Bitcoin Forum
May 30, 2024, 10:50:39 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they believe that the creator of this topic displays some red flags which make them high-risk. (Login to see the detailed trust ratings.) While the bitcointalk.org administration does not verify such claims, you should proceed with extreme caution.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 »
  Print  
Author Topic: LiveCoin.net >Buy/Sell/Exchange>New pairs:BVK/BTC,APOD/BTC,KTETH/BTC  (Read 64169 times)
squatter
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666
Merit: 1196


STOP SNITCHIN'


View Profile
July 08, 2019, 04:26:59 AM
 #1101

They've admitted to being insolvent? It seems really irresponsible to allow trading of assets they don't hold in custody.

Seems like you're purposefully trying to conflate insolvency with being the victims of theft.

They are the victims of theft and they are insolvent. These aren't mutually exclusive.

They are obviously not insolvent, they simply don't have the Monacoin to reimburse their holders, and whether you agree with it or not, they feel they did not violate the terms of their agreement with their customers, and are under no obligation to reimburse them.

Insolvent means being unable to pay their debts. That seems like the state of things to me. Livecoin should have converted MONA balances to debt tokens, denominated in fiat if necessary. Instead, they simply lost their customers' coins, refused to pay them out, and when customers complain, they disable their accounts and accuse them of violating terms.

This is obviously unscrupulous behavior. Stop trying to rationalize it.

This is actually pretty commonplace in exchanges. Poloniex, Bitfinex and others have passed losses on to their customers in the way of "haircuts."

Bitfinex immediately converted the insolvent accounts to debt tokens which they reimbursed. Livecoin did no such thing.

With regard to the recent margin lending fiasco, Poloniex has reimbursed 10% so far. We'll see what happens from here but I would say their actions have been less than scrupulous as well. I also think the risks with P2P lending are more concrete -- if borrowers default, lenders may not recover the principal. This is a peer-to-peer contract.

In contrast, customers deposited coins to Livecoin, Livecoin lost them in an attack due to their own negligence, and then they told their customers to eat the losses. These are two very different things.

Livecoin was attacked through a selfish mining attack. This has nothing to do with the developers.

Incorrect. Maybe you just made a typo, but it was Monacoin that was attacked. They were targeted because of their particularly vulnerable difficulty readjustment mechanism.

Yes, and Livecoin didn't account for the unreliability of Monacoin confirmations. They negligently accepted deposits and allowed withdrawals with far too few confirmations. They suffered double spending and passed the losses onto customers rather than eat the losses themselves.

Livecoin was allowing deposits, withdrawals, and trading and did nothing in spite of the known vulnerability. They were completely negligent. Imagine if exchanges accepted zero-confirmation transactions in Bitcoin and then began blaming Core developers because customers managed to double spend attack them. This is the same thing. It's laughable. An exchange needs to require sufficient confirmations and have internal controls to detect/delay fraudulent withdrawal attempts. You're giving them a free pass for their negligence.

When the attacks occurred on Monacoin, Bittrex didn't steal from their customers and permanently disable withdrawals. Livecoin should learn from their example.

nutildah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3010
Merit: 8058



View Profile WWW
July 08, 2019, 11:42:59 AM
 #1102

This is obviously unscrupulous behavior. Stop trying to rationalize it.

Stop claiming things you don't know to be fact. You don't know they aren't able to pay their debts. If anything it sounds like they don't want to because they don't feel obligated to. I'm not saying that's the best way to go about the situation, but you are just assuming they are insolvent -- that's your assumption, and only an assumption.

Bitfinex immediately converted the insolvent accounts to debt tokens which they reimbursed. Livecoin did no such thing.

The difference is Bitfinex got hacked for $72 million. That was explicitly their fault. Livecoin didn't get hacked, they got taken advantage of through a flaw in Monacoin's Lyre algorithm. BTW, Bitfinex didn't actually repay their customers, a new incoming, particularly gullible class of "shareholders" did.

Yes, and Livecoin didn't account for the unreliability of Monacoin confirmations. They negligently accepted deposits and allowed withdrawals with far too few confirmations. They suffered double spending and passed the losses onto customers rather than eat the losses themselves.

I'm not denying that this is the case. However, without constant monitoring of the blockchain and looking for blocks mined too quickly, its impossible to know that an attack is underway, and therefore the number of confirmations needs to be increased. Its worth nothing that they stopped deposits as soon as they learned of the attack. Like with Monero, Livecoin are the ones who informed the developers about vulnerabilities in their software. They caught wind of the attack and ceased deposits and withdrawals a full 6 days before the Monacoin dev recommended increasing the number of confirmations before accepting a deposit to 100.

Livecoin was allowing deposits, withdrawals, and trading and did nothing in spite of the known vulnerability. They were completely negligent.

What do you mean "did nothing"? They were the first to figure out what was going on and shut down deposits and withdrawals immediately thereafter. They immediately reached out to the Monacoin developers and told them about the issue.

Imagine if exchanges accepted zero-confirmation transactions in Bitcoin and then began blaming Core developers because customers managed to double spend attack them. This is the same thing.

This is a disingenuous comparison by the very nature of how cryptocurrency works. Its of course not nearly the same thing.

When the attacks occurred on Monacoin, Bittrex didn't steal from their customers and permanently disable withdrawals. Livecoin should learn from their example.

Bittrex apparently lost no funds in the incident so there wasn't anything to "steal." I agree that Livecoin could have handled things better, but given the fact that there is only 1 user complaining about this issue on the forum, the entire thing seems way overblown.

▄▄███████▄▄
▄██████████████▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄████▀▀▀▀███▀▀▀▀█████▄
▄█████████████▄█▀████▄
███████████▄███████████
██████████▄█▀███████████
██████████▀████████████
▀█████▄█▀█████████████▀
▀████▄▄▄▄███▄▄▄▄████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀███████████████▀
▀▀███████▀▀
.
 MΞTAWIN  THE FIRST WEB3 CASINO   
.
.. PLAY NOW ..
LiveCoin (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1017


LiveCoin - is a modern stock exchange


View Profile WWW
July 08, 2019, 02:35:39 PM
 #1103

It seems like everybody who wished to, has already expressed their opinion on the situation. We would like to put in our two cents, too, and to convey our thoughts on what’s happening.
Instead of trying to resolve the issue through our support service, this user began to blame the Exchange at different forums. He was well aware, that libel and slander is violating terms of services and can lead to blocking of the account.

Пpoшy пpoщeния, чтo пyбликyю нe co cвoeгo aккayнтa т.к пepeживaю зa coxpaннocть ocтaткa cвoиx cpeдcтв, знaя тo, кaк CП oтвeчaeт в тoпикax нe yдивлюcь eгo блoкиpoвкe.
“Sorry that I’m posting it from another account, because I am worried about the integrity of my remaining funds, knowing how the SS (Support service) responses in topics, I wouldn’t be surprised if it is blocked.”

Axaxaxa, зaблoкиpoвaли вce-тaки aккayнт тoлькo чтo, зa выccкaзaннoe мнeниe кaк cпaлилcя нe пoнятнo, кoнeчнo
“Aha-ha, they have blocked my account after all, – and only for voicing my opinion, how I got busted, is not clear, of course”

Even after our support service suggested several solutions of the conflict, namely – removal of slanderous posts, he kept lying further on:

It turned out that they had such a point of the rules

Quote
The Customer guarantees not to disclose any information, obtained from the Service support operator, in any channels of communication. Violation of this rule will lead to the account termination without refunding of the remaining balance of the account.
but before that there was no such point!

so they include another new paragraph of the rules

Quote
The Service reserves the right to change, add or remove parts of these Terms at any time at its sole discretion. The Customer commits to monitor all the amendments made to the present Customer Agreement. Continued use of the Website after the modifications are made would mean that the Customer accepts and agrees with the amendments. The Customer agrees, that all subsequent transactions will comply with these Terms. As long as the Customer agrees with the Terms and any such modifications, the Service grants her/him a personal and non-transferable limited right to log in and use the Website and the Platform

What's going on there?!

This  rule has been in the User agreement from the very beginning, and that user accepted it when he registered at our Exchange.

That’s what has been pointed out to him in the thread.

I just checked the 'wayback machine' website (to see if they actually added that paragraph in the 'Terms' recently) and it seems like that small paragraph has been there for quite a while: https://web.archive.org/web/20181004155211/https://www.livecoin.net/en/useragreement so, i'm not sure what you mean by "before".

As it turned out, Livecoin wasn’t the first Exchange he accused of scam, in his twitter he abused the other exchanges, too:
 
@Izooomrud
 22 Dec 2017
Replying to @hitbtc
Hitbtc = scum!
https://twitter.com/Izooomrud/status/944284509675155456

@Izooomrud
 7 Jan 2018
Replying to @YobitExchange
Yobit cкaм!
https://twitter.com/Izooomrud/status/950110547080605696

@Izooomrud
 9 Jan 2018
@BithumbOfficial what a truble with withdrawals ETH?!
https://twitter.com/Izooomrud/status/950684807905906691

@Izooomrud
 Jun 7
Replying to @hitbtc
you say the same thing, but continue to do nothing, even if you return my funds to me, I have already lost a lot in the fall of the course
https://twitter.com/Izooomrud/status/1137061606020538374

In the beginning we were also inclined to think, that he is just a loser-trader, surrounded by “scam” exchanges only, but his unwillingness to solve the issue, his constant insults, slander – lead to different conclusions.

He himself is not denying that he post a fake information and doing a black PR:

лaднo пpeдпoлoжим, инфopмaция былa лживaя, кaкoй пyнкт пpaвил нa вaшeй биpжe мнe зaпpeщaeт лгaть нa нeё?!
“all right, let’s assume the information is false, but which clause of your Exchange rules says that it is prohibited to defame it?”

Due to difficulties with translation, and probably to stir up sympathy of the community, he posted incorrect translation of his correspondence with the Support service in an English-speaking thread of the forum. For example, the original screenshot shows a notification, that the account has been temporarily frozen (suspended), but he translated it as “blocked”.  There is a tremendous difference between TEMPORARILY suspended and BLOCKED, isn’t it, and we fully understand  the reaction of the community.

Because originally he posted at different forums under different nicknames, some restrictions have been actually imposed on his account, until all his multi-accounts were found out and investigation was made.

Our Support service suggested several solutions of the problem – but he deliberately headed for a conflict, it is obvious out of all his messages, that the funds' withdrawal is not of such an importance for him, the main thing is to black PR our Exchange as much as possible.
We always carry on negotiations with all the violators, as a result, we give an opportunity to withdraw the frozen funds, and only after that the account is completely shut-down.
Nevertheless, in this case, such a large-scale campaign has been launched against our Exchange because of such an insignificant amount of funds, that, apparently, the said user is not seeking to unblock his account, but he makes every effort to keep it blocked for as long as possible, and speculates on that, while continuing to black PR and affront. We are not sure why he is doing that, on his own or at somebody else’s order.

Concerning all the attacks on the User agreement. If you read a User agreement of any exchange, you will find a warning, that cryptocurrency is a high-risk asset, and before making any operations with it (for example buying of toxic assets), it is necessary to study all potential risk, exposures, etc. More to that, the major part of the trader’s job is about the risk analysis, and possible losses are put into the core of the strategy.

Every exchange has certain clauses in its User agreement, fighting libel and abuse against the exchange and its staff. Some exchanges block the account at once without investigation, some (like us) run a conversation and, before blocking the account, try to help to settle the situation, in order to provide an opportunity to withdraw the funds.

It is commonly known, that positive reviews on the internet are quite rare, if a person is satisfied with a service or product – he takes it for granted, and doesn’t visit a forum to give a positive opinion about that. Thant is why we are distressed by the position of some community members, which, even not being clients of our Exchange, instead of looking into the situation as a whole, when saw some false allegations about “groundless” shut-down of the account and “theft of funds” of this user, were ready to support him.

Livecoin has been a member of this forum for many years, we always send the beginners here for guidance, since we are sure that this is the right place where the people can find the information they need and ask questions they have. Yet it makes no sense to block users without any reason and to lock small amounts at their balances. Yes, there always might be some unsatisfied customers, who make mistakes through lack of experience, but instead of trying to analyze them and make conclusions, start blaming everyone else for their failures. Nevertheless, these are only a few, there any many more users successfully trading at our Exchange for years.

Attention! Livecoin exchange is under massive Black PR attack. A lot of accounts spread fake information.
We ask our clients to help us by posting of positive messages or support our Exchange with trust.

.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
.LIVECOIN.NET.......
.
████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
......SIMPLE.  ★  .RELIABLE.  ★  .QUICK......
████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
btc2017btc2017
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 176
Merit: 10


View Profile
July 08, 2019, 07:08:13 PM
 #1104

How many confirmations are required for BNODE deposit?
LiveCoin (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1017


LiveCoin - is a modern stock exchange


View Profile WWW
July 08, 2019, 07:20:20 PM
 #1105

How many confirmations are required for BNODE deposit?
Your deposit will be confirmed after 50 confirmations from the BeeNode network.

.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
.LIVECOIN.NET.......
.
████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
......SIMPLE.  ★  .RELIABLE.  ★  .QUICK......
████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
btc2017btc2017
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 176
Merit: 10


View Profile
July 08, 2019, 07:27:25 PM
 #1106

Thanks for the quick response
figmentofmyass
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1483



View Profile
July 08, 2019, 08:37:18 PM
 #1107

What do you mean "did nothing"? They were the first to figure out what was going on and shut down deposits and withdrawals immediately thereafter. They immediately reached out to the Monacoin developers and told them about the issue.

you mean livecoin was the first to figure out they just got double spend attacked and lost funds? i imagine they were.

what would you expect the coin developers to do about it?

Imagine if exchanges accepted zero-confirmation transactions in Bitcoin and then began blaming Core developers because customers managed to double spend attack them. This is the same thing.

This is a disingenuous comparison by the very nature of how cryptocurrency works. Its of course not nearly the same thing.

hmmm, could you explain how they are so different? these are both proof of work protocols. relying on insufficient proof of work = services could suffer double spends.

isn't this why exchanges require a minimum number of confirmations? seems like livecoin didn't require enough confirmations and then allowed the attackers to withdraw before the deposits were double spent. right?

izooomrud
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 384
Merit: 150


View Profile
July 09, 2019, 08:34:56 AM
 #1108

Stock exchange officer does not stop lying, please read my new response to his slander here and if you find that I am right, please support my flag it is very important!
btc2017btc2017
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 176
Merit: 10


View Profile
July 10, 2019, 09:08:18 AM
 #1109

exchange dead, exit scam? why no announcement?
squatter
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666
Merit: 1196


STOP SNITCHIN'


View Profile
July 10, 2019, 09:32:56 AM
 #1110

exchange dead, exit scam? why no announcement?

They announced on Twitter about 24 hours ago that they would go down for scheduled maintenance today. It's supposed to last for 4-5 hours. How long has it been down?

nutildah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3010
Merit: 8058



View Profile WWW
July 10, 2019, 12:32:14 PM
 #1111

What do you mean "did nothing"? They were the first to figure out what was going on and shut down deposits and withdrawals immediately thereafter. They immediately reached out to the Monacoin developers and told them about the issue.

you mean livecoin was the first to figure out they just got double spend attacked and lost funds? i imagine they were.

what would you expect the coin developers to do about it?

At the very least (in both instances) provide Livecoin with some kind of bug bounty reward.

Imagine if exchanges accepted zero-confirmation transactions in Bitcoin and then began blaming Core developers because customers managed to double spend attack them. This is the same thing.

This is a disingenuous comparison by the very nature of how cryptocurrency works. Its of course not nearly the same thing.

hmmm, could you explain how they are so different? these are both proof of work protocols. relying on insufficient proof of work = services could suffer double spends.

The difference between zero and 1 confirmations is almost infinite. Anybody can create a doublespend with zero confirmations yet very, very few people can pull it off with 1 confirmation. A transaction is not at all secure without at least a single confirmation.

isn't this why exchanges require a minimum number of confirmations? seems like livecoin didn't require enough confirmations and then allowed the attackers to withdraw before the deposits were double spent. right?

You should read about what actually happened:

https://www.reddit.com/r/monacoin/comments/8k7640/51_attack_on_monacoin/

What they _could_ have done is had some sort of warning system to notify them that 5-6 blocks were created in 1 minute instead of the usual 1.5 minute block time, then either frozen withdrawals at that time or else upped the confirmations required for a deposit. It wasn't until a week later that the Monacoin developer came up with the suggestion of requiring 100 confirmations for a deposit. Both Livecoin and Bittrex had ceased deposits and withdrawals well before then.

exchange dead, exit scam? why no announcement?

They announced on Twitter about 24 hours ago that they would go down for scheduled maintenance today. It's supposed to last for 4-5 hours. How long has it been down?

Its been back up for at least a couple of hours.

Stock exchange officer does not stop lying, please read my new response to his slander here and if you find that I am right, please support my flag it is very important!

Your flag has an overwhelming amount of support. You don't have to keep advertising it when everybody sees it at the top of every page in this thread. Even if they did unlock your account, you'd just go back to bitching at them about not being to withdraw your MONA.

▄▄███████▄▄
▄██████████████▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄████▀▀▀▀███▀▀▀▀█████▄
▄█████████████▄█▀████▄
███████████▄███████████
██████████▄█▀███████████
██████████▀████████████
▀█████▄█▀█████████████▀
▀████▄▄▄▄███▄▄▄▄████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀███████████████▀
▀▀███████▀▀
.
 MΞTAWIN  THE FIRST WEB3 CASINO   
.
.. PLAY NOW ..
figmentofmyass
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1483



View Profile
July 10, 2019, 08:05:34 PM
 #1112

At the very least (in both instances) provide Livecoin with some kind of bug bounty reward.

okay, but bug bounties are usually pretty tiny. and POW coin developers don't have huge slush funds like ICOs to throw money at things.

The difference between zero and 1 confirmations is almost infinite. Anybody can create a doublespend with zero confirmations yet very, very few people can pull it off with 1 confirmation. A transaction is not at all secure without at least a single confirmation.

nobody said it was. the implication was that zero conf transactions are insecure in bitcoin. so was accepting monacoin deposits---and allowing those depositors to immediately withdrawal---with only a few confirmations.

What they _could_ have done is had some sort of warning system to notify them that 5-6 blocks were created in 1 minute instead of the usual 1.5 minute block time, then either frozen withdrawals at that time or else upped the confirmations required for a deposit.

that's livecoin's job. they had no internal checks for network abnormalities. coin developers can address exploits after they are found, but they can't bail livecoin out before the fact.

It wasn't until a week later that the Monacoin developer came up with the suggestion of requiring 100 confirmations for a deposit. Both Livecoin and Bittrex had ceased deposits and withdrawals well before then.

what's your point?

izooomrud
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 384
Merit: 150


View Profile
July 17, 2019, 02:10:19 AM
 #1113

When will you give me back my money that you stole for breaking non-existent rules?!
LiveCoin (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1017


LiveCoin - is a modern stock exchange


View Profile WWW
July 22, 2019, 09:17:54 AM
 #1114

At the moment, izooomrud account is fully unblocked. He can withdraw or sell his funds. Concerning the situation with MONA, we posted news with detailed explanations following this link - https://www.livecoin.net/en/news/view/261
We are unable to bear more responsibility for an asset, than its developer. It is stated in the User agreement, which a user either accepts at signing up, or doesn't use our Service at all. The fact, that izooomrud used our Service, suggests that he agreed to this clause, saying the following:

Quote
The Service does not bear responsibility for losses incurred by vulnerability or any kind of failure of software (nodes, wallets) used by the third parties, or glitch in the software (nodes, wallets), provided by the third parties, as well as failure of blockchains or any other technical problems specific of Cryptocurrencies traded at the Platform. The Service is not liable for damages due to late report from cryptocurrency developers or representatives (or no report at all) of any issues with cryptocurrency including all sorts of forks, node technical issues or any other issues potentially resulting in fund losses.

Besides alleged theft accusations, this user also made threats against us. His charges have no grounds at all and breach the User agreement rules, which the user accepted at registration, and that leads to the account shut-down.

.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
.LIVECOIN.NET.......
.
████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
......SIMPLE.  ★  .RELIABLE.  ★  .QUICK......
████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
2double0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2618
Merit: 1105


View Profile
July 22, 2019, 06:57:57 PM
 #1115

At the moment, izooomrud account is fully unblocked. He can withdraw or sell his funds. Concerning the situation with MONA, we posted news with detailed explanations following this link - https://www.livecoin.net/en/news/view/261
We are unable to bear more responsibility for an asset, than its developer. It is stated in the User agreement, which a user either accepts at signing up, or doesn't use our Service at all. The fact, that izooomrud used our Service, suggests that he agreed to this clause, saying the following:

Quote
The Service does not bear responsibility for losses incurred by vulnerability or any kind of failure of software (nodes, wallets) used by the third parties, or glitch in the software (nodes, wallets), provided by the third parties, as well as failure of blockchains or any other technical problems specific of Cryptocurrencies traded at the Platform. The Service is not liable for damages due to late report from cryptocurrency developers or representatives (or no report at all) of any issues with cryptocurrency including all sorts of forks, node technical issues or any other issues potentially resulting in fund losses.

Besides alleged theft accusations, this user also made threats against us. His charges have no grounds at all and breach the User agreement rules, which the user accepted at registration, and that leads to the account shut-down.

Why no MONA darling sent to him? Even if he accepted the rules then as a service provider, aren't you supposed to sort this out for your users instead of asking them to reach out to MONA devs? What's your role then? If his account will be shut down, how will he become able to withdraw his 720 MONA coins from this exchange? Isn't that shady?

Please, please share his threats he gave you?
Were they regarded to laws and all? Why would any user not act over actions they feel shady about?
rebal15
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 527
Merit: 6


View Profile
July 25, 2019, 12:45:26 AM
Last edit: July 25, 2019, 12:56:34 AM by rebal15
 #1116

At the moment, izooomrud account is fully unblocked. He can withdraw or sell his funds. Concerning the situation with MONA, we posted news with detailed explanations following this link - https://www.livecoin.net/en/news/view/261
We are unable to bear more responsibility for an asset, than its developer. It is stated in the User agreement, which a user either accepts at signing up, or doesn't use our Service at all. The fact, that izooomrud used our Service, suggests that he agreed to this clause, saying the following:

Quote
The Service does not bear responsibility for losses incurred by vulnerability or any kind of failure of software (nodes, wallets) used by the third parties, or glitch in the software (nodes, wallets), provided by the third parties, as well as failure of blockchains or any other technical problems specific of Cryptocurrencies traded at the Platform. The Service is not liable for damages due to late report from cryptocurrency developers or representatives (or no report at all) of any issues with cryptocurrency including all sorts of forks, node technical issues or any other issues potentially resulting in fund losses.

Besides alleged theft accusations, this user also made threats against us. His charges have no grounds at all and breach the User agreement rules, which the user accepted at registration, and that leads to the account shut-down.

Why no MONA darling sent to him? Even if he accepted the rules then as a service provider, aren't you supposed to sort this out for your users instead of asking them to reach out to MONA devs? What's your role then? If his account will be shut down, how will he become able to withdraw his 720 MONA coins from this exchange? Isn't that shady?

Please, please share his threats he gave you?
Were they regarded to laws and all? Why would any user not act over actions they feel shady about?

I think they are trying to recover lost funds by forcing users to sell what they hold at a low market price. That's why I think they will not enable withdraw and they will keep the price of MONA very low.
izooomrud
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 384
Merit: 150


View Profile
August 06, 2019, 05:02:58 AM
Last edit: August 06, 2019, 05:26:45 AM by izooomrud
 #1117

At the moment, izooomrud account is fully unblocked. He can withdraw or sell his funds. Concerning the situation with MONA, we posted news with detailed explanations following this link - https://www.livecoin.net/en/news/view/261
We are unable to bear more responsibility for an asset, than its developer. It is stated in the User agreement, which a user either accepts at signing up, or doesn't use our Service at all. The fact, that izooomrud used our Service, suggests that he agreed to this clause, saying the following:

Quote
The Service does not bear responsibility for losses incurred by vulnerability or any kind of failure of software (nodes, wallets) used by the third parties, or glitch in the software (nodes, wallets), provided by the third parties, as well as failure of blockchains or any other technical problems specific of Cryptocurrencies traded at the Platform. The Service is not liable for damages due to late report from cryptocurrency developers or representatives (or no report at all) of any issues with cryptocurrency including all sorts of forks, node technical issues or any other issues potentially resulting in fund losses.

Besides alleged theft accusations, this user also made threats against us. His charges have no grounds at all and breach the User agreement rules, which the user accepted at registration, and that leads to the account shut-down.

They held my bitcoins for over a month and blackmailed me to remove all the criticism written by me about them. This means they stole them! Even now they are lying about “threats”, and making all my requests to resolve the issue to look as a threat! Yeah, they gave me back my bitcoins, but Mona's had been stolen and they are not giving them back. This exchange is a scam.
SmashDestroy
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 388
Merit: 55


View Profile
August 14, 2019, 12:45:19 PM
 #1118

Announcement of new listings:
Yobit Token (YO)

https://www.livecoin.net/en/trading/YO_BTC
izooomrud
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 384
Merit: 150


View Profile
August 14, 2019, 01:50:34 PM
 #1119

Announcement of new listings:
Yobit Token (YO)

https://www.livecoin.net/en/trading/YO_BTC
Wow! Scam exchange listing token from scam exchange! Excellent!!!
BonyAtmo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 21, 2019, 11:18:20 AM
 #1120

I have such a question for the administrators of the LiveCoin exchange how can you delist Monero (XMR) without the right to withdraw a coin by users of the exchange? This means only one thing that all the Monero coins that users on the exchange have on the exchange wants to assign  on 30.08.2019, that is, this is a blatant assignment of funds from traders by the LiveCoin exchange. What is the fault of the Monero holders on your LiveCoin exchange that you take their legitimate money from them? If you had problems with hacking and with Monero developers in the summer of 2018, why should LiveCoin traders pay for this in August 2019? If you respect yourself as a  exchange and your users, then you should give the opportunity to withdraw Monero after delisting the coin, or is there a second option that is not to delist Monero but to continue trading on it as you did since the summer of 2018 and the third option to buy Monero from traders of your LiveCoin exchange at market value if you intend to delist a coin without the right to withdraw. Otherwise, it will be just a blatant robbery of LiveCoin exchange users, and in this case, we LiveCoin traders will draw up a group lawsuit for LiveCoin in court and SEC for the appropriation of funds of exchange users.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!