Livecoin.net Scam

[Quickseller]

edit: How about this, you can send 0.15BTC to 3P1o6BafmQomjKjakbK4ske8Lq8hCkJhiU to "speculate on the price of" 10 ETH -- I will not allow you to ever receive this ETH but you can sell this right to "speculate on the price" of ETH to anyone else who is a willing buyer. In my specific case, I am not scamming because I am disclosing your inability to receive ETH ahead of time, but LiveCoin did not do this, and as such is scamming.

Wrong again

They did notify users that withdrawing/depositing MONA had been suspended until further notice would be given.

Wonderful. Please post here once you have sent the tx, since you are such a strong believe that this arrangement is entirely ethical, and in no way a scam.

So you are just going to keep changing the narrative time and time again? How about retracting your statement that Livecoin did not notify their users?

Changing the narrative? No. I am just pointing out that you are unwilling to put your money where your mouth is in claiming that what LiveCoin is doing is not a scam.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

[1714534004]

1714534004

[deisik]

edit: How about this, you can send 0.15BTC to 3P1o6BafmQomjKjakbK4ske8Lq8hCkJhiU to "speculate on the price of" 10 ETH -- I will not allow you to ever receive this ETH but you can sell this right to "speculate on the price" of ETH to anyone else who is a willing buyer. In my specific case, I am not scamming because I am disclosing your inability to receive ETH ahead of time, but LiveCoin did not do this, and as such is scamming.

Wrong again

They did notify users that withdrawing/depositing MONA had been suspended until further notice would be given.

Wonderful. Please post here once you have sent the tx, since you are such a strong believe that this arrangement is entirely ethical, and in no way a scam.

So you are just going to keep changing the narrative time and time again? How about retracting your statement that Livecoin did not notify their users?

And the part about Livecoin allegedly selling non-existent coins to their clients

Which part of their ToS are you talking about? Just curious, as I want to make some cross-references.

I've laid out the more worrisome phrases in this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5159692.msg51720696#msg51720696
I'm not a lawyer, but it would probably be worth the expense to have one draft a user agreement that doesn't violate the law

Does that make them scammers? If it doesn't, then it is not a point for discussion or debate here. But you can lay out that draft elsewhere

Just because they write in their terms of service that they can shit on my lawn every morning doesn't mean it's legal for them to shit on my lawn every morning.  It's my lawn, I signed their user agreement, but there are other laws that govern where they can and cannot shit

That doesn't make them scammers, so no point in discussing it any further

Did you read nutildah's post?

Did you?  As nutildah lays out clearly; on May 15, 2018 LiveCoin notices what they suspect to be a DDoS attack on MONA.  On June 7, 2018 they decide it's time to stop trading MONA and freeze the asset.  Three fucking weeks later?

That's why we need further information and more detail from the exchange. More specifically, for the case in question we need to know when exactly OP had been trading this shitcoin, i.e. after the attack and before the announcement or after the announcement. The former is the window for which he can presumably require compensation unless he was deliberately trying to milk the exchange (read, he is the real scammer)

As you can see, there is not much against LiveCoin which cannot at the same time be turned against OP

Feel free to prove me wrong

No one is going to prove you wrong because the burden of proof is on the accuser. So far no valid proofs have been presented other than locking the account. This is the part which the exchange should address

[Hhampuz]

I've laid out the more worrisome phrases in this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5159692.msg51720696#msg51720696
I'm not a lawyer, but it would probably be worth the expense to have one draft a user agreement that doesn't violate the law.

So is it the part of withholding their remaining funds or is it the reason for doing so? Since most major exchanges have various reasons where they can do so, livecoin are in no way unique with these terms.

Both!  Just because they write in their terms of service that they can shit on my lawn every morning doesn't mean it's legal for them to shit on my lawn every morning.  It's my lawn, I signed their user agreement, but there are other laws that govern where they can and cannot shit.

Exchanges are bound by law to freeze assets of known criminals, terrorists, and money launders.  That's the only legal precedent they have for freezing a clients account.  Posting mean things on social media doesn't give them the right to freeze a clients assets.  Not only that, doing so is a violation of the law, and plain old common sense.  Who the fuck does that?  You wouldn't have withheld QS's last sig campaign payment even though he was slandering you.

Not to mention their ToS sounds like it was written by some one who has never used English in daily conversation, and it's full of stupid shit like "causing troubles."  Please define "causing troubles" and explain to me how to avoid it, so as to prevent my account from being locked.  

Please find similar clauses in Coinbase's or Binance's user agreements.

I did here: Snip from Binance ToS:

"10. Termination of Agreement
You agree that Binance shall have the right to immediately suspend your account (and any accounts beneficially owned by related entities or affiliates), freeze or lock the funds in all such accounts, and suspend your access to Binance for any reason including if it suspects any such accounts to be in violation of these Terms, our Privacy Policy, or any applicable laws and regulations. You agree that Binance shall not be liable to you for any permanent or temporary modification, suspension or termination of your Account or access to all or any portion of the Services. Binance shall have the right to keep and use the transaction data or other information related to such accounts. The above account controls may also be applied in the following cases:
after Binance terminates services to you;
you allegedly register or register in any other person’s name as Binance user again, directly or indirectly;
the information that you have provided is untruthful, inaccurate, outdated or incomplete;
when these Terms are amended, you expressly state and notify Binance of your unwillingness to accept the amended Terms;
you request that the Services be terminated; and
any other circumstances where Binance deems it should terminate the services."

I've found it in several different terms of several different exchanges.

Changing the narrative? No. I am just pointing out that you are unwilling to put your money where your mouth is in claiming that what LiveCoin is doing is not a scam.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

Are you extorting me then? Since my options are either A) Send 0.15BTC to you and expect nothing in return or B) call Livecoin a scam. Am I understanding you correctly here?

It feels to me like we need to determine what it is we are arguing here, it is taking far too many different directions.

[Joel_Jantsen]

-snip--

Look, we have a "concerned" service defender here. Isn't it nice to get paid to defend the service you're advertising? I see you're a man of manners as well. Quit with paragraphs long text that doesn't mean shit just like every other of your post and let the concerned members of the forum deal with it.

Thousands of members are victims to exchange scams every day and I'd totally support it if someone is standing against it. I like the idea of @Hampuz trying to get the user's fund back and settle it all down but a concrete medium must be established so LiveCoin doesn't fuck-over other members in the future.

[Quickseller]

Changing the narrative? No. I am just pointing out that you are unwilling to put your money where your mouth is in claiming that what LiveCoin is doing is not a scam.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

Are you extorting me then? Since my options are either A) Send 0.15BTC to you and expect nothing in return or B) call Livecoin a scam. Am I understanding you correctly here?

lol, so you admit that you would not actually be receiving anything valuable in return?

[Hhampuz]

Changing the narrative? No. I am just pointing out that you are unwilling to put your money where your mouth is in claiming that what LiveCoin is doing is not a scam.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

Are you extorting me then? Since my options are either A) Send 0.15BTC to you and expect nothing in return or B) call Livecoin a scam. Am I understanding you correctly here?

lol, so you admit that you would not actually be receiving anything valuable in return?

Your reading comprehension is way off today QS, I'll get back to you when you have something worth replying to.

[Quickseller]

Changing the narrative? No. I am just pointing out that you are unwilling to put your money where your mouth is in claiming that what LiveCoin is doing is not a scam.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

Are you extorting me then? Since my options are either A) Send 0.15BTC to you and expect nothing in return or B) call Livecoin a scam. Am I understanding you correctly here?

lol, so you admit that you would not actually be receiving anything valuable in return?

Your reading comprehension is way off today QS, I'll get back to you when you have something worth replying to.

Which is it? Would the 0.15 give you nothing of economic value? Or would it actually allow you to speculate on the value of 10 ETH? BTW, 10 ETH is currently worth 0.267BTC.

[teeGUMES]

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.

[xtraelv]

<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.

[Hhampuz]

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.

I've never once called the terms shady nor have I said that other exchanges are scams. These are words you and others in this thread use. But yes I do agree with you, let us dictate which exchanges are good (:

I'm sure Mt. gox or quadrigawhatever in canada har bullet proof terms of service.

[suchmoon]

I did here: Snip from Binance ToS:

Not even close to "causing trouble" or publishing information from customer service.

It feels to me like we need to determine what it is we are arguing here, it is taking far too many different directions.

I think there are at least two somewhat linked but different issues: user's account, and MONA fork/attack.

IMO at the very least Livecoin should unlock the OP's account regardless of "trouble" caused.

Beyond that there is a lot of precedent of how to properly handle forks and other issues, and it would be great if they choose a customer-friendly approach instead of expecting that coin developers (who don't really decide how many confirmations an exchange should wait for a deposit) compensate the losses of a private business. But I would begrudgingly admit that Livecoin can tell the customer to get lost (sell the coins at a loss, withdraw proceeds) and it wouldn't be too different from how most exchanges have treated their customers. Doesn't make it ethical or right, just a sad state of affairs, and probably not against the law in whatever backwater jurisdiction it operates in.

[Quickseller]

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.

Having that term in their TOS doesn't mean they withhold deposits for arbitrary reasons. None of the above cited exchanges are withholding deposits for arbitrary reasons, and to my knowledge are only doing so when there are KYC/AML, probable stolen funds, or very similar issues. Some exchanges also delay withdrawals when they suspect the customer's account is hacked, and when they are upgrading their systems, and performing other maintenance. No exchange is disallowing the withdrawal of a coin for in excess of a year.

[DireWolfM14]

I did here: Snip from Binance ToS:

"10. Termination of Agreement
You agree that Binance shall have the right to immediately suspend your account (and any accounts beneficially owned by related entities or affiliates), freeze or lock the funds in all such accounts, and suspend your access to Binance for any reason including if it suspects any such accounts to be in violation of these Terms, our Privacy Policy, or any applicable laws and regulations. You agree that Binance shall not be liable to you for any permanent or temporary modification, suspension or termination of your Account or access to all or any portion of the Services. Binance shall have the right to keep and use the transaction data or other information related to such accounts. The above account controls may also be applied in the following cases:
after Binance terminates services to you;
you allegedly register or register in any other person’s name as Binance user again, directly or indirectly;
the information that you have provided is untruthful, inaccurate, outdated or incomplete;
when these Terms are amended, you expressly state and notify Binance of your unwillingness to accept the amended Terms;
you request that the Services be terminated; and
any other circumstances where Binance deems it should terminate the services."

Quite an eloquent use of vague-enough legalese, carefully crafted to protect binance from having done something they shouldn't have either "accidentally" or intentionally due to some "misinformation."  But note the absence of anything resembling "The Customer guarantees not to disclose any information, obtained from the Service support operator," or "Violation of this rule will lead to the account termination without refunding of the remaining balance of the account," and certainly no mention of "causing troubles."  

So, if I were to hypothetically say "Binance tech support told me Changpeng Zhao's second-cousin's crotch is infested with the fleas of 1000 mangy curs," I'll still be able to access my binance account tomorrow, and don't have to worry about them stealing my money.

[Hhampuz]

I did here: Snip from Binance ToS:

Not even close to "causing trouble" or publishing information from customer service.

If you read their entire ToS it can be construed as such. Since they state that they can these things if they "Violate their terms". It is just worded differently and better.

I think there are at least two somewhat linked but different issues: user's account, and MONA fork/attack.

IMO at the very least Livecoin should unlock the OP's account regardless of "trouble" caused.

Beyond that there is a lot of precedent of how to properly handle forks and other issues, and it would be great if they choose a customer-friendly approach instead of expecting that coin developers (who don't really decide how many confirmations an exchange should wait for a deposit) compensate the losses of a private business. But I would begrudgingly admit that Livecoin can tell the customer to get lost (sell the coins at a loss, withdraw proceeds) and it wouldn't be too different from how most exchanges have treated their customers. Doesn't make it ethical or right, just a sad state of affairs, and probably not against the law in whatever backwater jurisdiction it operates in.

From their response in this thread they stated that they could/would unlock OP's account, did they not? And if the OP did as LiveCoin claims, threat their staff (we don't have the full details) then there may be more to this than what is being displayed here. This is why I believe some users seem a bit trigger happy. And it does not matter if I agree with you or not, I have in fact messaged LiveCoin (when I first saw this thread) about at the very least remove/change some of the terms in question.

Quite an eloquent use of vague-enough legalese, carefully crafted to protect binance from having done something they shouldn't have either "accidentally" or intentionally due to some "misinformation."  But note the absence of anything resembling "The Customer guarantees not to disclose any information, obtained from the Service support operator," or "Violation of this rule will lead to the account termination without refunding of the remaining balance of the account," and certainly no mention of "causing troubles."  

So, if I were to hypothetically say Changpeng Zhao's second-cousin's crotch is infested with the fleas of 1000 mangy curs, I'll still be able to access my binance account tomorrow, and don't have to worry about them stealing my money.

But now you are just making assumptions of what happened, no? Do you have full records of what was said between the OP and or LiveCoin and their staff? I don't and have seen no such thing as of yet either. If we are to act solely on assumptions then there's some other prominent scam accusation that coincidentally QS is involved in where some of you need to step in and tag the user/s in question.

[xtraelv]

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.

[DireWolfM14]

But now you are just making assumptions of what happened, no?

Perhaps.  I may have misinterpreted this post:

Guys, I had to delete all the correspondence with them, because they began to threaten me with complete blocking and loss of my money!

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

But that's not something I care to argue.  What I am more concerned about is the words of LiveCoin themselves, which I do not believe I am mistinterpreting:

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.

There is nothing even remotely resembling that in Binance's ToS.  If I post of a message that I received from their customer support on twitter, Binance isn't going to take my money.  LiveCoin will, they said so.

[Hhampuz]

There is nothing even remotely resembling that in Binance's ToS.  If I post of a message that I received from their customer support on twitter, Binance isn't going to take my money.  LiveCoin will, they said so.

And that is the one thing I am trying to get them to change but I can't force them to do so. However I don't think it is cause enough to call a service a scam but that opinion will (evidently) differ.

From what I saw they blocked OP's account due to repeated offenses, threats and demands to be made whole on the loss of value on their original purchase of MONA. So if we were to play around with the idea that they did disable the trading pairs for the effected crypto/s (which I advised them to do in my communication with them), and it in fact was proven that OP did not get blocked simply for posting a thread such a this, would the issue still be as severe?

[deisik]

So, if I were to hypothetically say "Binance tech support told me Changpeng Zhao's second-cousin's crotch is infested with the fleas of 1000 mangy curs," I'll still be able to access my binance account tomorrow, and don't have to worry about them stealing my money

This is inconsequential to the matter at hand. And not just the Binance part of the story but the whole thingy with ToS. Okay, we have a totally legit and clear-cut ToS, will it prevent an exchange (a coin mixer, online casino, or whatever entity you can think of) from scamming if they choose so (think Cryptsy here)? Not in the least. Does a crappy ToS necessarily turn an exchange or any other entity into scammers? Not in the least, either. It is what they do and not what is written in their ToS which ultimately matters here (and here reads in this accusation)

The bottom line is that, we should put these terms of service aside if we want to resolve the accusation

[DireWolfM14]

Alone, the existence of shitty language in their user agreement isn't enough to label an outfit a scam.  But when they take the shitty language literally and act on it, committing a crime in the process, that changes things.  I'm not saying this happened, but it appears the OP was threatened with this possibility.  Not cool.

[suchmoon]

From their response in this thread they stated that they could/would unlock OP's account, did they not?

They should get on it then. I didn't get that impression though. And their posts in their Russian thread seem to indicate the opposite.

And if the OP did as LiveCoin claims, threat their staff (we don't have the full details) then there may be more to this than what is being displayed here.

Mostly irrelevant, at least to me. I supported the flag after Livecoin came over here and confirmed that they're holding customer's funds hostage because the customer posted some "information". I don't particularly trust the OP's story and I don't have to, but whatever the OP may have posted doesn't excuse Livecoin confiscating OP's funds.