Livecoin Signature is back

[LTU_btc]

First of all, we can't be sure that this campaign actually made by Livecoin. Livecoin staff didn't verified this campaign - they didn't posted anything from their Bitcointalk account, there is also no information about it on their social media. If they would run campaign themselves without manager, probably they would use their old official account. So, it's possible that campaign was made by scammer and participants are risking to not get paid.
Also, I see some users talking about tagging campaign participants or other sanctions against Livecoin. I'm not so sure about. I'm not defending Livecoin, but there is just one proven scam accusation against them. There was some services with worse reputation and multiple accusations against them allowed to run campaign and there was no sanctions against participants (Betcoin, Yobit). If I recall correctly, even Sportsbet.io have unsolved scam accusations, but as we see they are running their sig campaign here for long time already and nobody don't see any problems. It's just my thoughts, and I'm not sure which side to support at this question. It's probably up to every person to decide, is it ethical to advertise service which isn't 100% clean.

[1715021257]

1715021257

[1715021257]

1715021257

[1715021257]

1715021257

[Quickseller]

I would not consider that to be Plagiarism, at least not in the sense that gets you banned around here. The intent of the anti-plagiarism rule is not to prevent this kind of activity.

Also, receiving permission to use content is not relevant to if a person will get banned when a person plagiarizes content.

 

So what? His trust rating is representative of his personal experience with the exchange. They were a good client to deal with from Hhampuz's point of view. [...]

Here is the description of a positive rating:

    Positive - You think that this person is unlikely to scam anyone.

Having a positive trading experience does not appear to be sufficient to warrant a positive rating, according to the above description. When you leave a positive rating, you are saying the person is unlikely to scam anyone.

[tbct_mt2]

If they would run campaign themselves without manager, probably they would use their old official account.

They can use new accounts to manage the campaign, but at least Livecoin (old account) should confirm that the new campaign is official one; run and managed by Livecoin team. We have not seen such confirmation from Livecoin team. It is nearly the same what happened with Yobit signature campaign restarted around a month ago (no one get paid as I saw by now. Only one claimed that he/she received payments, but without proof of payments).

[nutildah]

So what? His trust rating is representative of his personal experience with the exchange. They were a good client to deal with from Hhampuz's point of view. [...]

Here is the description of a positive rating:

    Positive - You think that this person is unlikely to scam anyone.

Having a positive trading experience does not appear to be sufficient to warrant a positive rating, according to the above description. When you leave a positive rating, you are saying the person is unlikely to scam anyone.

When it comes to handling campaign-related BTC, Livecoin never scammed anybody. Besides, what Livecoin did wasn't a scam. They weren't out to cheat their customers out of money. They got targeted during a 51% attack (no other exchange was targeted) and then decided their terms rendered them not liable for the losses incurred. You can play lawyer all day long that their terms are illegal but until a court of law rules otherwise, you really don't know.

Again, show me a perfect exchange which has never lost any of their customers funds, ever. Show me an exchange with a 100% customer satisfaction rate.

I can't speak for Hhampuz but I firmly believe Livecoin is unlikely to "scam" anyone. If you held MONA or XMR, yes you got fucked, but the way in which events unfolded leads me to believe this isn't a "scam exchange."

This whole thing was blown way out of proportion and has obviously become something of a witch hunt. Its pretty lame.

[marlboroza]

I won't tell him if you give me a 49% cut 

It seems Livecoin Manager broke our contract, no bribe thingies for you two 

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic.

[Zemomtum]

The flag has been withdrawn but the experience from one of our member izooomrud is ugly. No matter the payment, an email should be sent to all that are wearing the signature to remove it within 3 days. Their posts might tend another user to register with Livecoin which has been indicted with a lot of scam accusation all over the internet.

[Natalim]

The flag has been withdrawn but the experience from one of our member izooomrud is ugly. No matter the payment, an email should be sent to all that are wearing the signature to remove it within 3 days. Their posts might tend another user to register with Livecoin which has been indicted with a lot of scam accusation all over the internet.

It was accidentally withdrawn but it's up now - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=308
Email is not anymore needed, Hhampuz already tagged accounts who applied and that made them aware for sure, if they'll continue, meaning they disregard the warning, it's their choice, maybe the payment is just too high to resist.

[tbct_mt2]

It was accidentally withdrawn but it's up now - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=308

Now, it is good time to remove that flag, something like this. If I understood flags correctly, flags can not be removed. It's different than Trust. Anyway, it seems that the flag created by @izooomrud  has been solved. I am curious that flag can be turned into inactive one or not. Let's see in coming weeks or months.

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:

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.

[Quickseller]

So what? His trust rating is representative of his personal experience with the exchange. They were a good client to deal with from Hhampuz's point of view. [...]

Here is the description of a positive rating:

    Positive - You think that this person is unlikely to scam anyone.

Having a positive trading experience does not appear to be sufficient to warrant a positive rating, according to the above description. When you leave a positive rating, you are saying the person is unlikely to scam anyone.

When it comes to handling campaign-related BTC, Livecoin never scammed anybody.

That is not the purpose of the trust system. The purpose of giving a positive rating is to vouch that the person is unlikely to scam period, there are no 'ifs thans or buts'. It is not acceptable to give positive trust to a known scammer who takes out a collateralized reputation loan, or something similar.

The issue at hand in regards to LiveCoin is not that they have an unhappy customer, it is they have profited from the trading of a coin they have no ability to process withdrawals for, and have continued doing so for over a year. Sure, they were the subject of a double spending attack on a shitty altcoin, but after they had their money stolen, they continued allowing traders to buy the coin when the exchange knew very well there was no way they could process a withdrawal request from these traders.

[nutildah]

So what? His trust rating is representative of his personal experience with the exchange. They were a good client to deal with from Hhampuz's point of view. [...]

Here is the description of a positive rating:

    Positive - You think that this person is unlikely to scam anyone.

Having a positive trading experience does not appear to be sufficient to warrant a positive rating, according to the above description. When you leave a positive rating, you are saying the person is unlikely to scam anyone.

When it comes to handling campaign-related BTC, Livecoin never scammed anybody.

That is not the purpose of the trust system. The purpose of giving a positive rating is to vouch that the person is unlikely to scam period, there are no 'ifs thans or buts'.

You cut short the rest of my reply:

When it comes to handling campaign-related BTC, Livecoin never scammed anybody. Besides, what Livecoin did wasn't a scam. They weren't out to cheat their customers out of money.

It is not acceptable to give positive trust to a known scammer who takes out a collateralized reputation loan, or something similar.

Again, not everyone considers Livecoin to be a "known scammer." As the 4th least trusted member on the forum, you're in no position to be talking about trust-related issues anyway.

The issue at hand in regards to LiveCoin is not that they have an unhappy customer, it is they have profited from the trading of a coin they have no ability to process withdrawals for, and have continued doing so for over a year. Sure, they were the subject of a double spending attack on a shitty altcoin, but after they had their money stolen, they continued allowing traders to buy the coin when the exchange knew very well there was no way they could process a withdrawal request from these traders.

They were obviously holding out hope of eventually being reimbursed with MONA. Now that its clear that's not happening, they are delisting the coin. And they are currently engaging in "socializing losses" by buying back outstanding MONA, if only for a fraction of the price.

[freecitizen]

Is there a possibility that Livecoin hired iwantapony as a manager for their new signature campaign?

Let's see if this is enough to get him banned for plagiarism:

Update:

Yes, they've my Permission.

Copy:

* No negative Trust.
* Minimum 8 Post & Maximum 50 to be eligible for payment.
* Minimum 90 characters
* If any participant removes signature during the campaign, will not receive payment.
* Users may not advertise any other site.
* Post in following boards will not count - Games & Rounds, Economics, Off-topic, Politics & Society.

Original:

* No negative Trust.
* Minimum 25 Post to be eligible for payment.
* Minimum 90 characters
* If any participant removes signature during the campaign, will not receive payment.
* Users may not advertise any other site.
* Post in following boards will not count - Games & Rounds, Economics, Off topic, Lending, Auctions, Meta, Politics & Society, Beginners and help, Archival, Investor based games, Local boards, or Micro earnings.

[dunfida]

Is there a possibility that Livecoin hired iwantapony as a manager for their new signature campaign?

Previous manager was Hhampuz as far i remember but when Livecoin do have scam accusations he decide to drop it down and now
they are having a new campaign handled by Livecoin Manager. Iwantpony was only involved because livecoin used up his campaign rules but as said they have permission to do it.

[freecitizen]

Iwantpony was only involved because livecoin used up his campaign rules but as said they have permission to do it.

Doesn't it seem suspicious, that Livecoin Manager allegedly received a permission from Iwantpony to use his signature rules, and after that Iwantpony was admitted to the Livecoin campaign?

[DarkDays]

See I don't know about you guys, but I still think this is managed by someone who is an experienced manager here on the forum. And unlike what quickseller said, there are actually many bounty managers and signature managers that would jump at the offer of shadow managing a campaign like this from an alt account. It doesn't have to be Hhampuz or Yahoo.. it can be anyone that advertises themselves as a manager, or they could be simply managing it internally since it's not exactly rocket science.

[The Cryptovator]

See I don't know about you guys, but I still think this is managed by someone who is an experienced manager here on the forum. And unlike what quickseller said, there are actually many bounty managers and signature managers that would jump at the offer of shadow managing a campaign like this from an alt account. It doesn't have to be Hhampuz or Yahoo.. it can be anyone that advertises themselves as a manager, or they could be simply managing it internally since it's not exactly rocket science.

Second that, most likely that campaign managing by an experienced manager because I am following their signature thread. Since Hhampuz tagged Livecoin participant I fully believe that he will not involved with it. On the other hand Yahoo made a Google sheet whit blacklist user, so I am fully believe that he will not involved with it. So from some other greedy manager is managing this campaign.

[blurryeyed]

So from some other greedy manager is managing this campaign.

Any idea who is organizing it? I got a threatening PM from some dodgy account promoting livecoin & would like to contact the campaign manager about it:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190814120650/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5175126.msg52158467

[DaveF]

This brings up a sort of interesting point.
I use livecoin. Not what I would say is a lot, but definitely on a regular basis.
They have done nothing wrong by me. I put in an altcoin that I wound up with for whatever reason, trade it and leave.

From the scam accusation they have burned some people. I would go with yeah, they did. Followed by "so, what?"

Show me 1 exchange that has not had complaints against them. A hack. A breach. Where someone didn't take a loss.

Just about every casino that has a signature campaign here has somebody (may or many not be legit) that has a complaint against them.

Red tagging people because they advertise them is like boycotting a TV station because they advertise Ford and YOUR NEIGHBOR had a bad time with their Mustang.

Should the people who were burned reach out to them people advertising livecoin and say "hey, they did this to me"? I would say yes.
Should others reach out to the people advertising livecoin and say "hey, they did this to this person" I would say probably.

But beyond that I just don't think it's an issue.

Would *I* join their campaign? Tough call. As I said they have done nothing wrong by me, and all exchanges have done some really crappy things to people over the years. So I might.
Seeing the reactions in this thread. FROM PEOPLE I LIKE AND RESPECT I would have to think about it.

So now, saying it plainly, an exchange that has done no wrong to me, I have to think about advertising for, because they did something crappy to someone, that is less crappy then what other exchanges have done to other people, because I might get red trust from people who I like, but beyond that might hurt my ability to sell things in the collectibles and hardware sections.

Just seems a little extreme to me.

Am I wrong or just a bit touchy since the entire Dave got red trust from game-protect?

-Dave

[IconFirm]

An interesting point of view. How about this though, the below statement:

From the scam accusation they have burned some people. I would go with yeah, they did.

..means you have just broken their TOS & given them the right to seize your funds, like they have done previously:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5159692.msg51714699#msg51714699

Saying bad things about Livecoin is not allowed cos their TOS says so. Would you still have the same point of view if they seized your funds for saying that I wonder?

I doubt it.

[DaveF]

An interesting point of view. How about this though, the below statement:

From the scam accusation they have burned some people. I would go with yeah, they did.

..means you have just broken their TOS & given them the right to seize your funds, like they have done previously:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5159692.msg51714699#msg51714699

Saying bad things about Livecoin is not allowed cos their TOS says so. Would you still have the same point of view if they seized your funds for saying that I wonder?

I doubt it.

Actually I have less problem with that then say Polo saying "we will give you plenty of time to complete your KYC" and then forcing it w/o telling anyone.
Or all the exchanges who have socialized losses.

If their rules say "you don't talk shit about us" then those are the rules.
Now, I did not READ the rules like most people. But that's on me, not them.

However, what you brought up does not cover what I was saying about DTs giving red trust for using having their signature.

That's what I was posting about. There should be some sort of constancy. There have been dozens of scam accusations against FortuneJack do you think everyone wearing their signature should get red trust too?

-Dave

[IconFirm]

There have been dozens of scam accusations against FortuneJack do you think everyone wearing their signature should get red trust too?

I think it is & should be up to each individual who they trust/distrust/tag tbh, weather they are on DT or not. Personally, if I am convinced that an account/organisation is scamming I will tag them appropriately & always have done, I get a lot of flack about it at the time which is fine by me, but in 99% of cases I have eventually been proven right over time, the other 1% just fade away into oblivion.
As for FortuneJack, I don't gamble & am of the opinion that all gambling sites are a scam anyway......lol