I wish to know the opinion of the community, do you agree that user Balthazar justly has a negative trust, which was issued by DT member Cryptodevil in March 2017?

A DT member Cryptodevil believes that Balthazar deserves a negative tag because Balthazar was linked to the BTC-e exchange.

Balthazar himself has admitted that he was a chat moderator and technical consultant in the BTC-e, but denies that he organized this exchange.


Balthazar is a veteran of Bitcointalk. In 2012 he had participated in the moderators elections in Russian section. Balthazar also helps against spammers and bounty cheaters on the forum. I asked Balthazar to join the discussion but he refused.

Nonetheless, let me quote from RBC magazine from December 13, 2017:

Translation into English by Crimerussia:

Balthazar's comments from 2015 indirectly confirm he was a consultant and didn't hold a managerial position in BTC-e, also the work at BTC-e apparently wasn't his main employment.


Is there at least one hard proof or official statement, that Balthazar held a senior position in BTC-e? If there is no such evidence, then do you believe it is right that average employee like chat moderator and consultant should be tagged if company management have used illegal schemes?

At first I didn't want to open this topic without Balthazar, but then I changed my mind, because I think that a negative trust must be supported by hard facts and shouldn't be controversial, otherwise it will cause discredit to the whole DT system.

In my opinion, if Balthazar had been involved in the theft of btc-e users' money, he would not have stayed on the forum.
Instead of concrete facts proving his involvement in the theft of only words.

Is it possible to accuse a person of fraud if the accusation is based only on guesswork? I don't think so.

Balthazar does not only share useful information about the Bitcoin network, which is not widely available, but also helps to fight scammers on the forum.

I believe that he received a negative feedback undeservedly.

It seems strange to me that a person who has never had claims from law enforcement agencies is accused of fraud.
As for his benefit for the forum, it is undeniable; I can’t add anything (compared to him, I’m Brand new here).

We went through something similar over user Horus_Cryptsy but he wasn't as much of a forum veteran and doesn't seem to have stuck around..


I think that statement basically sums it up and I am generally in agreement with it..

So yeah..
When exchanges go down, often likely innocent employees get caught in the crossfire..
Those close with Cryptopia seem to have gotten through it ok as well..

iirc I had an account on BTC-e back in the day and checked it out real good but I don't think I ever sent any coin there because I was too sketched out or they didn't have anything I wanted..

Negative trust for Balthazar at the time of the BTC-e happening may have been well warranted but if the case is that he has been found innocent after all is said and done I don't see why he wouldn't deserve a second chance as well..

Then again, maybe cryptodevil has his reasons I don't know of..  

Awesome, problem appears to be solved then. Lock the thread. There is no need for another drama for nothing.

You may deserve it, regardless of needing it. Someone is sticking up for you, I consider that a good thing in a community

I want that this issue will be fully debated and as many users as possible would express their views about Balthazar's negative trust, it is deserved or not.
It's likely that Cryptodevil will take into consideration opinions of other forum members.

It's obvious that Balthazar don't deserve such trust. For four main reasons:

1. It's very strange to tag person for some shady reddit post.

2. There any proof that Balthazar was "creator" of BTC-E. Even if he worked on BTC E for some time, this doesn't mean that anyone can tag him for BTC-E case. Employees not responsible for actions of their chief (in most cases)

3. BTC-E repaid for all it's users with 50 % of coins and another part in wex tokens (as i remember). So there is not any @loss@ to be tagged for

And the most interesting part:

4. In most investigations Balthazar is linked to be a co-worker of Alex "LZ" Saver and LZ is called one of BTC E creators too. Sooooo..... Why our friend with cool sheriff's badge, don't tag LZ too? It's fun fact, that unlike to Balthazar, Alex LZ really dissapear from forum.

It's looks like a little (just a bit) hypocrize .

Cryptodevil, please, at least replace your feedback for Balthazar to neutral

Balthazar is a very good man, we are all trusted him. Please be merciful

Don't pretend that I'm a fool. Yes, you did it repeatedly, even here in this thread. These aren't plain words since I've consulted with my lawyer, Edward Donovan from Donovan & Associates. And he assured me that your actions have signs of defamation, which is illegal in the United States. These carefully added "likely" and "possibly" words aren't turning your accusations into opinion. Yes, this may be difficult to prove in the court, but don't pretend that it's a worthy excuse for such activity.

Achievement unlocked. It looks like Comrade Winston decided to borrow a typical argument from his predecessors. Unsurprising and quite expected move because every troll in russian locale already knows how to write Novacoin Tales. Yep, the point is that they were trolls, not DT members.

Do you really consider a link exchange and moderation as kind of business partnership with a shady background? Are you sure that it's not a trolling? Let me to ensure once again, are you talking this rubbish seriously?

Another of my well-known atrocities is that I authorized Donald Trump to start his presidential campaign.

Of course. I became a member of their secret order after killing the virgin in the front of other respected comrades. After that we had a nice conversation about Flat Earth before few russian prostitutes peed on me. We're russians and that's how we're doing our shady business.

These are my words and that's truth. But there are another pieces of history you're missing deliberately.

1. Instamine is not a crime in any way, it's just a technical issue unless it's hidden. Especially if it was destroyed.

2. Client was published in chat a day before BTC-e decided to list it and made announce. That is a solid fact and it would be sillish to deny it. There were number of people who have seen it and that was written in the chat logs. You can't simply say that they didn't exist, since it would be like pretending that Comrade Withers never existed. Network hashrate reached few gh/s in a matter of hours and that should be self-explanatory to any sane individual.

It seems that Comrade Winston is somewhat offended due to buying some overpriced altcoin and being unable to sell it. Let me guess, it was LTC, right?
If I made a right guess then he should get back to his work in the Ministry of Truth and dedicate some time to invent yet another story about Comrade Ogilvy.

Like I have said two years before, the problem I have with this statement is that there is no evidence to support the claim that cryptodevil did not rape children.
That would be the same "higly-likely" story which is full of "would be"'s.  Presumption of innocence or factual evidence? No, never heard of.   #cryptodevil #metoo.

Except that I'm unanonymous person which is still not in jail. Every of your words clashes with that simple truth. It's a kind of "ridiculous!" spell from Harry Potter universe, which results with turning you from cryptodevil into cryptoclown. Are you claiming to be smarter than american and russian authorities? Well, then that would be a nice example of Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

Maybe you will tell me, why should I spend any more time on you? I'm asking seriously because I see that 2 years term was not enogh for you to evolve and come up with mature arguments. I give you one more chance to prove that you're a useful person which is able to participate in real conversation. C'mon, give me something to excuse that waste of time.