Oyster passing three separate smart contract audits, directorship of the token contract had to remain open so that the peg could be adjusted over time. Bruno Block, the original founder and chief architect of the project, was the only one who had the ability to transfer directorship within the PRL smart contract. After our initial review, we are inclined to believe that these were solely the actions of Bruno Block and that he did this now to avoid detection from KuCoin KYC procedures (that will be implemented on November 1st). These KYC procedures would have limited withdrawals on Non-KYC’ed accounts to no more than 2 BTC per day and would have prevented this from happening. This was well-orchestrated and well-executed (at a time when he knew a majority of the KC team would be offline). This also caught the entire team outside of Bruno Block by surprise, as the team collectively holds ~5% of the total supply in personal wallets. The team has been working tirelessly on this since day 1, without pay at some points in time. This project has been built on the back of hard work and raw determination and we will not let Bruno’s role is a bad actor in all of this undermine a project that the entire rest of the team is completely devoted to.

For those of you holding PRL, your PRL holdings are safe. We are still evaluating our options, but will most likely be executing a contract swap on the block just prior to this all happening (e.g. All 98.5 million PRL prior to the contract vulnerability will be exchanged on a 1:1 ratio to PEARL (or something to that effect)). We will also be evaluating how we can help those that were taken advantage of from this incident. More details to come here but we will do our best to make everyone whole. Despite the losses, $300k only represents ~1.5% of our market cap prior to this all transpiring. While this is far from ideal, this will most definitely not be a deathknell for the project.

So where do we go from here?

We are continuing to investigate this but could use your help along the way. Here are the withdrawal addresses that Bruno withdrew the funds he sold on KuCoin to:

ETH: 0x0001Ee57Bb28415742248d946D35C7f87cfd5A54

BTC: 17pwqhD9dLGMcMZD9xvKxiePHNffHV5T6y

We are also interested in obtaining any information that folks may have around Bruno’s potential identity. Despite working alongside him for the last 10 months, Bruno has always maintained his anonymity. After I took over the CEO role, Bruno’s activity within the project dropped off sharply. If you have any information on who Bruno may be or where these funds may be directed towards, please reach out to us via e-mail to discuss further.

In the interim, our team will be working around the clock to remedy this situation. We don’t know why Bruno did what he did or what his intentions were at the end of the day, outside of profiting from a loophole that he intentionally left in the smart contract. While I still take full responsibility for this all transpiring, I had no reason to believe Bruno would do something like this to harm the project and much of the work that he had a significant role in creating. We will not let his selfish actions today damage the long-term viability of the project.

Oyster Update
"Earlier today, it was discovered that the transferDirector function was utilized on the Oyster Protocol token contract. This allowed the new director to re-open the ICO for PRL and re-issue new tokens (1 ETH = 5000 PRL / .04 per PRL). The individual in question then sent these tokens (upwards of 3M PRL) to KuCoin where the tokens were market sold. They were able to extract ~$300,000 in funds prior to us being able to shut down trading and withdrawals on KuCoin..."
Read more: https://medium.com/oysterprotocol/oyster-update-b813390ce10e.

Problem with PRL contract
https://etherscan.io/tx/0x4fdf86fb8c15823202e14b89411d6bbf88799b103fb0c3701766bd749fba21c0

There is something terribly wrong with the Oyster token contract. People are sending Ether to the contract at a rate of 1 ETH to 5000 PRL tokens (0.0002 Eth per PRL), which means that they can sell it for higher on Kucoin.

The total supply has also increased.

UPDATE:

https://etherscan.io/tx/0x2321e305c20f45429f11045b9235e9bbd66b17bacede173ca86144ac5533d3bf

Seems like openSale() is called by this address, as director privileges is passed to this account.

UPDATE 2:

transferDirector() is called by the address 0x2da59901939682eab8887edb0fd1ce4299072265: https://etherscan.io/tx/0x1ea00178c70ca6c1cc2d020939831d1393ac5fcf6154495395a074e19e0e70f9

The address 0x2da59901939682eab8887edb0fd1ce4299072265 seems to by an Oyster controlled address originally used to create the PRL token ICO contract. The account got randomly accessed 6 hours ago after months of inactivity. https://etherscan.io/address/0x2da59901939682eab8887edb0fd1ce4299072265

My theory is that the keys to the account got leaked, or someone went rogue. That sort of explains the low volume pump of PRL, someone was just waiting to print and dump.

function withdrawFunds() public onlyDirectorForce {
    director.transfer(this.balance);
}
The hacker will be able to withdraw the ether used to mint tokens and repeat the cycle infinitely, even though he/she has not chose to yet. However, ANYONE can receive 5000 PRL for 1 ETH (but you essentially would be giving the hacker free ether).

UPDATE 3:

function selfLock() public payable onlyDirector {
    // The sale must be closed before the director gets locked out
    require(saleClosed);
    
    // Prevents accidental lockout
    require(msg.value == 10 ether);
    
    // Permanently lock out the director
    directorLock = true;
}
It seems like selfLock() was never called. Which means that the PRL contract was insecure if at any point the director of the contract gets compromised. If an ICO with the ability to mint tokens needs to be able to reopen at any point - I highly recommend in the future to move the ownership of the contract either to a multi-signature wallet, or have a timelock on directorship transfer (reversible) with a huge alarm if the function is ever called unknowingly.

POTENTIAL SOLUTION

This is obviously very bad. Since there is no way to reclaim directorship over the contract, the only way out is to create a new token contract based on a snapshot of the block height before the directorship transfer occurred. This would mean that people who bought PRL after the hack would be shafted, so maybe the latest snapshot should be taken, but this would shaft the people who panic sold the dip.

Since the highest volume was on Kucoin, not sure if Kucoin would reverse any trades from the timestamp of the hack.

In total, the perpetrator printed ~ 4 million PRL, 5% of total supply. Random people also started to send ETH to get some PRL, DO NOT DO THIS or risk losing funds.

Virtual currency providers
Specific rules have also been set forth with reference to providers operating in "virtual currencies", meaning any "digital representation of value, not issued by a central bank or by a public authority, not necessarily linked to a currency with legal tender, used as a means of exchange for the purchase of goods and services and transferred, stored and negotiated electronically".

In detail, the Decree 231 now qualifies as "other non-financial operators" the virtual currency service providers, defined as "natural or legal persons providing to third parties, on a professional basis, services functional to use, exchange, store virtual currencies as well as to convert them in or from currencies with legal tender". Such providers are required to fulfil specific anti-money laundering obligations with regard to virtual currency conversion activities.

It is worthy of notice the fact that, by amending Legislative Decree no. 141, the Decree requires the virtual currency service providers to be registered in a special section of the register held by the so called "Agents and Credit Brokers Body" (Organismo degli Agenti e dei Metiatori Creditizi) which is responsible for the management of the register of financial agents and credit brokers, in accordance with Article 128-undecies of the Consolidated Banking Act.

This provision shall be implemented by a decree to be issued by the Italian Minister of Economy and Finance, detailing the reporting duties of the virtual currency service providers with regard to the operations carried out in Italy. Such reporting must be considered as an essential condition for the lawful performance of the relevant activity by the aforementioned providers.

Posted in bitcoin discussion:


Another one for the my friend told me you could make money here club. Could he not have asked his "friend" about this? 

Worldcore was accused of having the same Google Analytics code UA-33418442 as the Benson Union financial pyramid had (archive).

After this accusation Worldcore removed their tracks from the Builtwith.com website.

view-source:https://web.archive.org/web/20130502090202/https://bensonunion.net/

view-source:https://web.archive.org/web/20180812031322/https://worldcore.eu/

view-source:https://web.archive.org/web/20130602014421/http://www.forexcorporation.org:80/

view-source:https://web.archive.org/web/20130602014421/http://www.forexcorporation.org:80/

view-source:https://web.archive.org/web/20130502090202/https://bensonunion.net/

<script type="text/javascript">

   var _gaq = _gaq || [];
   _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-33418442-1']);
   _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);

   (function() {
     var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type =
'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
     ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://web.archive.org/web/20130502090202/https://ssl/' :
'https://web.archive.org/web/20130502090202/http://www/') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
     var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0];
s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
   })();

</script>	

Speaking in general terms here, does anyone ever get sued for crypto issues on this forum?  Did Master-P ever get prosecuted for running away with all that bitcoin?  I don't ever recall reading about a resolution to that, and the amount involved wasn't insignificant.

The only other person I recall getting into legal trouble for scamming here was Trendon Shavers, and that was quite a while ago and I'm not even sure if he was sued.  I know he got fined and went to prison.  Mark Karepeles went to prison and got sued, I think--my grasp of bitcoin history isn't that keen but I do know that scammers tend to not suffer any consequences on bitcointalk.  So no, even if there was enough evidence against Lauda for people to consider legal action, I don't think he/she is going to get sued.  That's just my prediction based on what I've seen people do around bitcointalk and in the crypto world in general.

The part I bolded I wouldn't argue with and I've probably even said as much about myself in the past.

If the neg on me you're talking about is the one by iluvbitcoins, I'm over that issue and I resolved it from my end (I'm a he, BTW).  One thing I learned early on is that trust ratings and DT status can be fleeting.  I've seen a lot of members go from green to red and a few get booted from DT, including myself the first time I was added to the list.  That's just how it is here, and the more time you spend here the less you'll be surprised when stuff like this happens.

Has anyone analised the benefits of creating assets based on byteball vs assets based on waves? That would be quite uselful.

Cool Story Sal. Are you sad i broke siacoin users files?
Are you sad your attempt to blackmail me didnt work?
Are you sad your decentralized fantasyland is actually centralized?
Are you sad i beat Innosilicon, Bitmain, Minebox, and Obelisk to market with a Siacoin miner?


Heres a post from January.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2788664.0

suchmoon did not come in second. Revisit the list to see who came in second.

Hint: It's the user above your own name.

Congratulations to those that are the most entertaining: