Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 03:49:34 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: CoinURL disallowing withdrawals (split from Beware of scammers!)  (Read 4732 times)
mcorlett
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 308



View Profile
May 16, 2012, 09:20:18 PM
 #1

Please see this dishonest behavior by giantdragon and their service, CoinURL: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=78793.msg902014#msg902014

1481298574
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481298574

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481298574
Reply with quote  #2

1481298574
Report to moderator
1481298574
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481298574

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481298574
Reply with quote  #2

1481298574
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
mcorlett
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 308



View Profile
May 17, 2012, 01:26:47 PM
 #2

Can you show where they have acted unlawfully ?
There's a difference between dishonest and unlawful. I never stated what they were doing was the latter.

If not, the problem is your lack of reading and understand the terms and conditions, then ASSuming you could get back unused bitcoins instead of performing your due diligence.
Sorry, but I don't always pay strict attention to every word of the Terms of Service when reading them - especially when the FAQ is incorporated as a legally binding document. That's just insanity.

I can understand the need to prevent money laundering.

Would you want an investigation of yourself, your service, and your servers and customer data because you allowed a policy whereby others could launder/wash the BTC's ?

Here is an example. You use bitcoins from and illegal enterprise, then launder/wash them at this service, then trade them for cash or credits at a financial institution/card.
Please see my posts debunking the money laundering argument in the thread. The output has not been redeemed yet, and he can just bounce them right back to the same address. No money laundering going on here.

That IS indeed money laundering and against AML legislation.
Working in the financial industry, I find this particularly amusing. AML does not apply to Bitcoin.

So you are wrong... no scam has been committed here ... yet.
bulanula refusing to return 22.5 BTC that were accidentally sent to him is enough to brand him a scammer, but giantdragon refusing to return 1.35000002 BTC that were sent to him because I overlooked the fact that the FAQ was a legally binding document isn't? Your reasoning is flawless!

likuidxd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448



View Profile
May 17, 2012, 04:00:05 PM
 #3

So you are wrong... no scam has been committed here ... yet.
bulanula refusing to return 22.5 BTC that were accidentally sent to him is enough to brand him a scammer, but giantdragon refusing to return 1.35000002 BTC that were sent to him because I overlooked the fact that the FAQ was a legally binding document isn't? Your reasoning is flawless!

What bulanula did is stealing. Your refusal to read a TOS is your problem man. This is a very common thing unfortunately. Most, if not all, people just click 'Accept' and never actually read what they agree to. There was a really funny article I read a while back about someone who put a line in his TOS as a joke to see if anyone actually read it. When you agree to it you gave him property of your soul.

mcorlett
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 308



View Profile
May 17, 2012, 04:30:03 PM
 #4

What bulanula did is stealing.
I disagree. At best, he's refusing to return what is not rightfully his.

Your refusal to read a TOS is your problem man.
If we apply this to bulanula's case, smart1985's "refusal" to double-check the amount he sent is his problem... and yet bulanula got the tag?

There was a really funny article I read a while back about someone who put a line in his TOS as a joke to see if anyone actually read it. When you agree to it you gave him property of your soul.
I've read the article. It wouldn't hold up in court.

likuidxd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448



View Profile
May 17, 2012, 04:43:42 PM
 #5

Your refusal to read a TOS is your problem man.
If we apply this to bulanula's case, smart1985's "refusal" to double-check the amount he sent is his problem... and yet bulanula got the tag?
Not saying I agree with what happened. In fact there should probably be multiple options for tagging individuals or at least a sticky that describes the situation or maybe point to the appropriate thread. (I am not offering to take on that task Grin)

There was a really funny article I read a while back about someone who put a line in his TOS as a joke to see if anyone actually read it. When you agree to it you gave him property of your soul.
I've read the article. It wouldn't hold up in court.
I'd don't think he meant it literally, it was a joke

mcorlett
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 308



View Profile
May 17, 2012, 07:41:39 PM
 #6

Your refusal to read a TOS is your problem man.
If we apply this to bulanula's case, smart1985's "refusal" to double-check the amount he sent is his problem... and yet bulanula got the tag?
Not saying I agree with what happened. In fact there should probably be multiple options for tagging individuals or at least a sticky that describes the situation or maybe point to the appropriate thread. (I am not offering to take on that task Grin)
Great. What I'm asking for is for giantdragon to be treated the same way as bulanula. Either give him the tag, or remove bulanula's.

In any case, I think everyone can agree that this is dishonest behavior and that coindragon and his services should be avoided at all costs.

ancow
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 373


View Profile WWW
May 17, 2012, 08:15:45 PM
 #7

Your refusal to read a TOS is your problem man.
If we apply this to bulanula's case, smart1985's "refusal" to double-check the amount he sent is his problem... and yet bulanula got the tag?
Not saying I agree with what happened. In fact there should probably be multiple options for tagging individuals or at least a sticky that describes the situation or maybe point to the appropriate thread. (I am not offering to take on that task Grin)
Great. What I'm asking for is for giantdragon to be treated the same way as bulanula. Either give him the tag, or remove bulanula's.

In any case, I think everyone can agree that this is dishonest behavior and that coindragon and his services should be avoided at all costs.

What bulanula did was to promise to return the superfluous amount and then go back on his promise.
giantdragon seems to want to avoid a nightmare where he gets DOSed with your kind of requests if he makes an exception for you in addition to some shady ToS and his assumption the everybody reads the FAQs.

The cases are not directly comparable; bulanula's is highly scammy (broken promise) where giantdragon's is normal business practice with a certain level of communication failure. If that was a problem, almost any website owner who sells anything on that site would qualify as scammer.

Personally, I think that you probably should try to explain your suggested solution again via PM, and probably how to send back funds from a certain address - I doubt everybody knows how to do that...

BTC: 1GAHTMdBN4Yw3PU66sAmUBKSXy2qaq2SF4
mcorlett
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 308



View Profile
May 17, 2012, 08:22:35 PM
 #8

Personally, I think that you probably should try to explain your suggested solution again via PM, and probably how to send back funds from a certain address - I doubt everybody knows how to do that...
I don't think that's the problem. He appears to be fairly knowledgeable about Bitcoin and programming in general. Rather, for him it's a matter of principle:
BTW, I have invested hundreds BTCs in this project and it is just not worth to cheat for 1.35 BTC. No refund rule was stated from the service's launch, it is like when you buy loaf of bread in the grocery store you cannot claim a refund Wink

rjk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


1ngldh


View Profile
May 17, 2012, 08:46:21 PM
 #9

Personally, I think that you probably should try to explain your suggested solution again via PM, and probably how to send back funds from a certain address - I doubt everybody knows how to do that...
I don't think that's the problem. He appears to be fairly knowledgeable about Bitcoin and programming in general. Rather, for him it's a matter of principle:
BTW, I have invested hundreds BTCs in this project and it is just not worth to cheat for 1.35 BTC. No refund rule was stated from the service's launch, it is like when you buy loaf of bread in the grocery store you cannot claim a refund Wink
Sorry, but I must agree with giantdragon on this one. Perhaps a reasonable resolution would be for the refund to happen just this once, and warnings about deposits be placed more prominently on the website. Although you really don't have a basis for a claim here in the first place.

Mining Rig Extraordinaire - the Trenton BPX6806 18-slot PCIe backplane [PICS] Dead project is dead, all hail the coming of the mighty ASIC!
mcorlett
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 308



View Profile
May 17, 2012, 08:56:37 PM
 #10

Sorry, but I must agree with giantdragon on this one. Perhaps a reasonable resolution would be for the refund to happen just this once, and warnings about deposits be placed more prominently on the website. Although you really don't have a basis for a claim here in the first place.
Thank you for your opinion. Do you think that smart1985 had a basis for a claim in bulanula's case?

bulanula
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile
May 17, 2012, 09:01:38 PM
 #11

Sorry, but I must agree with giantdragon on this one. Perhaps a reasonable resolution would be for the refund to happen just this once, and warnings about deposits be placed more prominently on the website. Although you really don't have a basis for a claim here in the first place.
Thank you for your opinion. Do you think that smart1985 had a basis for a claim in bulanula's case?

Yeah. Loving the hypocrisy right here man.

giantdragon does not give refunds yet he is not labelled as scammer.

I don't give them either yet I am labelled a scammer.

smart1985 ( complainant ) was donator.

In dragon's case was the complainant a donator ? I bet my ass he wasn't or giantdragon would have the scam in 5 minutes or less.

I also refuse to refund anything related to BTC. I tried to meet the service obligation and gave him 10 months ( what the guy paid for ).

If I get labelled as a scammer when customer does not accept my "no refunds" policy then why shouldn't giantdragon be treated the same ?

Oh right, everyone hates me ! Cheesy
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506


View Profile
May 17, 2012, 09:03:25 PM
 #12

In dragon's case was the complainant a donator ?

Yes.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
rjk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


1ngldh


View Profile
May 17, 2012, 09:03:44 PM
 #13

Sorry, but I must agree with giantdragon on this one. Perhaps a reasonable resolution would be for the refund to happen just this once, and warnings about deposits be placed more prominently on the website. Although you really don't have a basis for a claim here in the first place.
Thank you for your opinion. Do you think that smart1985 had a basis for a claim in bulanula's case?
Yes I do, although there is a difference between an actual sending error, and you just not liking service and wanting your balance out.

Mining Rig Extraordinaire - the Trenton BPX6806 18-slot PCIe backplane [PICS] Dead project is dead, all hail the coming of the mighty ASIC!
mcorlett
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 308



View Profile
May 17, 2012, 09:09:31 PM
 #14

Yes I do, although there is a difference between an actual sending error
Perhaps I should lie about accidentally sending too much next time(?)

and you just not liking service and wanting your balance out.
I deposited more with the intention to use the rest if I was exceptionally pleased. There was a "Deposit" button, and a "Withdraw" button. I clicked "Deposit"; there was no information about not being able to withdraw on that page, so I deposited a little bit more than necessary, just in case I was exceptionally pleased. I can't say I am. I'm seeing a whole bunch of visits from fraudulent IP's in Russia, Ukraine, etc.

bulanula: Please keep the discussion civil and refrain from personal attacks.

bulanula
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile
May 17, 2012, 09:14:40 PM
 #15

Yes I do, although there is a difference between an actual sending error
Perhaps I should lie about accidentally sending too much next time(?)

and you just not liking service and wanting your balance out.
I deposited more with the intention to use the rest if I was exceptionally pleased. There was a "Deposit" button, and a "Withdraw" button. I clicked "Deposit"; there was no information about not being able to withdraw on that page, so I deposited a little bit more than necessary, just in case I was exceptionally pleased. I can't say I am. I'm seeing a whole bunch of visits from fraudulent IP's in Russia, Ukraine, etc.

bulanula: Please keep the discussion civil and refrain from personal attacks.

I always try to stay calm ( hint : need to increase the medication dosage next time Cheesy ) but if giantdragon does not get scammer then I really am the idiot of the forum Undecided
giantdragon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414



View Profile
May 18, 2012, 12:56:51 AM
 #16

I'm seeing a whole bunch of visits from fraudulent IP's in Russia, Ukraine, etc.
These clicks are not fraudulent, just CoinURL has large part of it's traffic from Eastern Europe.

You set have set geo targeting to Switzerland, Denmark, United Kingdom, Norway and Sweden. I have seen logs and can tell you that your ad was shown to ALL users who came from these countries (because no one more have selected these countries and your ad has 100% priority here).

mcorlett
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 308



View Profile
May 18, 2012, 02:05:01 AM
 #17

These clicks are not fraudulent, just CoinURL has large part of it's traffic from Eastern Europe.
I would say that users coming from proxies or otherwise blacklisted IP's are fraudulent.

You set have set geo targeting to Switzerland, Denmark, United Kingdom, Norway and Sweden. I have seen logs and can tell you that your ad was shown to ALL users who came from these countries (because no one more have selected these countries and your ad has 100% priority here).
I intentionally set this information as private on your service. Thank you for revealing it to the world.

giantdragon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414



View Profile
May 18, 2012, 02:17:03 AM
 #18

I would say that users coming from proxies or otherwise blacklisted IP's are fraudulent.
Again, fake clicks may come, but they are not counted.

I intentionally set this information as private on your service. Thank you for revealing it to the world.
According to the ToS you are allowed to restrict access for this data to the other users, not to the service operator. Under normal conditions I would never reveal this info, but you forced me to do this by false accusations of fraudulent clicks!

LoupGaroux
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420



View Profile
May 18, 2012, 03:36:15 AM
 #19

Just thinking out loud here, but seeing as how this disagreement already has its very own thread, and really does nothing for this thread, for the community at large, or really anything at all except waste bandwidth... could we end the discussion in this thread about wanting to change TOS's and the merits of reading contracts before sending in funds, and return to our regularly scheduled programing about airing dirty laundry on ALL scammers, not just the personal pet peeves of one disgruntled consumer?

And since mcorlett has graciously welcomed opinions- here's mine: changing the subject to your carefully loaded question, is irrelevant. You were not channeling buluboy when you sent your money to dragon, you were acting of your own free will. You chose to send the funds you did, with the intentions only you knew. Sadly for you, the terms of the site that accepted your payment were direct and clear that you don't get to change your mind and get your deposit back. Whether his stated reason for this is acceptable to you or not, it was stated in therms that you prima facie accepted by sending in your deposit. Continuing to ask the same irrelevant question does not change the standing of your claim, you don't have one. If dragon had chosen to offer a refund that would have peachy swell of him, but he has no obligation to do so. Throwing a pity party in public does not change the simple fact that you are in the wrong, and your argumentative and condescending tirade does nothing to change that fact.

Drop it, or move it away from here. You have had enough attention on this matter.

54Gh/s bASIC Bitcoin Mining Devices
Pre-Order Yours Today!     
Only $1069.99 ! @ http://www.BitcoinASIC.com


Look^^ I'm selling my soul too!
mcorlett
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 308



View Profile
May 18, 2012, 02:36:59 PM
 #20

Just thinking out loud here, but seeing as how this disagreement already has its very own thread, and really does nothing for this thread, for the community at large, or really anything at all except waste bandwidth... could we end the discussion in this thread about wanting to change TOS's and the merits of reading contracts before sending in funds, and return to our regularly scheduled programing about airing dirty laundry on ALL scammers, not just the personal pet peeves of one disgruntled consumer?
Nobody's forcing you to read this. You're "acting of your own free will."

You chose to send the funds you did, with the intentions only you knew. Sadly for you, the terms of the site that accepted your payment were direct and clear that you don't get to change your mind and get your deposit back.
I'm sorry, I act in good faith when accepting terms of service, and I'm not the only one.

Whether his stated reason for this is acceptable to you or not, it was stated in therms that you prima facie accepted by sending in your deposit.
Sure, it might be completely legal, and by the book, but that doesn't prevent it from being dishonest and unethical. Also, YANAL. I didn't accept the terms by depositing, but by checking the checkbox during registration.

Continuing to ask the same irrelevant question does not change the standing of your claim, you don't have one.
I'd say I do. Everything is structured to make it look like you can deposit and withdraw at will, from both a semantic- as well as user experience standpoint.
See this screenshot:


As I said, it might be perfectly legal, and I'm sure it is, but it's dishonest. My claim is that it is dishonest.

If dragon had chosen to offer a refund that would have peachy swell of him, but he has no obligation to do so.
Sure, I'm not going to go to his home and point a gun to his head, but it's worth posting here in order to prevent others from entangling in this mess.

Throwing a pity party in public does not change the simple fact that you are in the wrong, and your argumentative and condescending tirade does nothing to change that fact.
If you don't find coindragon's behavior dishonest, that's cool.

If you ever choose to use his service, you'll know. I didn't.

Drop it, or move it away from here. You have had enough attention on this matter.
Thanks, but I don't trust your judgement.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!