BCT Admins plz give us these 3 users(altcoin scammers) dat

[fox19891989]

If you want IPs, get a legal request for information, such as a court order. It's best to have a "chain of custody" so to speak when it comes to things like this. If we handed out IPs to any random who asked, and violence of some sort ended up happening, then we would be on the hook if we couldn't show a paper trail of who requested the information. If you are on the up and up and don't plan on doing anything illegal, then there shouldn't be any problems with this. Court orders (which, again, are just a legal request for information) are standard when requesting information from third parties.

Thanks for the response BadBear, would you be able to tell us if the accounts in question have overlapping log ins from the same IP?  That would answer the question without disclosing any information that could cause you legal or ethical problems.  There is a considerable amount of BTC riding on this decision, any help you can render would be greatly appreciated.

R.

[BadBear]

If you want IPs, get a legal request for information, such as a court order. It's best to have a "chain of custody" so to speak when it comes to things like this. If we handed out IPs to any random who asked, and violence of some sort ended up happening, then we would be on the hook if we couldn't show a paper trail of who requested the information. If you are on the up and up and don't plan on doing anything illegal, then there shouldn't be any problems with this. Court orders (which, again, are just a legal request for information) are standard when requesting information from third parties.

Thanks for the response BadBear, would you be able to tell us if the accounts in question have overlapping log ins from the same IP?  That would answer the question without disclosing any information that could cause you legal or ethical problems.  There is a considerable amount of BTC riding on this decision, any help you can render would be greatly appreciated.

R.

Yes they do, though they are shared with many accounts, so it's likely either an unknown proxy/vpn or bought accounts.

[richiela]

If you want IPs, get a legal request for information, such as a court order. It's best to have a "chain of custody" so to speak when it comes to things like this. If we handed out IPs to any random who asked, and violence of some sort ended up happening, then we would be on the hook if we couldn't show a paper trail of who requested the information. If you are on the up and up and don't plan on doing anything illegal, then there shouldn't be any problems with this. Court orders (which, again, are just a legal request for information) are standard when requesting information from third parties.

Thanks for the response BadBear, would you be able to tell us if the accounts in question have overlapping log ins from the same IP?  That would answer the question without disclosing any information that could cause you legal or ethical problems.  There is a considerable amount of BTC riding on this decision, any help you can render would be greatly appreciated.

R.

Yes they do, though they are shared with many accounts, so it's likely either an unknown proxy/vpn or bought accounts.

For additional context: (edited quote for clarity)

Would an email request from @bittrex.com suffice, or do you really want a legal document?  Honestly, I don't even want IPs... if you can just confirm or deny that any of the accounts shared non-tor IPs, that would be enough.

Thanks
richie@bittrex

I can confirm if they did share an IP at some point, or they used a proxy, specific information like IPs used won't be released though.  

The 3 users in your topic have shared an IP at some point, it's not a known proxy. Though it could be an unknown proxy, since there are many accounts associated with the IPs, or they have dynamic IPs which is obfuscating the results, or they/he has dozens of accounts, or they were all bought from a third party, which would account for the results I'm seeing. No way of knowing really. That's all I can tell you.

Thank you for the confirmation.  Do I have your permission to oost this publicly that you have confirmed this?

Thanks,
Richie

[Essex343]

If you want IPs, get a legal request for information, such as a court order. It's best to have a "chain of custody" so to speak when it comes to things like this. If we handed out IPs to any random who asked, and violence of some sort ended up happening, then we would be on the hook if we couldn't show a paper trail of who requested the information. If you are on the up and up and don't plan on doing anything illegal, then there shouldn't be any problems with this. Court orders (which, again, are just a legal request for information) are standard when requesting information from third parties.

Thanks for the response BadBear, would you be able to tell us if the accounts in question have overlapping log ins from the same IP?  That would answer the question without disclosing any information that could cause you legal or ethical problems.  There is a considerable amount of BTC riding on this decision, any help you can render would be greatly appreciated.

R.

Yes they do, though they are shared with many accounts, so it's likely either an unknown proxy/vpn or bought accounts.

I have been using VPN service for a while now, atm I am using purevpn.com. I have no clue who that usecoin dev is and when and how our IPs overlapped.

[Bergmannx]

If you want IPs, get a legal request for information, such as a court order. It's best to have a "chain of custody" so to speak when it comes to things like this. If we handed out IPs to any random who asked, and violence of some sort ended up happening, then we would be on the hook if we couldn't show a paper trail of who requested the information. If you are on the up and up and don't plan on doing anything illegal, then there shouldn't be any problems with this. Court orders (which, again, are just a legal request for information) are standard when requesting information from third parties.

Thanks for the response BadBear, would you be able to tell us if the accounts in question have overlapping log ins from the same IP?  That would answer the question without disclosing any information that could cause you legal or ethical problems.  There is a considerable amount of BTC riding on this decision, any help you can render would be greatly appreciated.

R.

Yes they do, though they are shared with many accounts, so it's likely either an unknown proxy/vpn or bought accounts.

I have been using VPN service for a while now, atm I am using purevpn.com. I have no clue who that usecoin dev is and when and how our IPs overlapped.

All three accounts (Essex343, ShameOnYou, HarryT1923) posted in threads like What Do Philosophers Do? and Do You smoke? tobacco/weed.
All three accounts started IPOs lately without having created a coin before. When You go through the posts You can see, that the post count was raised artificially probably to gain more BTC for signatures.
There are tons of simular accounts in these threads.

My conclusion is:
You bought some of these accounts to start IPOs.
Usecoin (ShameOnYou) is a proven scam, CrystalCoin (HarryT1923) sees no more action after BTC was collected and ClusterCoin got nothing, but a badly cloned code.

[fox19891989]

If you want IPs, get a legal request for information, such as a court order. It's best to have a "chain of custody" so to speak when it comes to things like this. If we handed out IPs to any random who asked, and violence of some sort ended up happening, then we would be on the hook if we couldn't show a paper trail of who requested the information. If you are on the up and up and don't plan on doing anything illegal, then there shouldn't be any problems with this. Court orders (which, again, are just a legal request for information) are standard when requesting information from third parties.

Thanks for the response BadBear, would you be able to tell us if the accounts in question have overlapping log ins from the same IP?  That would answer the question without disclosing any information that could cause you legal or ethical problems.  There is a considerable amount of BTC riding on this decision, any help you can render would be greatly appreciated.

R.

Yes they do, though they are shared with many accounts, so it's likely either an unknown proxy/vpn or bought accounts.

I have been using VPN service for a while now, atm I am using purevpn.com. I have no clue who that usecoin dev is and when and how our IPs overlapped.

because you are the same scam!

[fox19891989]

If you want IPs, get a legal request for information, such as a court order. It's best to have a "chain of custody" so to speak when it comes to things like this. If we handed out IPs to any random who asked, and violence of some sort ended up happening, then we would be on the hook if we couldn't show a paper trail of who requested the information. If you are on the up and up and don't plan on doing anything illegal, then there shouldn't be any problems with this. Court orders (which, again, are just a legal request for information) are standard when requesting information from third parties.

Thanks for the response BadBear, would you be able to tell us if the accounts in question have overlapping log ins from the same IP?  That would answer the question without disclosing any information that could cause you legal or ethical problems.  There is a considerable amount of BTC riding on this decision, any help you can render would be greatly appreciated.

R.

Yes they do, though they are shared with many accounts, so it's likely either an unknown proxy/vpn or bought accounts.

Tks very much, you will save several hundreds of victims.

[crimealone]

Please check this thread!!!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=683158.20
In this thread, you would find two confirmed ico scam dev-USE AND CRYSTAL. One possible scam dev-cluster.
And several other accounts in the same pattern. They are all created, stopped posting and are active again in the same period.

They all posted in the same giveaway thread, talked about nothing about altcoin and technique and then suddenly created an altcoin!!


Bittrex said:
* 3 accounts created in a one month period (how many accounts were created during the bitcoin hype period?)
* said accounts were part of giveaway threads (how many accounts were part of the giveaways?)

Not just created in a one month period. How many accounts were created in that period, stopped posting in December 2013 and then active again in May 2014??
How many accounts were part of giveaways and also devs of ico coins? And what's the possibility of three ico devs(two of them are confirmed scammers) appeared in the same thread and talked about philosophy? Let alone only several people were in this thread and there were at least another three accounts in the same pattern.

[Gladimor]

Really bad move on Bittrex part if they fail to execute the deal because buyers had a change of heart.


~BCX~

It's called doing the right thing.
If the Bittrex support team smells a scam, they will do the right thing, and return the money of their customers. See, the thing is this. You are saying that Bittrex's intentions to not execute a deal- if they smell the deal is backed by illegitimate intentions by the other party- is a bad thing?

If the ClusterCoin developer is a scammer, that means that the developer of ClusterCoin won't honor his deal he promised his ICO investors- all those features. So what is stopping Bittrex from not honoring a deal also- when they have evidence that the ClusterCoin developer is a scammer? Last I heard, Bittrex does not deal with scammers. If they realize that they are hosting an ICO for a scammer, they have EVERY RIGHT to cancel the deal.

To the dev of ClusterCoin; if you are a man with legitimate intentions, I am sorry for the position you are currently in. These times are hard on altcoin developers, as a lot of promises remain unfulfilled, leaving investors in the dust. But, when you deliver results, all FUD will vanish, and you will have a very strong community behind you BUT, if you are a scammer, here are my words for you: Karma will get you.

[fox19891989]

Really bad move on Bittrex part if they fail to execute the deal because buyers had a change of heart.


~BCX~

It's called doing the right thing.
If the Bittrex support team smells a scam, they will do the right thing, and return the money of their customers. See, the thing is this. You are saying that Bittrex's intentions to not execute a deal- if they smell the deal is backed by illegitimate intentions by the other party- is a bad thing?

If the ClusterCoin developer is a scammer, that means that the developer of ClusterCoin won't honor his deal he promised his ICO investors- all those features. So what is stopping Bittrex from not honoring a deal also- when they have evidence that the ClusterCoin developer is a scammer? Last I heard, Bittrex does not deal with scammers. If they realize that they are hosting an ICO for a scammer, they have EVERY RIGHT to cancel the deal.

To the dev of ClusterCoin; if you are a man with legitimate intentions, I am sorry for the position you are currently in. These times are hard on altcoin developers, as a lot of promises remain unfulfilled, leaving investors in the dust. But, when you deliver results, all FUD will vanish, and you will have a very strong community behind you BUT, if you are a scammer, here are my words for you: Karma will get you.

totally right

[armlock]

I'm glad to see bittrex acting to protect its users. Keep this good work Richie

[CryptoOracle]

I recall a while back an upstanding NXT member getting robbed and ended up outing the completely wrong dude for the theft.
All I'm saying is Bittrex should be very careful and think through what they give out.

That being said you can have two views (mostly dependant on if you got burned or not):
1) traders blame themselves <- my point of view, but then again I sold at a 10% loss.
2) bittrex refunds cluster ico (this should only be done if the product promised is not delivered regardless of what price it trades at - according to contract, else you kill your own crediblity as an escrow)

+1

I do believe that IF some substantial evidence is produced to bittrex clearly out lining that CLSTR is the same person as USE and it could be used to prevent legal action against bittrex then and ONLY THEN is it possible for bittrex to void the terms and conditions set out for the ICO.

At this point in time all agreements have been met and there is no substantial evidence to prove otherwise.

[pineapples]

i think any dev making outright lies needs to be outed at the least.

crypto is not some elite liberal paradise where you can go around fucking people over for personal benefit.

ha.

[YoyodyneSystems]

I was looking at Cluster Coin before ICO and I looked through Essex's posts starting from his first post
way back in the start when he first registered. The things he posted and where and what
he wrote made zero sense in relation to the coin ICO postings. I mean seriously go look right now...

What I am saying is I did my research and knew it was likely a very poor idea to buy that coin
and I didn't buy it based on what I learned from simply spending 10 minutes going through his post
history and trying to match anything from his older posts to his ICO posts.

His account was likely purchased. It's not certain but likely.
It sure appears that way to me at least.

Just my two satoshi.
I do this every day ---- Research.
A little will go a long way.

[mishax1]

Let me get this straight,

**all three accounts were created in the same week:


**all three stopped posting at the same week (two of them at the same day and time):

ShameOnYou


Essex343


HarryT1923


**all three shared the same IP at some point. - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=754271.msg8516705#msg8516705

**all three posted in the same threads many times.


Clearly those accounts somehow connected (either those are 2/3 or more users or even one user) and they are NOT typical user accounts

All three released some coin lately while 2 of them turned out to be scam (right?)

If that info alone isn't enough to raise a red flag for Cluster (their biggest profit?) then please, release the funds of 350BTC to Essex343 and get it over with.

[tedbundy]

That's just a matter of perspective and your own unproven fears.

Has anyone proven this is a scam?

It's not Bittrex's position to determine what is a scam and what is not.

They are simply the escrow.

~BCX~

It is a very interesting situation bitterex is in, and the community I see. People praising anonymous unregulated decentralized currency, but when they gamble and think they got scammed some members have been expecting and demanding regulation, accountability, and personal information. I think some precedents might be set here. If I was bitterex admin I would have demanded way more from dev to protect myself. Very risky escrow/investment type thing this ICO

[omgbossis21]

Not real sure whats going on here and not sure whats a IPO coin?  These are the coins you have to buy upfront correct?  If so does anybody remember getting physical letters in the mail saying if you send me $1 then once 25 people also send me $1 I will send $2?  So if im thinking along the correct lines people bought in these coins, now their worth crap and the escrow is giving all the money to some dev?  Enlighten me....

[mishax1]

Not real sure whats going on here and not sure whats a IPO coin?  These are the coins you have to buy upfront correct?  If so does anybody remember getting physical letters in the mail saying if you send me $1 then once 25 people also send me $1 I will send $2?  So if im thinking along the correct lines people bought in these coins, now their worth crap and the escrow is giving all the money to some dev?  Enlighten me....

I think it all started after the ICO. People noticed the strange evidence and started selling. *correct me if i'm wrong.

This guy keeps deleting every single post even when I asked for an update several times he just deletes the post:

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Enough deleting posts and show some github updates since there are none.

4 developers working a project should easily provide some work in progress which until this point didn't.

Prove us wrong and show some work so all the fud goes away.

Thanks.

This stinks of scam.

[fox19891989]

Not real sure whats going on here and not sure whats a IPO coin?  These are the coins you have to buy upfront correct?  If so does anybody remember getting physical letters in the mail saying if you send me $1 then once 25 people also send me $1 I will send $2?  So if im thinking along the correct lines people bought in these coins, now their worth crap and the escrow is giving all the money to some dev?  Enlighten me....

I think it all started after the ICO. People noticed the strange evidence and started selling. *correct me if i'm wrong.

This guy keeps deleting every single post even when I asked for an update several times he just deletes the post:

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Enough deleting posts and show some github updates since there are none.

4 developers working a project should easily provide some work in progress which until this point didn't.

Prove us wrong and show some work so all the fud goes away.

Thanks.

This stinks of scam.

yes, but bittrex still doesn't admit these. bittrex is afraid being sue, although they did informal agreement.

[MineP.it]

Really bad move on Bittrex part if they fail to execute the deal because buyers had a change of heart.


~BCX~

It's called doing the right thing.

Snipped a lot of text trying to support position

That's just a matter of perspective and your own unproven fears.

Has anyone proven this is a scam?

It's not Bittrex's position to determine what is a scam and what is not.


~BCX~

That's just a matter of perspective too. Some would disagree with your view.

They are simply the escrow.

The escrow is there to ensure a service/product is delivered before the money is released to the provider. If Bittrex willingly release those funds knowing full well that the product/service won't be delivered then they have failed in their escrow duty. No?