Yes you are right I should start a "are bitcoin gambling sites illegal" thread but we already know the answer, right?
Let's find out:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/are-there-any-fully-registered-legal-bitcoin-gambling-sites-276787
Topic: Is TradeFortress breaking the law? - page 2. (Read 11077 times)
So he's against centralized payment system but own's a centralized bank and a online wallet.
Great.
Great.
LOL, fucking hilarious...
It explains why he's driven like a man possessed to spread so much FUD about ripple and opencoin. It's in competition to his own scams!
Good grief guys. Ripple/Opencoin aren't competition whatsoever. They're totally and utterly different.
His attack is against the currency; he doesn't see that it works and he thinks it's a way for OpenCoin to make money through pre-mining and that's it. I'm not with him on this at all and nor do I agree with the nature of his attacks but it's still very different.
I can't say if he's scamming or not, that's for you to show, but it's still coming across as a personal attack/witch hunt. As for the legalities of his offerings, I think you'll find his business is one of any number of current Bitcoin businesses that are in the grey area of the law or flat out illegal. If you go for him, you should go for the majority of Bitcoin businesses - e.g. virtually every gambling site. You can't have it both ways.
So he's against centralized payment system but own's a centralized bank and a online wallet.
Great.
Great.
LOL, fucking hilarious...
It explains why he's driven like a man possessed to spread so much FUD about ripple and opencoin. It's in competition to his own scams!
One is a personal attack and one is not.
TF's attack is on a currency. Do I agree with him? No I don't. If he paid to advertise this fact then no I don't agree with that personally but in the end it's done as a political statement or for some commercial reason I'm unaware of.
That is very different from setting up a site to attack an individual and then taking advertising on that site.
It's making all this seem very personal. Just my opinion.
TF's attack is on a currency. Do I agree with him? No I don't. If he paid to advertise this fact then no I don't agree with that personally but in the end it's done as a political statement or for some commercial reason I'm unaware of.
That is very different from setting up a site to attack an individual and then taking advertising on that site.
It's making all this seem very personal. Just my opinion.
The attack is against a company, its' employees and its' product, not currency.
This "attack against TF".. We can call it "an attack against immoral, shady and illegal activities".
what are these certificates you speak and do you have a website link 
If that was to me, here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2731055
what are these certificates you speak and do you have a website link
One is a personal attack and one is not.
TF's attack is on a currency. Do I agree with him? No I don't. If he paid to advertise this fact then no I don't agree with that personally but in the end it's done as a political statement or for some commercial reason I'm unaware of.
That is very different from setting up a site to attack an individual and then taking advertising on that site.
It's making all this seem very personal. Just my opinion.
TF's attack is on a currency. Do I agree with him? No I don't. If he paid to advertise this fact then no I don't agree with that personally but in the end it's done as a political statement or for some commercial reason I'm unaware of.
That is very different from setting up a site to attack an individual and then taking advertising on that site.
It's making all this seem very personal. Just my opinion.
How is what scotaloo proposed any different that what TF has done with his paying people to advertise that ripple is a scam or authoring a website about the same?
To be consistent in your logic you must be willing to admit that scotaloo and TF are acting the same and so they are either both expressing free speech or they are both behaving badly.
To be consistent in your logic you must be willing to admit that scotaloo and TF are acting the same and so they are either both expressing free speech or they are both behaving badly.
How is that any different from what TF did when he paid people to advertise that Ripple is a scam? Or him starting a website that says ripple is a scam?
So you are saying, indirectly, that TF is a scammer.
So you are saying, indirectly, that TF is a scammer.
No, I didn't comment on TradeFortress at all and nor am I going to because I'm not in either camp.
I was commenting on what is clearly a very personal grudge being handled badly.
How is that any different from what TF did when he paid people to advertise that Ripple is a scam? Or him starting a website that says ripple is a scam?
So you are saying, indirectly, that TF is a scammer.
Gotta love when ponzi schemer/scammers (like TF) start betting that things are ponzi schemes. Of course he's doing it with community money so there is no risk in that, right TF?
So you are saying, indirectly, that TF is a scammer.
If Zaih hits his 5 BTC limit I will also bet up to 25 BTC for casinobit being a ponzi / scam.
Gotta love when ponzi schemer/scammers (like TF) start betting that things are ponzi schemes. Of course he's doing it with community money so there is no risk in that, right TF?
We will be launching a new website soon dedicated to open discussion about TradeFortress, his various websites and alleged scams he has done.
There will be lots of useful information on it along with hard evidence. Stay tuned guys!
There will be lots of useful information on it along with hard evidence. Stay tuned guys!
As I have stated previously I am looking forward to the launch of this site and have plenty of people lined up willing to buy adspace or offer whatever support necessary.
So you're going to launch a website where you make allegations against another person, possibly illegal allegations, and you're offering ad space on it.
Now that is a scam.
Whatever your issues with TradeFortress, you are not coming out of this well.
We will be launching a new website soon dedicated to open discussion about TradeFortress, his various websites and alleged scams he has done.
There will be lots of useful information on it along with hard evidence. Stay tuned guys!
There will be lots of useful information on it along with hard evidence. Stay tuned guys!
As I have stated previously I am looking forward to the launch of this site and have plenty of people lined up willing to buy adspace or offer whatever support necessary.
You should add an option for No, and I see what you're trying to do 
I'm curious, was that co-incidence?
You should add an option for "No, and I see what you're trying to do."
You should add an option for No, and I see what you're trying to do
Because I have the distinct honor of being ignored by more than 50 fools in these forums. ;-)
Is that really a statistic?
Yes.
And now, back to the show.... the SEC has the right to regulate bitcoin trading because bitcoin is NOW MONEY!
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/08/court-says-bitcoin-is-money/
Because I have the distinct honor of being ignored by more than 50 fools in these forums. ;-)
Is that really a statistic?
Because I have the distinct honor of being ignored by more than 50 fools in these forums. ;-)
Little off-topic but... why is your "ignore" link highlighted in orange? You're the first person with it highlighted like that, lol. And it's all of your posts... (Viceroy)
IMO the second he pisses someone off he is going to get a lot of attention on him and get fucked.
How is TradeFortress offer any different from Pirateat40's Ponzi scheme offer?
>From at least ____ to ____ (“relevant period”), Shavers, operating under
>the Internet name “pirateat40,” offered and sold BTCST investments over
>the Internet
=
>Shavers falsely promised investors up to 7% interest weekly
=
>In reality, the BTCST offering was a sham and a Ponzi scheme
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2013/comp-pr2013-132.pdf
>From at least ____ to ____ (“relevant period”), Shavers, operating under
>the Internet name “pirateat40,” offered and sold BTCST investments over
>the Internet
=
>Shavers falsely promised investors up to 7% interest weekly
=
>In reality, the BTCST offering was a sham and a Ponzi scheme
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2013/comp-pr2013-132.pdf
it is not ... unregistered securities is a pretty big umbrella, lots of other things might qualify like pass through shares...
he is royally screwed, if he in some way falls under the laws of the US; based on his writing I think he likely does. if he has ever done an escrow with anyone who does not like him, all the govt agents have to do is find one of the escrow agents, threaten them with prison time for withholding evidence from a criminal investigation, and he is fried chicken...
hell there might even be a money reward, the govt does that in some cases... 10% of 2 mil is a tidy sum....
Jump to: