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

[Chris001]

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


~BCX~ (totally correct)

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?

Bittrex has to follow TO THE LETTER the terms of the escrow agreement.

They simply look at the agreement, then look at if that agreement was met.

IF the terms are met, they release the BTC to the dev

IF the terms are not met, they dont

IT IS THAT SIMPLE

I am so sick of people asking/expecting Bittrex to just break the agreement because this Cluster dev because it looks like he is a scammer.

Bittrex has a job to do. Their job is to follow the agreement TO THE LETTER.

I lost, or Im pretty sure that I'm going to lose a decent amount of BTC because of this.

But I would be and idiot if I expected Bittrex to commit a god damn felony and break the terms of the the agreement to save my ass.

ALL I had to do was look up the post history of the cluster coin dev and I would have known right then and there that it was a scam.

I DIDNT = I LOSE

It was my carelessness that caused me to lose my BTC. I don't even blame the damn dev, yeah hes an ass hole, but it was me who was lazy and I learned an expensive lesson on this one.

You people who are asking Bittrex to break the law to save your ass because you didn't do your due diligence are complete idiots.

[1713541259]

1713541259

[1713541259]

1713541259

[fox19891989]

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


~BCX~ (totally correct)

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?

Bittrex has to follow TO THE LETTER the terms of the escrow agreement.

They simply look at the agreement, then look at if that agreement was met.

IF the terms are met, they release the BTC to the dev

IF the terms are not met, they dont

IT IS THAT SIMPLE

I am so sick of people asking/expecting Bittrex to just break the agreement because this Cluster dev because it looks like he is a scammer.

Bittrex has a job to do. Their job is to follow the agreement TO THE LETTER.

I lost, or Im pretty sure that I'm going to lose a decent amount of BTC because of this.

But I would be and idiot if I expected Bittrex to commit a god damn felony and break the terms of the the agreement to save my ass.

ALL I had to do was look up the post history of the cluster coin dev and I would have known right then and there that it was a scam.

I DIDNT = I LOSE

It was my carelessness that caused me to lose my BTC. I don't even blame the damn dev, yeah hes an ass hole, but it was me who was lazy and I learned an expensive lesson on this one.

You people who are asking Bittrex to break the law to save your ass because you didn't do your due diligence are complete idiots.

They claimed the terms are informal. And they were agreed to modify the terms to add POD must be done. Therefore, they can help us more like adding more strict terms to avoid a scam because they can talk with the scam dev. BTW, if it is a scam, bittrex will also take responsibilities because they host the ICO

[CryptoOracle]

They claimed the terms are informal. And they were agreed to modify the terms to add POD must be done. Therefore, they can help us more like adding more strict terms to avoid a scam because they can talk with the scam dev. BTW, if it is a scam, bittrex will also take responsibilities because they host the ICO

Bittrex's responsibility is to uphold their terms and conditions of the ICO (Wallet, Blockchain and Blockexplorer) which have been met... that is all

If bittrex refund everyone after all the ICO terms are met then they are legally liable.

If it is a scam and bittrex send the devs the btc then they are NOT liable because the ICO terms that ALL parties agreed to have been met. YOU AGREED TO THESE TERMS WHEN YOU BOUGHT CLSTR

[armlock]

But if POD have a low score bittrex will pay scamdev anyway? Bad to Bittrex

And in another way if POD have a high score and dev is a scam nobody will believe in Crypto Asian POD more... (Bad for POD)

[themasknetwork]

You're wasting your time. Get a warrant.

A warrant is useless. IP's are useless (https://www.torproject.org/).

[solid12345]

BitcoinEXpress is showing himself what a rat he is

He ruthlessly attacked the Auroracoin dev and forked it based on his own OPINION it was a scam and now is playing the "oh we can't do this, this is unthinkable..." card.

[fox19891989]

TKS, we get a refund

[5 Guys Burgers]

why u asking for scammers. scammers gonna scam. u cant find em.

[rabbiter]

This all link to Shimal H and Wulfcastle ie the same person, the Simpson id was the giveaway.


The same scammer is involved in Burstcoin and Crypti, you fools need to go there.

[Lamigo]

The following is Bittrex's announcement regarding to this incident.
https://bittrex.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/203127460-ClusterCoin-Doing-the-Right-Thing


Since the problem is solved now, may be OP should lock this thread.