Bitcoin scams

[Bitcoin Oz]

You are naive if you believe that governments don't cooperate with each other on a major scale.  

Of course you are gullible enough to believe that this forum doesn't actively promote and protect criminals, so I'll throw you a bone.

Google "United Nations" and educate yourself. Hell, google "European Union" while your at it. Then come back and tell me that governments don't cooperate. Since we have a global economy, the nations of the world are forced to work together to solve problems on an international scale.

Frankly, I am amazed you do not know that.

The united nations is run by tinpot third world dictators. See Mugabe for example.

Just because it exists does not mean people respect it and pointing bigger and bigger guns at people doesnt work in  the end.

[Richy_T]

All Assange proves is that when it comes to someone moving against them, the government will move heaven and earth. When it comes to people acting against the general population, meh, they'll get around to it. Eventually. Maybe. Or give them a bailout.

[Foxpup]

Keep thinking that the us governments reach doesn't exceed us soil.  Even if you ignore the fact that our government works very closely with government agencies in foreign countries, you still have to account for extradition laws. If the government wants you, they will get you eventually. You cant hide in Ecuador or some other non extradition country forever, even assange will be caught eventually and brought to justice. Criminals and the organizations that support them can only escape the governments reach for so long.

Welcome to global government.

You're a funny guy, "SEC agent". You know that?

[jimmyk83]

All Assange proves is that when it comes to someone moving against them, the government will move heaven and earth. When it comes to people acting against the general population, meh, they'll get around to it. Eventually. Maybe. Or give them a bailout.

Only took about 14 years to extradite some of the terror suspects from UK to US

[Severian]

Is the guy selling them unknown person?

You are:

Complete unknown persons are allowed to freely post

[Severian]

Am I advertising my own website?

I have no idea. You're an unknown person.

[Ghostofkobra]

I think OP should think twice before impersonating a governmnet official... (even if its not worded right you know what i mean)

It is an offense in more or less all countries.

So <OP> stay away from this forum and you will reduce the illegalness of this forum.


/GoK

[JoelKatz]

I think OP should think twice before impersonating a governmnet official... (even if its not worded right you know what i mean)

It is an offense in more or less all countries.

So <OP> stay away from this forum and you will reduce the illegalness of this forum.

At least in the United States, the law is probably that there must be some kind of fraud or "speech integral to criminal conduct" involved for it to be illegal. See United States v. Alvarez. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-210d4e9.pdf

Content-based restrictions on speech have been permitted only for a few historic categories of speech,including incitement, obscenity, defamation, speech integral to criminal conduct, so-called “fighting words,” child pornography, fraud, true threats, and speech presenting some grave and imminent threat the Government has the power to prevent.

Absent from these few categories is any general exception for false statements. The Government argues that cases such as Hustler Magazine, Inc., v. Falwell, 485 U. S. 46, 52, support its claim that false statements have no value and hence no First Amendment pro-tection. But all the Government’s quotations derive from cases discussing defamation, fraud, or some other legally cognizable harm associated with a false statement. In those decisions the falsity of the speech at issue was not irrelevant to the Court’s analysis, but neither was it determinative. These prior decisions have not confronted a measure, like the Stolen Valor Act, that targets falsity and nothing more.

Even when considering some instances of defamation or fraud, the Court has instructed that falsity alone may not suffice to bring the speech outside the First Amendment;the statement must be a know-ing and reckless falsehood. See New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 280. Here, the Government seeks to convert a rule that limits liability even in defamation cases where the law permits recovery for tortious wrongs into a rule that expands liability in a dif-ferent, far greater realm of discourse and expression. The Government’s three examples of false-speech regulation that courts generally have found permissible do not establish a principle that all proscriptions offalse statements are exempt from rigorous First Amendment scrutiny. The criminal prohibition of a false statement made to Government officials in communications concern-ing official matters, 18 U. S. C. §1001, does not lead to the broader proposition that false statements are unprotected when made to any person, at any time, in any context. As for perjury statutes, perjured statements lack First Amendment protection not simply because they are false, but because perjury undermines the function and province of the law and threatens the integrity of judgments. Finally, there are statutes that prohibitfalsely representing that one is speaking on behalf of the Government, or prohibit impersonating a Government officer. These examples, to the extent that they implicate fraud or speech integral to criminal conduct, are inapplicable here.

While this case was about falsely claiming to have received military honors, the principles would seem to be the same with falsely claiming to be a government employee -- mere falsity is not enough.

[johnniewalker]

There's ALWAYS going to be people trying to make money. And often this involves manipulating another person. Even the loan-giver is potentially manipulating the loan recipient if interest percentage is outrageous and an unreasonable amount of time is given to pay the loan back. On the other hand, there might be someone who wants a loan, and has no intention of paying it back.
Its sad that this kind of thing has to be monitored. What difference is there giving a loan to someone with no kind of collateral/back up and flushing it down the toilet? The faith of some guy on the internet? That faith should ALWAYS equal zero.
Its unfortunate people lose money this way, but maybe it will help them gain some common sense! I would NEVER loan money (probably even to people I know) without some sort of collateral. Thats the way it goes-thats the NATURE of a loan.
Common Sense.

[Rudd-O]

Welcome to global government.

And anyone that would use that statement would not have passed the psych evaluation that is required to get any sort of clearance within a government agency. Hello Puppet.

That is exactly what I thought.  :-)

OP = https://i.imgur.com/OWh7r.png

[josephliton]

The decentralization of the bitcoin can be cause of this problem.

[morde_glbse]

I began visiting this forum a few months ago, and since I have been here I have been baffled by the proliferation of banking and security scams and frauds. Every "business" I have looked at has been nothing more than a poorly hidden scheme to seperate fools from their money.

So, why do you think scams are operated so freely here?

Keep reading and you will see how the administrators/moderators of this forum are profiting from many of the scams.

[Scrat Acorns]

Welcome to Bitcointalk.
Where men are women,
women are men,
and 14 year olds are SEC agents.

[Razick]

1) You're not an SEC agent.

2) People are responsible for their own money, it's their job to ensure they aren't scammed.

3) While the scammers should be prosecuted, and moderated in this forum, it's not Bitcoin's fault.

4) If there was a central authority, say like the Federal Reserve, they would counterfeit money just like they do with the Dollar: Stealing 5% or so per year!

5) Bitcoin != Federal Reserve Note, if (BTC == fiat) { money -= inflation; }

Now, I suggest you stop impersonating government officials. They don't like that (and rightfully so!).

[jamesgarfield]

I began visiting this forum a few months ago, and since I have been here I have been baffled by the proliferation of banking and security scams and frauds. Every "business" I have looked at has been nothing more than a poorly hidden scheme to seperate fools from their money.

What, every one? Look harder.

So, why do you think scams are operated so freely here? Lack of moderation on the forum? A community to greedy to care? Is it just the anonymity and the (until recently) lack of punishment and law enforcement?

If you look past the obvious answers, you'll see one that's even more obvious. Specifically, there are scams everywhere. These forums actually have relatively few scams, at least when compared to the rest of the Internet, or even just my spam folder.

Why shouldn't the forums (and bitcoin overall) be shut down?

Go shut down the U.S. Dollar. It's involved in far larger and far more numerous scams and illegal transactions than Bitcoin ever has.

Why shouldn't a central authority be set up to tackle the frauds that are so endemic in this community?

We already have one. It was established long ago as a government agency, a commission if you will, in charge of regulating the exchange of things like securities and other investments. I just can't remember what it's called. The Commission of Exchange of Securities? No, that's not it... Oh wait, I remember now, it's called the Securities and Exchange Commission. You may have heard of it. Why aren't they doing something about all this?

I agre with most of what you said here. Its kind of scary how Many scams there are around this forum :/

[acne]

Wow this sucks..

[muyuu]

At least you got some people to reply, OP.

  I had missed this.