If you both bought and sold bitcoins through Coinbase and had realized gains (sold bitcoins for more than they cost), then the IRS would be able to identify that fairly easily. If taxes were not paid on those gains, they would would be able to go after you for the taxes due on those gains.

Oh how people forget... Prior to that section all of those posts were flooding the main gambling section. The admins do not moderate scams, so those types of posts won't be deleted. Having them all in their own section is better than having them show up elsewhere.

Apparently it looks suspicious to buy several cars, including a Mercedes S63 AMG ($143k+), and afford a house with a girlfriend plus 3 kids without having a job for 6+ years.  Combined with the Silk Road data, it seems their investigation is pretty straight forward.

For quite a while back mainly in 2012 and 2013 there was lots of activity in this section with people raising millions of dollars for various projects or businesses. Almost all of them ended with investors taking huge losses due to scams or the funds being badly managed. Now there is hardly any activity here as people don't want to lose their coins to scams.

Maybe people should stop whoring themselves out for a few bits and make the choice not to promote a (likely) scam?

It seems pretty simple to me, if you promote (likely) scams, then people may think you are untrustworthy and leave you negative trust.

The AML/KYC requirements should be of no surprise to anyone. It sounds similar to what you would need to open a bank account or brokerage account.

It is still early, but I am sure volume will pick up in the coming weeks. Takes time for people to sign up and fund accounts...

For UFC, do you stream the prelims as well or just the main card?

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2015/comp-pr2015-227.pdf

Man, the claims in section C starting on page 7 are crazy. Who believes this stuff...

In the early days, the forum would give out a "scammer tag" to scammers. After awhile they stopped giving them out (probably due to the work involved in investigating each scam), but existing tags remained on the accounts. Some time, after the trust system was added, the scammer tags were removed and replaced with negative trust from OldScammerTag.

I cannot agree more, people need to wake up and realize that promoting questionable businesses is a problem. Unfortunately people are easily swayed with relatively small amounts of money.

A ponzi scam is a scam from the beginning, they don't "suddenly scam" when they can't pay. Their model is designed to scam from the start.


Read the description of the trust options:



Why should this apply differently for different people? If someone is promoting an obvious ponzi scam, they should get marked negative for that.

I have a ST Huntsman Urban Masked MW that I am looking to sell for about 65%, let me know if you are interested.

If you are using a paid signature then you are promoting that business. If you are promoting a scam then yes you are part of the problem and deserve the negative trust.

Wire fraud is still a huge problem for the traditional banking system. Sometimes they can be reversed but generally once the fraud is detected it is too late for the money to be retrieved.

Try emailing your bank a wire request and see what they do. Email is not secure, they either had a poor internal policy or did follow their existing policy.

Assuming you trust them with your information.

I don't know how it could have been more clear.

In both scenarios Alice is expecting the escrow to resolve the dispute as a third party. Alice has no reason to suspect the escrow has any bias towards Alice or Bob.
In scenario 1, Charlie is able to act without bias because he is an independent party.
In scenario 2, Daniel is unable to act without bias because he is also acting as a party to the trade.

Scenario 1 will always be more favorable for Alice compared to scenario 2 since there is no bias. Also, by definition, Daniel is not an escrow to the trade since he is not a third party.

As I stated previously, it is misleading and disingenuous to act as if you were providing an escrow service when you really are not.

We seem to be discussing different things here. I am not talking about someone trusting an escrow with an amount of money, I am taking about trusting the escrow will be neutral and act with as little bias as possible if a dispute were to occur.

Lets look at two scenarios:

1) Alice and Bob conduct a trade with Charlie acting as escrow. All three parties are different people.
2) Alice and Bob conduct a trade with Daniel acting a escrow. Alice thinks Bob and Daniel are different people, but secretly Bob and Daniel are the same person.

If a dispute were to occur during the trade (for example, an honest misunderstanding), would you rather be Alice in scenario 1 or 2?

Thank you for proving my point. In a scenario where you secretly "self-escrow", you would have a bias similar to two parties trying to resolve a dispute in a trade without an escrow. As an escrow, hiding this bias from the other party is misleading and disingenuous.