Livecoin participants should be tag?

[No HATE]

The drama is here again, too much hate for the Livecoin campaign as what is noticed.
Do I think participants should be tag?

Answer : NO...

To some DT please stop threatening participants that they will get red tag when they wear signature of Livecoin as that is NOT FAIR.
Red trust is for : Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk. You might also be able to add a flag.

DT consensus is very important to make this forum a great place for all of us and kindly educate the young DT to look at the big picture to evaluate the situation.

There are campaigns with negative trust or has an active scam accusations but participants are not warned or not tagged, so be fair to livecoin participants.

These are just some of the campaigns that DT's are not tagging the participants. (active and inactive)

Yobit -
sportsbet.io
NitrogenSports

Wearing a signature is not directly advertising the site, one can wear even without the knowledge of the site and one can wear to support because in his experience, he never have had any problem with the site.

So this one person's scam accusation is enough for the community to conclude that Livecoin is a scam, isn't that fair?
Painting them red is already enough for people to see and judge based on the evidence but that is just a warning, you cannot prevent people from using the site if they themselves have a positive experience.


Can we hear DT's thoughts on this concern?


Not Favor of tagging - yahoo62278 , TryNinja

Favor of tagging -

[1714909471]

1714909471

[1714909471]

1714909471

[yahoo62278]

I noticed that a participant in a campaign I manage applied for the Livecoin campaign. I will not be tagging participants for wearing or applying to the Livecoin campaign, but I will remove anyone from a campaign I manage who tries joining Livecoin and helping advertise the site. considering blacklisting them from my campaigns.

I get it, users want to earn some bitcoin. There are other campaigns to apply for, besides campaigns that are proven to be scamming users though. I do not think that tagging participants is the answer but I do believe if they are willing to help a scam site out then they are not trustworthy. If other DT members tag them, I wouldn't be surprised. It's really like gambling when applying for the campaign. Is it worth it? I will be compiling a spreadsheet of everyone who applies for livecoin and considering blacklisting them from my campaigns.


The Livecoin issue is a pretty serious issue and they need to resolve their issues before trying to advertise on the forum. I personally have not had an issue with the exchange. Used them many times, but as you all know they will keep your coins hostage and make you delete negative press before even considering dealing with you. That's a load of shit period. Users are allowed to have an opinion, positive or negative.

[TryNinja]

I haven't seen an DT tagging anyone on the Livecoin campaign, or even suggesting that.

Wearing a signature is not directly advertising the site, one can wear even without the knowledge of the site and one can wear to support because in his experience, he never have had any problem with the site.

My honest opinion (if that matters): if you know that some service is Yobit-kind of shady or a confirmed scam and still think advertising them for money is ok, then I don't trust you. What else is acceptable for you if enough money is on the line?

So this one person's scam accusation is enough for the community to conclude that Livecoin is a scam, isn't that fair?
Painting them red is already enough for people to see and judge based on the evidence but that is just a warning, you cannot prevent people from using the site if they themselves have a positive experience.

So, we know they are bad but we will keep giving them exposure, as if they are ok, because people need to do their research anyways?

Honestly, that must be one of the stupidiest things I ever read. You can tell yourself anything you want to sleep well at night, but facts are facts. You are directly helping a scam/shady service. Don't sell your reputation for pennies, ffs.

[No HATE]

I haven't seen an DT tagging anyone on the Livecoin campaign, or even suggesting that.

It will appropriate if DT's tag participant now.

My honest opinion (if that matters):

It matters.

if you know that some service is Yobit-kind of shady or a confirmed scam and still think advertising them for money is ok, then I don't trust you. What else is acceptable for you if enough money is on the line?

Is there any difference if I wear their signature without receiving money?
So, am I not allowed to wear a signature of the site I love because they have a scam accusation?
Scam accusations doesn't prove them to be scam, and people think they didn't respond, of course they do, but you are just not satisfied.
Therefore, things should not be settled here, it should be in the court, tag should be "active scam accusation" or "shady exchange" but not a scammer.

But let's not focus on that since we have a scam accusation thread for that and we can never resolve that since it's a technical or probably a legal issue.

So, we know they are bad but we will keep giving them exposure, as if they are ok,

So other site I've mentioned aren't bad (red trust)? but we allow them to have exposure, that's fair because they are still operating and not proven to be a scam website at least at the court of law.

because people need to do their research anyways?

Everyone does, DTs remarks are based on their personal opinion only.

I will not be tagging participants for wearing or applying to the Livecoin campaign, but I will remove anyone from a campaign I manage who tries joining Livecoin and helping advertise the site. considering blacklisting them from my campaigns.

That's how a real DT think, you don't abuse your position to influence others, you always do the right judgement by looking at the big picture.

I think you'll tag participants if there's a warning from the legal authority that livecoin is scam exchange and they are conducting an investigation.
Guess what? Authority conducts investigation due to numerous complaints, not just of one person's.

[TryNinja]

Is there any difference if I wear their signature without receiving money?
So, am I not allowed to wear a signature of the site I love even if they have scam accusations?

That's the point. I doubt anyone would do that if it wasn't because they are getting paid to close their eyes and pretend it's ok to announce Livecoin. I'm pretty sure most of them would be against them if it wasn't for that. Which means that in this case money > opinions/reputation.

If you genuinely think Livecoin is good, then you can advertise all you want (unless they go full scam mode, which wouldn't be ok just like isn't ok to advertise an obvious Bitcoin doubler/ponzi). Right now, I (and many members) don't trust them. And I don't think even 1% of the candidates on their campaign actually trust them, which means they must only be doing it for the money.

Scam accusations doesn't prove them to be scam, and people think they didn't respond, of course they do, but you are just not satisfied.
Therefore, things should not be settled here, it should be in the court, tag should be "active scam accusation" or "shady exchange" but not a scammer.

The accusation is still open. I haven't declared that they are a scam and should be tagged/banned/arrested. And that's why I didn't tag them or any of the signature participants. I just don't trust them and have a feeling they had bad intentions with the user from the accusation.

But let's not focus on that since we have a scam accusation thread for that and we can never resolve that since it's a technical or probably a legal issue.

There is also the way they behavied - their answers, their shit ToS and how they blocked someone's account and keep deleting posts just because someone said something against them. Is this what a trusted exchange would do?

So other site I've mentioned aren't bad (red trust)? but we allow them to have exposure, that's fair because they are still operating and not proven to be a scam website at least at the court of law.

Aren't we still allowing Livecoin to run their campaign? Yobit is the only other case I know from the sites you mentioned above, and they are completley shit. But I don't think I would agree with tagging someone soleny for advertising them. Tagging someone and not trusting them are two very different things.

Everyone does, DTs remarks are based on their personal opinion only.

This doesn't change the fact that people still announce shady websites just for money. Making them untrustworthy in my eyes. Good people don't put money over principles and values. And to me, someone with principles wouldn't advetise them.

[No HATE]

Thanks for your comment, all I want to know is the consensus among DTs about tagging participants.

So far, it's 2-0 not in favor of not tagging. That's updated in the OP>

[bitmover]

I don't think they should be tagged. However, anyone who applies is damaging his own reputation here, which is the most valuable thing anyone has here.

As yahoo62278  said, he will be blacklist them or remove from his campaigns... Nothing good will come to people who advertise that campaign.

[hacker1001101001]

Wearing a signature is not directly advertising the site, one can wear even without the knowledge of the site and one can wear to support because in his experience, he never have had any problem with the site.

Yes, this is a another way around to think, but this sweet theory never/rarely happens, and I can bet my horse that not even single person there has been here to sever the forum for good as there greed/need for BTC dust surely outweigh there ethics. ( This is in reference to the applications until now on the campaign thread ).

A person should have due knowledge about the service they are advertising in there signature space, if there signatures promotion is polluting the community, it make the user advertising it untrustworthy too. So wearing a signature is directly advertising the site.

So this one person's scam accusation is enough for the community to conclude that Livecoin is a scam, isn't that fair?

If you walk down a restaurant, order some food and later you find out that there was a fly or something in your food, would you start comparing it with others and if others have received decent food, would you just stay quite and eat the food with the fly?? No, you would just bang the resto owner, tell 10s of your friends that the resto is shit never visit again and try to warn more and more people's.

This goes same with the accusation, one person doesn't matter, it's about how they react to it, and we expect the same from them in the future. So, if they are locking users funds now for accusing them publicly, they are sure to do the same with others in the future.  Who knows who would get a fly in his food next time !

I don't think red tagging them for this is the right way to react as we would destroy too much repo around, but other reputed campaign managers here could surely start blacklisting them atleast until there current accusation is solved as yahoo62278 suggested and sooner or later they would be left with shitposters IMO.

[The Cryptovator]

To be honest, so many campaign has been running here even there is open scam accusation. And any participant has not been tagged. So personally I am not going to tag any Livecoin campaign participant. But I wouldn't bother to join that campaign if they do not like to resolved accusation against them.

The different between Livecoin and other campaign is, Livecoin campaign has been denied by reputed manager recently due to open scam accusation. And Livecoin has created their own account in order to run their campaign instead of resolving current issue.

I know most of campaign here isn't 100% perfect. But its matter of money. Forum users getting benefits of campaigns. I don't know if other DT members want to tag Livecoin participant but I will not counter them.


Lot of more DT members here and they are more experienced than me. Their opinion will be appreciated.

Seems sportsbet advertising by forum itself, so who will tag admin ? Eight slot has been gain by sportsbet.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

What are the possibility this is an alt of someone already in the campaign trying to act smart. There's a reason I decided to stay away from wanting to be a member of the DT system, (if i wanted that responsible I would had worked for it and gotten it, in no time) issues like this I wouldn't had thought twice before I acted. Tagging participants here has nothing to do with posting habbit which theymos and most community members (including myself) are against. What's the gain if all the system can only do is to indicate scammers after successful scam without at least been able to stop potential scam from occuring to some extent. That's just medicine after death.

An exchange that doesn't value it's customers, only into the business of offering exchange services just for the money shouldn't be recommend to other forum users through signature marketing. Sometimes I begin to think the administration of the forum can do better.  You're against scam yet (just for some few bitcoin) you decide to promote a project that has been proven to have shady intentions. Which includes;

• Livecoin holding customer funds hostage after he complained about them: Topic (archived)
  
  
• TOS which breake law. They make it impossible to file a police report without losing your funds: Post (archived)
  
  
• Extremely shady behavior by letting customer trade assets they can't and never will be able to withdraw at all: Topic (archived)
  
  
• Using a fresh account instead of their old one to not have their bad reputation being seen in their new signature campaign thread.
  
  
• And much more ...

Humans are losing their humanity, greediness and selfishness has turned us into something else.The human race getting more knowledgeable but losing wisdom.

[Pffrt]

Usually participants must not be tagged for promoting a project. But if the project is a total scam, or has enough chance to scam, anyone who promotes the porject must be tagged.
What if someone promotes a project which may hack our data? We must be encouraged to tag them. This is also the same. Livecoin participants are promoting an exchange which may steal people money, scam users.

[Mpamaegbu]

Sometimes I begin to think the administration of the forum can do better.  You're against scam yet (just for some few bitcoin) you decide to promote a project that has been proven to have shady intentions.

You're perfectly spot on here. Wish I had a Merit to spare here. Sometimes, I wonder why the admins don't wage the big stick on stuff like this. I guess the defence for them would be to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. But then allowing this go on can damage the reputation of the forum and make it loose like most crypto fora. It then behooves them to take a stand, for a timely intervention in a situation like this is necessary and I implore the admins to act fast. Except we should be led by the body language of admins which suggests helplessness.

[yahoo62278]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oE7dAXf2tuKCtbpoc9Xx66qcCjWwbArnXlkuFQq-wcs/edit?usp=sharing Just posting this here for the record. These users are willing to support Livecoin and have made it on my own personal blacklist.

Any user on this list may be removed if they remove their application in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5166711.0 this thread and pm me showing it is removed. Users in this list have 72 hours to do so, or they remain on the blacklist permanently.  July 23rd 6:20 am is the deadline

[The Cryptovator]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oE7dAXf2tuKCtbpoc9Xx66qcCjWwbArnXlkuFQq-wcs/edit?usp=sharing Just posting this here for the record. These users are willing to support Livecoin and have made it on my own personal blacklist.

Any user on this list may be removed if they remove their application in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5166711.0 this thread and pm me showing it is removed. Users in this list gave 72 hours to do so, or they remain on the blacklist permanently.  July 23rd 6:20 am is the deadline

It will be appropriate punishment if all managers make their own blacklist and add all of participant who have applied on Livecoin signature. Not only who have accepted, also make blacklist who have applied as well. I think this is better instead of red tag to participant. So they will not able to join any other campaign especially for btc campaign.

Here is the Archived thread with all reply: http://archive.is/QJrHO

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Any user on this list may be removed if they remove their application in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5166711.0 this thread and pm me showing it is removed. Users in this list have 72 hours to do so, or they remain on the blacklist permanently.  July 23rd 6:20 am is the deadline

I applaud the intention behind this step of yours but how effective will this be since participants who aren't accepted into the campaign can easily delete their application now to escape your blacklist and reapply when there's an open slot. You're a little bit late, technically only those who can be affected now are those already accepted into the campaign others can out smart the blacklisting mechanism.

[yahoo62278]

Any user on this list may be removed if they remove their application in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5166711.0 this thread and pm me showing it is removed. Users in this list have 72 hours to do so, or they remain on the blacklist permanently.  July 23rd 6:20 am is the deadline

I applaud the intention behind this step of yours but how effective will this be since participants who aren't accepted into the campaign can easily delete their application now to escape your blacklist and reapply when there's an open slo. You're a little bit late, technically only those who can be affected are those already accepted into the campaign others can out smart the blacklisting mechanism.

They'll still be on this list and be considered last options if slots open or new campaigns open, but users who leave livecoin or remove their application will not be added to BLACKLIST

[marlboroza]

There is no drama, there is user whose funds are kept in hostage by exchange. This whole LiveCoin situation reminds me of this:



source: https://www.azquotes.com/quote/590734

Interpret this as you wish!

[LoyceV]

DT consensus is very important to make this forum a great place for all of us and kindly educate the young DT to look at the big picture to evaluate the situation.

With more than 500 DT-members, there's never going to be consensus, and I don't think that's necessary either. A decentralized trust system means all DT-members have to use their individual judgement.

That being said, I won't tag them, but I can imagine someone else will.

A person should have due knowledge about the service they are advertising in there signature space, if there signatures promotion is polluting the community, it make the user advertising it untrustworthy too. So wearing a signature is directly advertising the site.

Correct. Unlike real-world advertising, where it's totally "normal" to advertise (almost) any product that pays for it, a signature advertising is much more personal.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oE7dAXf2tuKCtbpoc9Xx66qcCjWwbArnXlkuFQq-wcs/edit?usp=sharing Just posting this here for the record. These users are willing to support Livecoin and have made it on my own personal blacklist.

I'm surprised to see quite a few familiar names on the list.
I'll post your list with some additional details:
    1. Legendary seleme (Trust: neutral) (1 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
    2. Hero Member n0ne (Trust: neutral) (8 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
    3. Legendary cygan (Trust: neutral) (41 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
    4. Hero Member pieppiep (Trust: neutral) (0 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
    5. Hero Member tenakha (Trust: neutral) (BPIP)
    6. Legendary PuertoLibre (Trust: neutral) (1 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
    7. Legendary bryant.coleman (Trust: neutral) (22 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
    8. Hero Member mrdeposit (Trust: neutral) (3 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
    9. Legendary sana54210 (Trust: neutral) (42 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   10. Legendary mr_random (Trust: neutral) (1 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   11. Hero Member StephenJH (Trust: neutral) (1 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   12. Legendary hanspeter77 (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (22 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   13. Legendary STT (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (133 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   14. Hero Member wwzsocki (Trust: neutral) (543 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   15. Hero Member klaaas (Trust: +11 / =0 / -0) (31 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   16. Legendary beerlover (Trust: neutral) (57 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP) (retracted)
   17. Legendary 2double0 (Trust: neutral) (17 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   18. Legendary SquallLeonhart (Trust: neutral) (BPIP)
   19. Legendary kodtycoon (Trust: +1 / =1 / -0) (2 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   20. Hero Member Dalmar (Trust: neutral) (0 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   21. Hero Member Haunebu (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (35 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   22. Legendary RealMalatesta (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (7 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   23. Hero Member feryjhie (Trust: neutral) (86 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   24. Hero Member Danslip (Trust: neutral) (6 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   25. Legendary safari88 (Trust: neutral) (1 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   26. Legendary Paredao (Trust: neutral) (39 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   27. Legendary 7788bitcoin (Trust: neutral) (1 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   28. Legendary ChrisPop (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (4 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   29. Copper Member killyou72 (Trust: +13 / =3 / -0) (383 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   30. Hero Member SirLancelot (Trust: neutral) (3 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   31. Legendary Shinpako09 (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (13 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   32. Legendary Dewi Aries (Trust: neutral) (0 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   33. Hero Member acroman08 (Trust: neutral) (7 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   34. Hero Member barbara44 (Trust: neutral) (8 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   35. Hero Member darewaller (Trust: neutral) (32 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   36. Hero Member jostorres (Trust: neutral) (1 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   37. Hero Member justdimin (Trust: neutral) (25 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   38. Hero Member BitBustah (Trust: neutral) (34 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   39. Hero Member johhnyUA (Trust: neutral) (297 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   40. Legendary freedomgo (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (43 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   41. Legendary Strongkored (Trust: +0 / =0 / -1) (0 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   42. Legendary stadus (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (121 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   43. Hero Member Halmater (Trust: neutral) (121 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   44. Hero Member Mometaskers (Trust: neutral) (48 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   45. Legendary fortunecrypto (Trust: neutral) (21 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   46. Hero Member guoyu78 (Trust: neutral) (36 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   47. Hero Member Mahanton (Trust: neutral) (7 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   48. Hero Member Sanitough (Trust: +2 / =0 / -0) (35 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   49. Hero Member akamit (Trust: neutral) (47 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   50. Hero Member hulla (Trust: neutral) (25 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   51. Hero Member Distinctin (Trust: neutral) (27 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   52. Hero Member blockman (Trust: neutral) (14 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   53. Hero Member Russlenat (Trust: neutral) (59 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   54. Hero Member carlisle1 (Trust: neutral) (4 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   55. Hero Member Mike Mayor (Trust: neutral) (15 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   56. Hero Member Ryan Dugan (Trust: neutral) (1 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   57. Hero Member traderethereum (Trust: neutral) (8 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   58. Hero Member coin-investor (Trust: neutral) (3 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   59. Hero Member SaShiRaJaVu (Trust: neutral) (17 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   60. Hero Member bitcoinisbest (Trust: neutral) (22 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   61. Hero Member Cacingkemi (Trust: neutral) (5 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   62. Hero Member Darker45 (Trust: neutral) (10 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   63. Copper Member crwth (Trust: +2 / =0 / -0) (296 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   64. Hero Member aundroid (Trust: neutral) (416 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)
   65. Hero Member xenon131 (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (436 Merit earned (history)) (BPIP)

[Hhampuz]

I'll start tagging the participants, let's see where it ends  

EDIT1: Tagged all members that applied on the first page, will do 2nd page tomorrow.

[Patatas]

Who the fuck are you OP? One of the LiveCoin signature campaign participants? You're right, they should not be tagged for wearing the signature but you should be tagged for not having balls to post from your main account.

On the topic, I will never trust any member that likes to promote a site which has proven records of operating in a shady way. This is mean, this is biased and shows they are only concerned about their money regardless of whichever sources it's coming from. In the long run, these members will turn out to be big scammers or someone you can't/shouldn't be trusting your money with. I'll take this signature campaign support as a sign and maybe add them to my distrust list.