Livecoin participants should be tag?

[No HATE]

I haven't tagged anyone.

You didn't, good manager.

I've stated that I can see the reasoning behind tagging them, and thus won't exclude anyone who does. I personally won't be tagging anyone.

Look at this way, participants earn from signature campaign, so getting red tag is a big deal for them, it's their life that was taken away.

You see someone under your trust abusing the trust, and you don't do anything? How do you call yourself then?

Again..

Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk. You might also be able to add a flag.


reppying your PM as I'm not allowed to reply anymore, newbie restriction maybe.

From you : Maybe not, but you've been avoiding a lot of my valid counterpoints and changing the subject which makes me lead to believe that you are.
Answer : I can do that when I see it's beyond the topic " Livecoin participants should be tag? "

[1715054443]

1715054443

[1715054443]

1715054443

[1715054443]

1715054443

[1715054443]

1715054443

[1715054443]

1715054443

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Won’t let me quote from that thread but this is post #2081 in the thread you linked written by Stunna-

The BitCasino claim is valid to my knowledge and BitCasino handled it very poorly. Do you really believe that it's okay for BitCasino to steal 20 BTC from a customer because he bet too high? There was no software restriction and it was buried in the T&C. It's technically legal but incredibly shady and unethical. I'm guessing it's technically legal for LiveCoin to not allow withdraws of specific coins due to wallet issues.

I get that you're wearing a BitCasino signature and feel the need to defend them, but BitCasino has done wrong in the past. Stunna's claims were valid regardless of anything else.

There should have been software restriction, that isn’t cool. Unfortunately fir the affected user T&C’s are legally binding.
Like you said bitcasino are much improved now thankfully & have a good rating on Ask Gamblers which should reassure people.

Unfortunately for LiveCoin I think they’d struggle to wriggle out with the wallet software excuse as that’d be very difficult to prove in a court of law unlike the T&C issue with the old bitcasino problem because T&C’s are in writing, black & white.


@No HATE - Can i just add that I don’t agree with the red tagging of Livecoin campaign participants.
I like Hhampuz a lot but on this issue I disagree with him.

[No HATE]

@No HATE - Can i just add that I don’t agree with the red tagging of Livecoin campaign participants.
I like Hhampuz a lot but on this issue I disagree with him.

Now you are talking with non sense. I'm not here to debate about the scam accusation or anything, I only want fairness, I stand on the campaign participants side not only in livecoin but to the whole to prevent this from happening in the future.

@LFC_Bitcoin, stop threatening me by tagging my account because I'm not here to cause trouble, I'm here to speak my unbias opinion.

I hope you understand.

3.) I am so close to leaving your shitty account red trust & if I found out what your main account is I’ll create a flag against it.

This is why people post with alts.

[DarkStar_]

I've stated that I can see the reasoning behind tagging them, and thus won't exclude anyone who does. I personally won't be tagging anyone.

Look at this way, participants earn from signature campaign, so getting red tag is a big deal for them, it's their life that was taken away.
You see someone under your trust abusing the trust, and you don't do anything? How do you call yourself then?
Again..
Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk. You might also be able to add a flag.

I can see the argument that trading with people who are willing to promote sites that have been run very poorly and have refused to accept responsibility for personal gain makes trading with someone high risk.

No one is entitled to participate in signature campaigns. No one is forced to join the Livecoin campaign. I don't see any abuse here.

There should have been software restriction, that isn’t cool. Unfortunately fir the affected user T&C’s are legally binding.
Like you said bitcasino are much improved now thankfully & have a good rating on Ask Gamblers which should reassure people.

Unfortunately for LiveCoin I think they’d struggle to wriggle out with the wallet software excuse as that’d be very difficult to prove in a court of law unlike the T&C issue with the old bitcasino problem because T&C’s are in writing, black & white.

I'm not sure that the T&C would hold up in a court of law. Can you link me to a court case in any jurisdiction where predatory terms similar to the BitCasino issue was decided to be legally valid?

Many T&C's end up having unenforceable clauses that may be illegal depending on jurisdiction.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

I've stated that I can see the reasoning behind tagging them, and thus won't exclude anyone who does. I personally won't be tagging anyone.

Look at this way, participants earn from signature campaign, so getting red tag is a big deal for them, it's their life that was taken away.
You see someone under your trust abusing the trust, and you don't do anything? How do you call yourself then?
Again..
Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk. You might also be able to add a flag.

I can see the argument that trading with people who are willing to promote sites that have been run very poorly and have refused to accept responsibility for personal gain makes trading with someone high risk.

No one is entitled to participate in signature campaigns. No one is forced to join the Livecoin campaign. I don't see any abuse here.

There should have been software restriction, that isn’t cool. Unfortunately fir the affected user T&C’s are legally binding.
Like you said bitcasino are much improved now thankfully & have a good rating on Ask Gamblers which should reassure people.

Unfortunately for LiveCoin I think they’d struggle to wriggle out with the wallet software excuse as that’d be very difficult to prove in a court of law unlike the T&C issue with the old bitcasino problem because T&C’s are in writing, black & white.

I'm not sure that the T&C would hold up in a court of law. Can you link me to a court case in any jurisdiction where predatory terms similar to the BitCasino issue was decided to be legally valid?

Many T&C's end up having unenforceable clauses that may be illegal depending on jurisdiction.

I’m not a legal professional but I presume if you’re happy to go ahead & play then you’ve probably, effectively agreed to the T&C’s (or in theory any way sadly). Maybe the guy affected should have taken it to court but as of now it seems to have gone away & was over 2 years ago.

Like you said, they’ve clearly cleaned up their act & are running a much tighter, more professional ship now which benefits everybody.

We should possibly stop derailing the thread & taking the Livecoin participant tagging discussion off topic now though.

[nutildah]

You guys should read this before you continue your weird dramatic bickering:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5159692.msg51907579#msg51907579

[Vadi2323]

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.

Hey, how is it going? Slaves obeyed, very trusted man?

It is sad to see that people are afraid of losing the opportunity to participate in campaigns than to remain in their opinion. Such trust system costs nothing.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

You guys should read this before you continue your weird dramatic bickering:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5159692.msg51907579#msg51907579

Am I reading this right?
This whole shit show involving half the forum & multiple DT’s was over 720 shit coins valued at $1.68 each that were never at any point retrievable using the Livecoin service?

I thought there were multiple other coins involved.

Are you fucking kidding me?

[LiveCoin]

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.

[2double0]

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.

Hey, how is it going? Slaves obeyed, very trusted man?

It is sad to see that people are afraid of losing the opportunity to participate in campaigns than to remain in their opinion. Such trust system costs nothing.

About your trust system statement, it really does.
Wait, did you call us slaves just because we snatched away our applications out of livecoin? Well, I wasn't very much aware of the situation and when I read everything at an in-depth level, I decided not to wear their signature which I didn't put before itself.

Well, am I a slave?

It was my choice not to choose this campaign and continue with the current one, as losing our reputation in "advertising about riots, terrorism, extortions, prostitution and crimes in a Church or a Temple" is not a better choice at all and if we want to remain in our shoes and work for the community, we'd not show any interest in advertising them for money. Yeah, I can say that I was allured by their pay rates but so far didn't wear their signature as I knew that Hhampuz was the one managing their old campaign.

[Vadi2323]

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.

Hey, how is it going? Slaves obeyed, very trusted man?

It is sad to see that people are afraid of losing the opportunity to participate in campaigns than to remain in their opinion. Such trust system costs nothing.

About your trust system statement, it really does.
Wait, did you call us slaves just because we snatched away our applications out of livecoin? Well, I wasn't very much aware of the situation and when I read everything at an in-depth level, I decided not to wear their signature which I didn't put before itself.

Well, am I a slave?

It was my choice not to choose this campaign and continue with the current one, as losing our reputation in "advertising about riots, terrorism, extortions, prostitution and crimes in a Church or a Temple" is not a better choice at all and if we want to remain in our shoes and work for the community, we'd not show any interest in advertising them for money. Yeah, I can say that I was allured by their pay rates but so far didn't wear their signature as I knew that Hhampuz was the one managing their old campaign.

Congratulation! Your post was counted.

It's seemed for me that you are not exactly a slave... I don't want to discuss about it because of the reason I said earlier:

"Stupid" is signature spamming with shitposting for a few satoshis in English board of bitcointalk. When I come here I feel like in some signature brothel with signature whores. And each one wants to open a long dispute with me

Look for another interlocutor please