.

[Coinbuck @ BTCLot]

Please note term 3) is a lie. CoinAd account wasn't banned or notified about this. Andrew did this to profit even more from the scam.

No one partner contact information is collected at sign up and neither does the service need to notify anyone of this.  And how do you even know?  Do you read his email?  Troll elsewhere.

I've said multiple times that I'm following this case with CoinAd administrator before this thread existence so I can confirm that.

It's up to you to ignore/omit facts. All I can say is that you're screwed up at this moment and you deserve it for the damage you caused to CoinAd and other publishers.

EDIT: I hope you're happy to know that you stole bitcoins that were going to new bitcoin users.

I hope you are happy to know that if nothing was earned nothing can be taken away.  

Fact 1: The ads were published and viewed by CoinAd users.
Fact 2: You did not ban CoinAd account, this would allowed you to get more views without having to pay.
Fact 3: CoinAd tried to contact you about this situation but he never got a decent reply.
Fact 4: Until this thread was open you did not care about this situation. It is easier to run away from responsibilities but when things go public it is hard to handle isn't it ?
Fact 5: CoinAd administrator even with this damage still managed to pay to his users and hosting provider.

This advertisements were paid by your clients, so the money is in your pocket right now ?

[1713930439]

1713930439

[1713930439]

1713930439

[1713930439]

1713930439

[Coinoisseur]

It's pretty silly to say you disbursed funds to "charity" rather than just credit back the advertisers. I can't imagine many people expecting that sort of thing.

[nimda]

Thinking about putting up a bet about this...

This dispute will be resolved and the arguing will stop within 1 year

Since it's pretty clear at this point that both sides are entrenched and have walked in their rut so much that they can't climb out.

If I had the time, I'd analyze it more, because there's probably a minimum of 2 logical fallacies used by either side and 2 valid points which haven't been answered to

[Littleshop]

It's pretty silly to say you disbursed funds to "charity" rather than just credit back the advertisers. I can't imagine many people expecting that sort of thing.

The money needs to go back to the advertisers.  Either the clicks were valid and should be paid, or they were a scam and should be refunded.  bitcoinadvertisers.com nor a charity should end up with the money.

[drakahn]

wow, just wow, first this annoyed me because it was real world corruption in the bitcoin world (company feel's untouchable and starts scamming people "legally") now its just stupid, how someone representing a business thinks he is right and stubbornly sticks to that escapes me

[localhost]

Funny, I was just going to post the same thing. I've never been paid on anything what is this  " Turn your website into a money making monster"  B.S ?

Same here. Been waiting for payment for about a week. Contacted "support" via contact form a couple of days ago and no reply. Took the ads offline yesterday. 14k impressions for nothing 
http://www.bitcoinadvertisers.com/partnerstat.php?p=18Gs5KMhhzyZB31Xpn4Qf2493298j9s7qp
Anyway, ads were low quality (no offense to advertisers, by this I just mean: nothing interesting for non-BTC people) and some were about gambling although I specifically asked not to show gambling ads... I won't miss them as much as my 0.10 BTC...

[repentance]

It's pretty silly to say you disbursed funds to "charity" rather than just credit back the advertisers. I can't imagine many people expecting that sort of thing.

The money needs to go back to the advertisers.  Either the clicks were valid and should be paid, or they were a scam and should be refunded.  bitcoinadvertisers.com nor a charity should end up with the money.

No sane advertiser would pay for ads with a 60% CTR in the first place.  As soon as the stats started showing that kind of an aberration, you'd know that the majority of click throughs were not legitimate and tell the placement service that you weren't going to pay for any click throughs above the industry standard for the type of ad and degree of targeting.  

[localhost]

Haha, just saw an ad for this thread in my new anonymousads banner (ad text "Take down BitcoinAdvertisers banners - they are fraudsters!"). I had to check it out

Anyway :
- still no reply from support
- still not received payment
- account still in good standing (if I hadn't removed the ads, I would still be giving them free exposures...)
- on a side note, for those who didn't bother to click the link to my stats, my CTR is around 0.06% (8 clicks / 14k impressions)

So, as far as I know, the answer to the OP is : yes, not even a doubt about it. Can anyone here say they did receive a payment from this service in the first place ?

[Matthew N. Wright]

CoinAd, Giantdragon, bbit: Thank you for posting this. I've been considering putting up ads from BitcoinAdvertisers. I guess I will put that plan on hold for now.

Andrew: Would you care to elaborate on how they violated your TOS?

No, we do not disclose TOS related issues in public.

The terms of service are public, aren't they? How could you not discuss them publicly? Do you not understand them or something? Are you talking about not discussing specific customer issues in public? If so, that much I could understand, except you already did that by posting in this thread. 

[Matthew N. Wright]

Haha, just saw an ad for this thread in my new anonymousads banner (ad text "Take down BitcoinAdvertisers banners - they are fraudsters!"). I had to check it out

Scumbags being scumbags. Since there are no favorable discussions of facts, we resort to slander. Yay. Evolution works backwards in the Bitcoin world!

[Matthew N. Wright]

CoinAd, Giantdragon, bbit: Thank you for posting this. I've been considering putting up ads from BitcoinAdvertisers. I guess I will put that plan on hold for now.

Andrew: Would you care to elaborate on how they violated your TOS?

No, we do not disclose TOS related issues in public.

The terms of service are public, aren't they? How could you not discuss them publicly? Do you not understand them or something? Are you talking about not discussing specific customer issues in public? If so, that much I could understand, except you already did that by posting in this thread. 

Sorry, to clarify I meant that we have a policy to not discuss specific TOS disputes in public, for the cases that have already been aired in public I'm not making any further comment.

Fair enough.

[localhost]

To be fair, just received a reply to my ticket. Apparently my account had a "temporary suspension", which is now removed, but to receive payout I need to run the ads again (I guess it's because there's no cron-job doing the payments...). I'll try that on the site where I only removed the ad but didn't replace it yet...

[Maged]

Great! I'm so glad that progress is being made to resolve this.

[Coinbuck @ BTCLot]

Sorry, to clarify I meant that we have a policy to not discuss specific TOS disputes in public, for the cases that have already been aired in public I'm not making any further comment.

You also do not discuss in private. You just ignore.

This guy clearly deserves a scammer tag.

[bulanula]

Sorry, to clarify I meant that we have a policy to not discuss specific TOS disputes in public, for the cases that have already been aired in public I'm not making any further comment.

You also do not discuss in private. You just ignore.

This guy clearly deserves a scammer tag.

So many people complaining ...

[drakahn]

Sorry, to clarify I meant that we have a policy to not discuss specific TOS disputes in public, for the cases that have already been aired in public I'm not making any further comment.

You also do not discuss in private. You just ignore.

This guy clearly deserves a scammer tag.

So many people complaining ...

Have you learned your lesson? its only scamming if you didn't say "i will do whatever i want and if you complain i will do whatever i want anyway" before the deal.

[bulanula]

Sorry, to clarify I meant that we have a policy to not discuss specific TOS disputes in public, for the cases that have already been aired in public I'm not making any further comment.

You also do not discuss in private. You just ignore.

This guy clearly deserves a scammer tag.

So many people complaining ...

Have you learned your lesson? its only scamming if you didn't say "i will do whatever i want and if you complain i will do whatever i want anyway" before the deal.

I have indeed learned my lesson. Have a slick TOS that allows me to take all the BTC and not give anything in return

Any corrupt lawyer taking BTC here up for the challenge ? Make it small print too !

[Coinoisseur]

Did the ToS say he can do whatever he wants with the advertisers funds? He says he sent them to charity(ies?). It's that part that makes me want to facepalm. It's also the point he refuses to discuss, wonder why?

[ludo0777]

Can anyone figure out which term they broke?

Are all users of the site breaking the same term?

Would it stand up in court?

---

As it stands i would say stealing someones earned balance is indeed a scam.

Well if you agree to the terms and they say your account can be closed at any time then yes it would stand up in court.

[edd]

Can anyone figure out which term they broke?

Are all users of the site breaking the same term?

Would it stand up in court?

---

As it stands i would say stealing someones earned balance is indeed a scam.

Well if you agree to the terms and they say your account can be closed at any time then yes it would stand up in court.

Not necessarily. Many judges take a "common sense" approach to these kind of things. Just because the terms may technically allow something doesn't negate the rest of the contract.