Livecoin participants should be tag?

[blockman]

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

After I have edited my application, I waited for 24 hours to delete it. I also asked Hhampuz for reconsideration and he did (thanks to him), I hope you'll also reconsider me yahoo, I've sent you a PM. Thanks.
Edit: thank you yahoo

[1714038106]

1714038106

[1714038106]

1714038106

[1714038106]

1714038106

[LTU_btc]

Damn, Livecoin campaign caused even more drama than Yobit! First of all, if I didn't missed anything, this campaign still wasn't verified by Livecoin staff, so we don't even know that this campaign isn't fake.
Second, I don't understand, why you, @OP hiding under alt account. Do you really fear to post this stuff from your main account? Come on... And I suppose that you're participant of old or new Livecoin campaign.
I'm not sure why Livecoin caused such drama here. There was Yobit, Betcoin, Sportsbet and maybe some other campaigns when these services had unsolved scam accussations. Some of these services were more scammy and shady than Livecoin, but there wasn't even much discussion about tagging campaign participants or something. On the other hand, there was campaigns like DuckDice, where campaign participaints were given time to withdraw their applications, otherwise they will be tagged. So, I'm not sure when we exactly we reach level that campaign participants should be tagged. But I think that Livecoin with just 1 accusation against them didn't reached this level. That's just my opinion, I don't pretend to be right or something and I'm not sure that my opinion matters much. And I'm not talking about tagging participants of scam ICO's bounties - it's totally different thing.
And final thing to say: For God's sake, why Livecoin simply can't resolve this accusation, stop this shitstorm and move on?

[No HATE]

Pretty similar to livecoin, keeping customer's funds as hostage.

Why was 6.5 BTC funds confiscated from Clients account?

T&C 16.1 “Without restricting our ability to rely on other remedies that may be available to us, we may suspend and/or terminate your account, cancel any outstanding bets and/or confiscate any or all funds in your account at our absolute discretion if: (i) we suspect that you are engaging in money laundering, illegal or other fraudulent activity while using our Website; or
(vi) we determine that you are breaching any term of these Terms and Conditions;”

T&C 16.2 “You acknowledge that Sportsbet.io shall be the final decision-maker as to whether you have violated rules, terms or conditions in a manner that results in suspension or permanent barring from participation in our Websites.”

Considering:

a)   The Client provided false and misleading information during the KYC procedure

b)   Strong suspicion (over reasonable doubt) of fraudulent activity regarding transactions and gameplay

c)   The fact that the Client had already received a 12.9BTC profit via fraudulent gameplay from the Operator

The Operator exercised its right to confiscate 6.5 BTC from the Clients account.

There was Yobit, Betcoin, Sportsbet

And bitcasino, and many others.

Damn, Livecoin campaign caused even more drama than Yobit!

Due to some self interest or unfair DT judgement, the drama started when Hhampuz tagged accounts.

First of all, if I didn't missed anything, this campaign still wasn't verified by Livecoin staff,

This is confirmed.

[DarkStar_]

Pretty similar to livecoin, keeping customer's funds as hostage.

The original deposit was returned and the customer reached a mutual agreement with Sportsbet.io. The customer suffered no damages (and even made a profit!). I personally think that some of Sportsbet.io's terms are dumb and they've made some poor actions, but at least they're not going to take my account balance (~80 mBTC) for saying this.

Forgive me if I'm wrong (I haven't followed the LiveCoin case too closely), but:

• izooomrud has taken damages as a result of LiveCoin's actions
• LiveCoin has not offered a fair and reasonable settlement to izooomrud
• izooomrud has not reached a mutual agreement with LiveCoin
• LiveCoin is violating the licenses of the software they used and are blaming the developers of the loss rather than take responsibility

If LiveCoin gave izooomrud the coins they bought or the original deposit back (and maybe with a bonus for opportunity cost), then I would be completely against 'attacking' LiveCoin and the flag created would be invalid.

[No HATE]

but at least they're not going to take my account balance (~80 mBTC) for saying this.

They don't took the balance, account was pending for investigation so it has to be frozen.\
Livecoin gave a lot of option, but user did not agree, so no mutual agreement, who should be followed off court?

T&C 16.2 “You acknowledge that Sportsbet.io shall be the final decision-maker as to whether you have violated rules, terms or conditions in a manner that results in suspension or permanent barring from participation in our Websites.”

same goes with livecoin.

[DarkStar_]

but at least they're not going to take my account balance (~80 mBTC) for saying this.

They don't took the balance, account was pending for investigation so it has to be frozen.\
Livecoin gave a lot of option, but user did not agree, so no mutual agreement? who should be followed off court?

What is there to investigate? From what I've seen, the account was frozen because the poster complained publicly. Could you link me to the posts/screenshots where Livecoin offered a fair method of resolution and the user disagreed? If Livecoin, in good faith, offered a reasonable settlement, then it's definitely izooomrud's fault for not taking the settlement. As far as I'm aware, this was not made.

I don't particularly agree with leaving negative trust over this, but I can see the argument that someone willing to promote a (partial) scam for personal benefit is a high risk person to trade with. For now, I will take yahoo's stance and utilize his blacklist for any campaigns I manage.

[Vadi2323]

...he was inactive DURING A YEAR. Look at his post history :
First message:

Week-5 27 Sep 2018 to 3 Oct 2018

Retweet + Like
https://twitter.com/goeurekatravel/status/1045269573136764928
https://twitter.com/goeurekatravel/status/1030468042826895360
https://twitter.com/goeurekatravel/status/1046810235124535297
https://twitter.com/goeurekatravel/status/1047360349513637888

Tweet
https://twitter.com/SnowWindOFF/status/1047445178808717312
https://twitter.com/SnowWindOFF/status/1047445395377459201

And after that the second message is on June 04 2019 - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=378827.msg51348830#msg51348830 ...

There were another his messages. They also were campaign reports. He deleted them.

[bones261]

What is there to investigate? From what I've seen, the account was frozen because the poster complained publicly. Could you link me to the posts/screenshots where Livecoin offered a fair method of resolution and the user disagreed? If Livecoin, in good faith, offered a reasonable settlement, then it's definitely izooomrud's fault for not taking the settlement. As far as I'm aware, this was not made.

I don't particularly agree with leaving negative trust over this, but I can see the argument that someone willing to promote a (partial) scam for personal benefit is a high risk person to trade with. For now, I will take yahoo's stance and utilize his blacklist for any campaigns I manage.

Livecoin has offered a solution to everyone who is left holding the bag when they finally delist it, more than a year after the malicious miner's attack.  

Dear customers.
Due to the fact, that in May, 15, 2018, MONA asset had been attacked, and its blockchain was compromised. Many customers - holders of the said coins, as well as exchanges, from which MONA coins were stolen completely or partially, suffered considerable losses.
Our Exchange was no exclusion, it was exposed to financial losses, too, because of the attack.
We were the first to contact the developer and point out the problems with blockchain. There has been many publications on this issue, including some major online news websites.
ccn.com
reddit.com
bitexpert.io
cryptor.net
bestinvestpro.com
bloomchain.ru
decenter.org
whattonews.ru
newsbtc.com

You will also find other exchanges' customers requests, addressed to the said asset developers, demanding to solve this problem.
github.com
github.com

In case of damage caused through actions or inactions of developers/owners of the asset, namely, security breach of the blockchain/network, we always seek to claim compensation for losses from the developers, as they bear full responsibility for their product. We have been trying to get compensation from MONA developers for a long time, all without success, they refused to bear responsibility for the damage inflicted on their project. In this connection, we are forced to delist the asset within 2 weeks.
The deposit/withdrawal of this asset is impossible given the lack of MONA coins stolen during the attack on Mona blockchain. The trade will remain opened until the last day.

We are still willing to dialogue with the developers, if you want to get Mona coins for withdrawal, please, contact them, demanding a compensation for MONA network breach. If they make up for the harm caused by hacking of their project, we shall immediately distribute coins, received from the developers, between all customers.

   I'm not certain how a 51% attack, a vulnerability that all POW coins share, is somehow the developer's fault.

[fortunecrypto]

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.

Thank you for granting my request, you earned my respect no wonder you are one of the top and respected bounty managers here, I already deleted my post there, hopefully, all the other participants will do the same

[No HATE]

I don't particularly agree with leaving negative trust over this, but I can see the argument that someone willing to promote a (partial) scam for personal benefit is a high risk person to trade with.

So sportsbet is not a partial scam? Make a decision and act like a responsible DT if you truly care for the community. The one tagging the participants, wants out of the DT so his judgment is questionable as a DT, time to distrust him so this abuse will not happen again. I like to relate this to some members saying about livecoin should be tag even at one scam accusation to prevent future damage, this DT is starting to do damage of the account he tagged.
Reminding you again that a scam accusation is not a scam, if Livecoin is a scam, authority had already ceased them.

[DarkStar_]

I don't particularly agree with leaving negative trust over this, but I can see the argument that someone willing to promote a (partial) scam for personal benefit is a high risk person to trade with.

So sportsbet is not a partial scam? Make a decision and act like a responsible DT if you truly care for the community. The one tagging the participants, wants out of the DT so his judgment is questionable as a DT, time to distrust him so this abuse will not happen again. I like to relate this to some members saying about livecoin should be tag even at one scam accusation to prevent future damage, this DT is starting to do damage of the account he tagged.

Send me a valid scam accusation where a legitimate user suffered damages and I will remove my Sportsbet.io avatar/personal text. Poor TOS does not make a site a scam.

Livecoin scammed users who purchased MONA on their site as they refused to allow withdraws, refused to accept responsibility, and are blaming the developers (and violating software licenses in the process). Those with MONA now have to sell at a significantly reduced price compared to the market for something that isn't their fault.

Reminding you again that a scam accusation is not a scam, if Livecoin is a scam, authority had already ceased them.

Okay. Go deposit your life savings to TradeSatoshi. <-- LIKELY SCAM There are very credible scam accusations and numerous reports of accounts being arbitrarily blocked, but since they are still online and not seized by authorities, they are clearly not a scam by your logic. Put your money where your mouth is.

[Veleor]

Could you link me to the posts/screenshots where Livecoin offered a fair method of resolution and the user disagreed? If Livecoin, in good faith, offered a reasonable settlement, then it's definitely izooomrud's fault for not taking the settlement.

Proposal of the exchange and user's response.

Client makes wrongful accusations toward our Exchange. The status of the mentioned asset is indicated as the lowest and not recommended for purchase. The client has knowingly bought the trash asset. The fact that the asset is not available for withdrawal at the moment, is not a scam. The acquired funds is still in the client’s account, he can sell this asset after the purchase, and withdraw BTC for example.

We gave all explanations to the client as well, we suggested a few ways to solve this situation, but he refused. He threatens, abuses our staff and publish slander that has nothing to do with reality. Such behavior is illegal itself, it broke User Agreement as well local legislation too, this is a true SCAM. We also consider connivance of the bitcointalk administration in such questions - inappropriate.

<...> This asset did not have any «statuses» when I bought it in the beginning of 2018. The statuses you are referring to were created much later. Why are you lying? You brought up an interesting topic, and I would like to thank you for that. You statement makes me wonder - how did the "junk asset" appear on your stock exchange? I understand it would have not been right if I bought a "junk asset" and lost a lot of money because of its fall, then began demanding a compensation from you. This was not the case, and again you are trying to twist my words to misrepresent reality and confuse everyone. I bought a "trash asset", then you lost it during the “attack 51%” and I cannot withdraw it up to this time! Don’t try to tell me where I should sell it, I will decide it without your advice! <...>

[DarkStar_]

Could you link me to the posts/screenshots where Livecoin offered a fair method of resolution and the user disagreed? If Livecoin, in good faith, offered a reasonable settlement, then it's definitely izooomrud's fault for not taking the settlement.

Proposal of the exchange and user's response.

-snip-

I don't know what LiveCoin offered in private, but I don't think that a reasonable settlement is "Your fault for buying a coin that we can't properly support, now go market sell it at a loss to some other sucker and withdraw your BTC".

[Veleor]

...

What settlement would be reasonable in your opinion?

[DarkStar_]

...

What settlement would be reasonable in your opinion?

Either allow them to withdraw the MONA or refund the Bitcoin used to purchase the MONA originally. This results in no financial damages as izooomrud is made whole. If a user deposited MONA, give them their MONA back or BTC equivalent based on the actual market value.

[suchmoon]

Client makes wrongful accusations toward our Exchange. The status of the mentioned asset is indicated as the lowest and not recommended for purchase. The client has knowingly bought the trash asset. The fact that the asset is not available for withdrawal at the moment, is not a scam. The acquired funds is still in the client’s account, he can sell this asset after the purchase, and withdraw BTC for example.

We gave all explanations to the client as well, we suggested a few ways to solve this situation, but he refused. He threatens, abuses our staff and publish slander that has nothing to do with reality. Such behavior is illegal itself, it broke User Agreement as well local legislation too, this is a true SCAM. We also consider connivance of the bitcointalk administration in such questions - inappropriate.

That doesn't sound a genuine offer because it omits the fact that LiveCoin will not budge on the "don't say bad things about us" clause. In other words, "he can sell this asset after the purchase, and withdraw BTC" is blatantly false because (emphasis mine):

Communication and relationship between client and Exchange is regulated by User agreement, which every user accepts at registration. There is no way to register without accepting the user agreement. However, rarely, some clients ignore and flagrantly breach the User agreement.

For the first time of violation of rules, we just warn client, but in case of repeatedly violations, account may be blocked for verification and further investigation. But, even in this case, we allow to withdraw all funds after the removing of false information and consequences caused by this publication. In some cases, verification may be required by the security team.

This is exactly what happened to the said client. This client created a ticket with a demand to enable withdrawal of MONA for his account, what is absolutely impossible because of the attack on the MONA network and public refusal of the developers to bear responsibility for that. We replied to the client with the explanation regarding MONA asset, but he decided to start spreading false allegations, publicly accusing the Exchange of fraud, and thus misleading the other clients.

The client is clearly provoking a conflict, ignoring all suggested options of settlement. Earlier this client said that all information, violating the user agreement had been removed, but the investigation found out that, on the contrary, there is much more such information now. All further discussions of this issue will be held solely with the client and only after eliminating all negative effects.

There is a possibility of something being lost in translation. Perhaps "he can sell [...]" was meant to be "he could sell [...] [before we cut him off for saying bad things but now it's too late]".

[guoyu78]

What settlement would be reasonable in your opinion?

By assuming there is only one scam accusation is open, I like to suggest a community driven settlement after realizing that livecoin is too firm with their TOS.

1. If old and new participants of livecoin campaigns like to support them financially, they may donate some BTC which could be at least half of what was actually claimed by izooomrud.
2. Escrow at least 0.15 BTC (and maximum 0.3BTC) (or current value of his altcoin) for paying to izooomrud.
3. Convince izooomrud to withdraw all scam accusation by assuming his lost money is about to be recovered.
4. Then, izooomrud may ask for recovery of his funds from livecoin by proving all negative effects were cleaned.
5. If livecoin will be refunding then donors may get back their BTC. But, regardless of livecoin's action against izooomrud in a given (or proposed) time-frame, I guess they still may be allowed to have campaign until another scam accusation will be raised.

Please note, I made this proposal based following assumptions (and facts):
1. Only one open scam accusation against livecoin.
2. Livecoin is ready to find a resolution if the problem will be discussed in closed manner.
3. There are enough community people will be ready to support livecoin financially due to their own good experience with them.

Finally, I was a one of old participant and I am ready to use/donate some 0.03 BTC  (10% of max) for enforcing livecoin to find a resolution within their TOS.

[Findingnemo]

What settlement would be reasonable in your opinion?

By assuming there is only one scam accusation is open, I like to suggest a community driven settlement after realizing that livecoin is too firm with their TOS.

1. If old and new participants of livecoin campaigns like to support them financially, they may donate some BTC which could be at least half of what was actually claimed by izooomrud.
2. Escrow at least 0.15 BTC (and maximum 0.3BTC) (or current value of his said altcoin) for paying to izooomrud.
3. Convince izooomrud to withdraw all scam accusation by assuming his lost money is about to be recovered.
4. Then, izooomrud may ask for recovery of his funds from livecoin by proving all negative effects were cleaned.
5. If livecoin will be refunding then donors may get back their BTC. But, regardless of livecoin's action against izooomrud in a given (or proposed) time-frame, I guess they still may be allowed to have campaign until another scam accusation will be raised.

Please note, I made this proposal based following assumptions and facts:
1. Only one open scam accusation against livecoin.
2. Livecoin is ready to find a resolution if the problem will be discussed in closed manner.
3. There are enough community people will be ready to support livecoin financially due to their own good experience with them.

Finally, I was a one of old participant and I am ready to use/donate some 0.03 BTC  (10% of max) for enforcing livecoin to find a resolution within their TOS.

izooomrud  not asking for financial help,he just asking to refund his own money which have been seized by the livecoin without appropriate reason.If you are willing to help for gaining the lost or stolen fund you can help them in PMs but this doesn't make them as trustworthy again until they give appropriate reason or refund the money.

[guoyu78]

izooomrud  not asking for financial help,he just asking to refund his own money which have been seized by the livecoin without appropriate reason.

He may ask or may not ask but a settlement could be achieved in the above said way. Now, it is up to izooomrud and other livecoin sig. camp participants and more importantly few DTs to support this way of settlement.

If you are willing to help for gaining the lost or stolen fund you can help them in PMs but this doesn't make them as trustworthy again until they give appropriate reason or refund the money.

Sounds like you did not read all the breadth and width of this topic. Please read where livecoin is standing and I am not here to simply help izooomrud but trying to give another chance for livecoin to clear themselves.


Edit:
I have sent a PM to izooomrud. It reads:

Hi,

I like to link you to my proposal for a settlement on your dispute with livecoin :

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5167034.msg51895738#msg51895738

Please read this carefully and kindly state your opinion there itself.

I am able to understand your pain on losing something and I feel heartfully sorry for your losses and being a member of same community, I like to suggest you to come forward to solve the dispute in an amicable way.

You never need to give up your rights and face losses but you may need to be flexible for finding a solution. This is just a humble request.

Thank you.

For transparency I paste the message here. (I am the sender hence there will be no breaching on opening that here )

[Findingnemo]

izooomrud  not asking for financial help,he just asking to refund his own money which have been seized by the livecoin without appropriate reason.

He may ask or may not ask but a settlement could be achieved in the above said way. Now, it is up to izooomrud and other livecoin sig. camp participants and more importantly few DTs to support this way of settlement.

If you are willing to help for gaining the lost or stolen fund you can help them in PMs but this doesn't make them as trustworthy again until they give appropriate reason or refund the money.

Sounds like you did not read all the breadth and width of this topic. Please read where livecoin is standing and I am not here to simply help izooomrud but trying to give another chance for livecoin to clear themselves.

If you are part of livecoin exchange then you can help that person to regain his money but if you are just doing that to get them back for the signature campaign and their benefits for yourself then it is not acceptable in my opinion.

It is not a matter for the single person what you will do if many people lost their money in the same way just like OP,you will refund everything?