It is too bad you were unable to detect my sarcasm.

good for you!. Unless you feel that further discussion is necessary about the topic (I don't think there is), you can lock this thread. 

I am surprised that he has not dropped what he is doing, and let his other responsibilities fall by the wayside so he can look into your problem.

That is so unlike him, especially when dealing with your problems.

Not quite sure what you are talking about.....but it sounds like it is someone's time of the month  

There are plenty of warnings about Lauda going around already, I just find it strange that those who make a hobby out of aggressively negging the not-so-innocent have not yet done so with Lauda. Some even negged the person in my above example who did the exact same thing as Lauda did

The last guy that was caught extorting someone got negative ratings as far as the eye can see. Another of his accounts got even more negative trust.

It seems the consensus (so far) that the reason Lauda does not have more negative trust is "fuck off" 

The triple question marks is to give an early warning indicator of a potential long con, so that a scammer cannot continue scamming with the same efficiency as if they still had "green" trust.

I would suggest that you run a full node (with pruning), and have your website send transactions to the network via your node.

In addition to your problem with blockr.io's API, with your current setup, you are risking that you will be unable to push any transactions when any part of the chain between you --> blockr.io --> blockr.io's node --> the rest of the network is broken.

You can setup your node so that it will delete the portion of the blockchain that goes back more than x MB (the default setting is 300 MB, but you can reduce this), and I believe you can change your node's settings so that it will only listen for new blocks (and not unconfirmed transactions), while still being able to relay new transactions that you wish to broadcast.

If I am anticipating what you are planning on doing correctly, then you are planning on using a block explorer API to monitor for deposits from your customers. If my assumption is correct, then I would strongly recommend that you not do this as using a block explorer to automatically check for deposits is going to increase your risk of getting robbed (in different ways that the person above you was warning you against -- you are at risk that someone will trick the block explorer you are using into thinking that you have received btc that you have not actually received).

If you are planning on starting a bitcoin dice site, then I would suggest that you run a full node to handle your deposits.

Profile --> Look and Layout Preferences --> Time Offset (you should be able to use "auto detect") --> Change Profile

theymos recently promoted me to a Junior Member because I have been here long enough, and have been active enough. I have changed my signature to the JR member signature. Can you please change my rank on your spreadsheet?

I would like to keep my payment address the same, 1H5CHCoukPDHnHoth6VXhEGq1CeP2A41Za unless I am required to change it, in which case I will provide a new/fresh/unused address.

Thanks.

This is not something that someone can prove. In order for this to be a remotely viable option, the OP will need to demonstrate his integrity over time, including his ability to safeguard other people's money over time.

I think a better solution would probably be something along the lines of how the coinbase vault works. The OP would only control 1 of 3 keys, and would only sign transactions after a certain, agreed upon time delay.

Lauda, how do you know that this guy is not one of these people? Did you ask them if 'infer' belonged to them?

@infer - I can see why Lauda thinks you are a sold account, however I cannot see why Lauda thinks this makes you a scammer. Maybe Lauda cares to explain......but then again Lauda has failed to explain this discrepancy, so I would not hold your breath for an explanation.

I think that you do not understand how the trust system works. I am not even sure where to point you to read up before participating in these types of discussions -- this might be a good place to start, but is far from an inclusive list of what you should read.

You should learn to read before posting. I asked why Lauda and Lutpin have not responded to my concerns, I did not say anything about why Lauda and Lutpin are giving negative trust they way they are. Maybe you have just a little bit too much incentives to make posts 

To respond to your post in regards to what you (incorrectly) thought I was asking. You think that it would be okay for me to steal a little bit of money if I make some kind of contribution to the forum?

What you are saying is that you believe the trust system is a 'boys club' in which it's members can do as they wish, and everyone else is at the wrath of it's members.

I think the reason why Lauda and Lutpin have not left negative trust to the people mentioned above is something along the lines of :


Or maybe it is something closer to along the lines of this:

1 - in the time it took me to read your post, I could have generated many PGP keys.

2 - If I wanted to, I could store many PGP keys on my computer (and backups). I do not host my PGP key on any keyserver, I upload it to one keyserver and it will propagate to other keyservers over time.

3 - Just like bitcoin private keys, PGP private keys have the potential to get compromised, or lost. If a PGP key is compromised then the owner should revoke the key publicly, and will probably want to start using a new key.

4 - Just because someone signs a message that their account was hacked does not make it a true statement. All that a PGP signed message will mean is that the owner of the PGP key is making the statement. It would be possible to fake getting hacked if a lender fails to ask for/verify a signed message.   

It has been several days, and neither Lauda nor Lutpin has responded to my concerns nor have they left any trust on any of the above people.

I am curious why they do not wish to address my concerns....

I am the heir to a recently deceased king of Nigeria. Can you meet with his prince so I do not need to pay the 2BTC fee for collecting my inheritance?

No, why would time play a factor in this? If the consensus is that anyone who contributes to the sale of accounts is a scammer, then regardless of when someone contributed to the sale of account(s), said person should be marked as a scammer. I am not saying that those who sell accounts are scammers, I am just saying that the standard for leaving negative trust ratings should be evenly applied.

There is no statue of limitations for being called a scammer, nor for receiving negative trust.

Since both Lauda and Lutpin are now aware that the above people have at least attempted to sell accounts, they should leave a negative rating for them, just as they have for everyone else that have engaged in similar activity, right?

If anything it would be the opposite, when signature campaigns were paying higher rates, providing higher incentives for spammers, and a lower threshold for spammers to break even after buying an account.

I don't think it is right for personal feelings to be involved in trust ratings. That sounds unethical to me.


It looks like you posted that you cancelled the sale when you said that you received too many low-ball offers. If we were to operate under the assumption that you really did not follow through on the sale (I think some people say they did not sell an account when they really did to facilitate the privacy of the buyer), then you at the very least attempted to sell an account.

Society tends to view attempting to commit a crime almost as bad as actually committing a crime. If people were to view the sale of accounts as severe enough of a "crime" to warrant negative trust, then trying to sell an account should warrant negative trust, wouldn't you agree?

I think it is reasonable to hand out trust ratings to everyone using similar standards, regardless of who you are. Otherwise the trust system will only turn into a "boys club"

This thread is in the electrum subforum, so it is probably safe to assume hidolfo is using electrum, so he probably does not have a "wallet.dat" file

.txt (and similar) files are able to be recovered by some file software recovery programs; a quick google search came back with several results.

It is weird that someone hacked your account, created a thread entitled AUCTION - Member account, attempted to sell an account in your possession, then lost your password.

A few more examples of account sellers that Lauda/Lutpin has failed to leave negative trust for:

achow101
blazed
mexxer-2
KWH
shorena
zazarb
redsn0w
yahoo62278
grtthegreat

EAL (buyer, not a seller)

I would like to know why Lauda/Lutpin are not going to leave any kind of a negative trust rating on any of the above.