While BTC-e was obviously a shady organization, it was also an integral crypto institution for many years and was in fact the backbone of this community for some time. They may have been up to some illegal shit, but the one thing that they always made clear was they would never rob their user base, and they took full responsibility for any major hacks and thefts that occurred, reimbursing the userbase. This was unheard of for the time it operated, and still to some extent very rare even today. Even when the government seized all their assets they did their best to make the user base whole.
You don't have to endorse their illegal activities to have respect for how they operated their exchange in respect to the end user. Still to this day I haven't found an exchange I would trust more than BTC-e. I think this organization was unfairly demonized. Balthazar certainly doesn't deserve to be punished for serving in a moderator, customer service, and support role for this organization. I highly doubt he had any special knowledge of the inner operations of the exchange and he doesn't deserve to be pinned with that responsibility. Cryptodevil has long been overzealous with his negative ratings and he has been on my exclusion list for some time.
Topic: Balthazar's trust - page 2. (Read 1050 times)
<...> He's already got counter-ratings too so what other outcome are you expecting?
I want that this issue will be fully debated and as many users as possible would express their views about Balthazar's negative trust, it is deserved or not.
It's likely that Cryptodevil will take into consideration opinions of other forum members.
The topic will not be closed until I see that the issue was fully discussed by forum members. This question concerns not only Balthazar, but the entire DT system.
Ok, as you wish although it seems pointless seeing that Balthazar isn't interested in it. As far as I can see cryptodevil's feedback is factual, expect maybe for the "creator" part but even that is qualified with "possibly" (not even "likely" or "probably"). He's already got counter-ratings too so what other outcome are you expecting?
I don't need any kind of second chances
You may deserve it, regardless of needing it. Someone is sticking up for you, I consider that a good thing in a community 
Have you contacted cryptodevil directly before starting this thread? If you did what was his response?
I've contacted Cryptodevil about Balthazar. After a little conversation, I said that it would be better to bring our talk to a public discussion and Cryptodevil advised me to create a new topic in Reputation.Awesome, problem appears to be solved then. Lock the thread. There is no need for another drama for nothing.
The topic will not be closed until I see that the issue was fully discussed by forum members. This question concerns not only Balthazar, but the entire DT system. he wouldn't deserve a second chance as well..
I don't need any second chances from those who're making judgements based on some reddit post or other bullshit. They simply don't deserve a privelege of giving second chances to anyone. That is why I ~ him and some of his supporters, in the first place.Awesome, problem appears to be solved then. Lock the thread. There is no need for another drama for nothing.
he wouldn't deserve a second chance as well..
I don't need any kind of second chances from those who're making judgements based on some reddit post or another bullshit. They simply don't deserve a privilege of giving second chances to anyone. That is why I ~ him and some of his supporters, in the first place. Other consequence is that I consider this topic pointless and therefore requesting mods to close it. 
We went through something similar over user Horus_Cryptsy but he wasn't as much of a forum veteran and doesn't seem to have stuck around..
I think that statement basically sums it up and I am generally in agreement with it..
So yeah..
When exchanges go down, often likely innocent employees get caught in the crossfire..
Those close with Cryptopia seem to have gotten through it ok as well..
iirc I had an account on BTC-e back in the day and checked it out real good but I don't think I ever sent any coin there because I was too sketched out or they didn't have anything I wanted..
Negative trust for Balthazar at the time of the BTC-e happening may have been well warranted but if the case is that he has been found innocent after all is said and done I don't see why he wouldn't deserve a second chance as well..
Then again, maybe cryptodevil has his reasons I don't know of..
At one time there was strong reservations about Horus on this forum re Cryptsy, but the general consensus is that he's been given a second chance to prove himself in this space, including from myself. Rest assured that he was a bad guy, I would be sticking it up his ass big time upon reading your initial post, bud.
Hope that helps.
Here is his account on this forum: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/horuscryptsy-357655
Tell him Bruno sent you and link to this post.
Bruno
Hope that helps.
Here is his account on this forum: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/horuscryptsy-357655
Tell him Bruno sent you and link to this post.
Bruno
I think that statement basically sums it up and I am generally in agreement with it..
So yeah..
When exchanges go down, often likely innocent employees get caught in the crossfire..
Those close with Cryptopia seem to have gotten through it ok as well..
iirc I had an account on BTC-e back in the day and checked it out real good but I don't think I ever sent any coin there because I was too sketched out or they didn't have anything I wanted..
Negative trust for Balthazar at the time of the BTC-e happening may have been well warranted but if the case is that he has been found innocent after all is said and done I don't see why he wouldn't deserve a second chance as well..
Then again, maybe cryptodevil has his reasons I don't know of..
I wish to know the opinion of the community, do you agree that user Balthazar justly has a negative trust, which was issued by DT member Cryptodevil in March 2017?
A DT member Cryptodevil believes that Balthazar deserves a negative tag because Balthazar was linked to the BTC-e exchange.
A DT member Cryptodevil believes that Balthazar deserves a negative tag because Balthazar was linked to the BTC-e exchange.
Have you contacted cryptodevil directly before starting this thread? If you did what was his response?
It seems strange to me that a person who has never had claims from law enforcement agencies is accused of fraud.
As for his benefit for the forum, it is undeniable; I can’t add anything (compared to him, I’m Brand new here).
As for his benefit for the forum, it is undeniable; I can’t add anything (compared to him, I’m Brand new here).
Since its not certain that cryptodevil will respond to this thread, I recommend linking this thread in the one referenced by cryptodevil in his trust rating for Balthazar:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scamsolved-btc-e-appropriated-my-coins-worth-now-6000-1822217
It sounds like the OP of that thread indeed got their BTC back, so I would appeal to cryptodevil by mentioning that fact there, as well as that Balthazar has been nothing but a positive for the community since then. Perhaps enough time has passed where cryptodevil will change his mind on the issue.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scamsolved-btc-e-appropriated-my-coins-worth-now-6000-1822217
It sounds like the OP of that thread indeed got their BTC back, so I would appeal to cryptodevil by mentioning that fact there, as well as that Balthazar has been nothing but a positive for the community since then. Perhaps enough time has passed where cryptodevil will change his mind on the issue.
In my opinion, if Balthazar had been involved in the theft of btc-e users' money, he would not have stayed on the forum.
Instead of concrete facts proving his involvement in the theft of only words.
Is it possible to accuse a person of fraud if the accusation is based only on guesswork? I don't think so.
Balthazar does not only share useful information about the Bitcoin network, which is not widely available, but also helps to fight scammers on the forum.
I believe that he received a negative feedback undeservedly.
Instead of concrete facts proving his involvement in the theft of only words.
Is it possible to accuse a person of fraud if the accusation is based only on guesswork? I don't think so.
Balthazar does not only share useful information about the Bitcoin network, which is not widely available, but also helps to fight scammers on the forum.
I believe that he received a negative feedback undeservedly.
Balthazar seems to be quite an important person for the Russian section and It doesn't make sense that blame Balthazar because of BTC-e.
I wish to know the opinion of the community, do you agree that user Balthazar justly has a negative trust, which was issued by DT member Cryptodevil in March 2017?
A DT member Cryptodevil believes that Balthazar deserves a negative tag because Balthazar was linked to the BTC-e exchange.
Balthazar himself has admitted that he was a chat moderator and technical consultant in the BTC-e, but denies that he organized this exchange.
Balthazar is a veteran of Bitcointalk. In 2012 he had participated in the moderators elections in Russian section. Balthazar also helps against spammers and bounty cheaters on the forum. I asked Balthazar to join the discussion but he refused.
Nonetheless, let me quote from RBC magazine from December 13, 2017:
Translation into English by Crimerussia:
Is there at least one hard proof or official statement, that Balthazar held a senior position in BTC-e? If there is no such evidence, then do you believe it is right that average employee like chat moderator and consultant should be tagged if company management have used illegal schemes?
At first I didn't want to open this topic without Balthazar, but then I changed my mind, because I think that a negative trust must be supported by hard facts and shouldn't be controversial, otherwise it will cause discredit to the whole DT system.
A DT member Cryptodevil believes that Balthazar deserves a negative tag because Balthazar was linked to the BTC-e exchange.
Balthazar himself has admitted that he was a chat moderator and technical consultant in the BTC-e, but denies that he organized this exchange.
<...> I'm definitely neither owner nor founder of this project. I was a moderator and consultant who helped with dealing some technical issues (ddos/bruteforce attacks) and that's all. <...>
Balthazar is a veteran of Bitcointalk. In 2012 he had participated in the moderators elections in Russian section. Balthazar also helps against spammers and bounty cheaters on the forum. I asked Balthazar to join the discussion but he refused.
Nonetheless, let me quote from RBC magazine from December 13, 2017:
Translation into English by Crimerussia:
<...> I have many examples of how good reporter became an absolutely authoritarian moderator and committed multiple abuses of power. Last one was becool at the btc-e.com and that was my fault. I've checked a lot of his reports and recommended him as moderator... I'll never do such mistake again. I regretted it many times and supported the cancellation of his appointment a bit later. 
It's unfortunately but I can't guarantee that I'll have enough time for full moderation because I'm already moderator of three resources. <...>
Balthazar has banned more more than a few times from the BTC-E chat, but you said you didn't want the position anyway, so a semi vouch is there if you want it.
Yep, I'm a mod at btc-e since 2012. It's unfortunately but I can't guarantee that I'll have enough time for full moderation because I'm already moderator of three resources. <...>
Is there at least one hard proof or official statement, that Balthazar held a senior position in BTC-e? If there is no such evidence, then do you believe it is right that average employee like chat moderator and consultant should be tagged if company management have used illegal schemes?
At first I didn't want to open this topic without Balthazar, but then I changed my mind, because I think that a negative trust must be supported by hard facts and shouldn't be controversial, otherwise it will cause discredit to the whole DT system.
Edit: typo
Jump to: