Topic: LiveCoin.net > Buy/Sell/Exchange>New pairs:RST/BTC, LEDU/BTC, TGAME/BTC - page 29. (Read 63725 times)

Stock exchange officer does not stop lying, please read my new response to his slander here and if you find that I am right, please support my flag it is very important!

you mean livecoin was the first to figure out they just got double spend attacked and lost funds? i imagine they were.

what would you expect the coin developers to do about it?


hmmm, could you explain how they are so different? these are both proof of work protocols. relying on insufficient proof of work = services could suffer double spends.

isn't this why exchanges require a minimum number of confirmations? seems like livecoin didn't require enough confirmations and then allowed the attackers to withdraw before the deposits were double spent. right?

Thanks for the quick response

Your deposit will be confirmed after 50 confirmations from the BeeNode network.

How many confirmations are required for BNODE deposit?

It seems like everybody who wished to, has already expressed their opinion on the situation. We would like to put in our two cents, too, and to convey our thoughts on what’s happening.
Instead of trying to resolve the issue through our support service, this user began to blame the Exchange at different forums. He was well aware, that libel and slander is violating terms of services and can lead to blocking of the account.

“Sorry that I’m posting it from another account, because I am worried about the integrity of my remaining funds, knowing how the SS (Support service) responses in topics, I wouldn’t be surprised if it is blocked.”

“Aha-ha, they have blocked my account after all, – and only for voicing my opinion, how I got busted, is not clear, of course”

Even after our support service suggested several solutions of the conflict, namely – removal of slanderous posts, he kept lying further on:

This  rule has been in the User agreement from the very beginning, and that user accepted it when he registered at our Exchange.

That’s what has been pointed out to him in the thread.


As it turned out, Livecoin wasn’t the first Exchange he accused of scam, in his twitter he abused the other exchanges, too:
 
@Izooomrud
 22 Dec 2017
Replying to @hitbtc
Hitbtc = scum!
https://twitter.com/Izooomrud/status/944284509675155456

@Izooomrud
 7 Jan 2018
Replying to @YobitExchange
Yobit cкaм!
https://twitter.com/Izooomrud/status/950110547080605696

@Izooomrud
 9 Jan 2018
@BithumbOfficial what a truble with withdrawals ETH?!
https://twitter.com/Izooomrud/status/950684807905906691

@Izooomrud
 Jun 7
Replying to @hitbtc
you say the same thing, but continue to do nothing, even if you return my funds to me, I have already lost a lot in the fall of the course
https://twitter.com/Izooomrud/status/1137061606020538374

In the beginning we were also inclined to think, that he is just a loser-trader, surrounded by “scam” exchanges only, but his unwillingness to solve the issue, his constant insults, slander – lead to different conclusions.

He himself is not denying that he post a fake information and doing a black PR:

“all right, let’s assume the information is false, but which clause of your Exchange rules says that it is prohibited to defame it?”

Due to difficulties with translation, and probably to stir up sympathy of the community, he posted incorrect translation of his correspondence with the Support service in an English-speaking thread of the forum. For example, the original screenshot shows a notification, that the account has been temporarily frozen (suspended), but he translated it as “blocked”.  There is a tremendous difference between TEMPORARILY suspended and BLOCKED, isn’t it, and we fully understand  the reaction of the community.

Because originally he posted at different forums under different nicknames, some restrictions have been actually imposed on his account, until all his multi-accounts were found out and investigation was made.

Our Support service suggested several solutions of the problem – but he deliberately headed for a conflict, it is obvious out of all his messages, that the funds' withdrawal is not of such an importance for him, the main thing is to black PR our Exchange as much as possible.
We always carry on negotiations with all the violators, as a result, we give an opportunity to withdraw the frozen funds, and only after that the account is completely shut-down.
Nevertheless, in this case, such a large-scale campaign has been launched against our Exchange because of such an insignificant amount of funds, that, apparently, the said user is not seeking to unblock his account, but he makes every effort to keep it blocked for as long as possible, and speculates on that, while continuing to black PR and affront. We are not sure why he is doing that, on his own or at somebody else’s order.

Concerning all the attacks on the User agreement. If you read a User agreement of any exchange, you will find a warning, that cryptocurrency is a high-risk asset, and before making any operations with it (for example buying of toxic assets), it is necessary to study all potential risk, exposures, etc. More to that, the major part of the trader’s job is about the risk analysis, and possible losses are put into the core of the strategy.

Every exchange has certain clauses in its User agreement, fighting libel and abuse against the exchange and its staff. Some exchanges block the account at once without investigation, some (like us) run a conversation and, before blocking the account, try to help to settle the situation, in order to provide an opportunity to withdraw the funds.

It is commonly known, that positive reviews on the internet are quite rare, if a person is satisfied with a service or product – he takes it for granted, and doesn’t visit a forum to give a positive opinion about that. Thant is why we are distressed by the position of some community members, which, even not being clients of our Exchange, instead of looking into the situation as a whole, when saw some false allegations about “groundless” shut-down of the account and “theft of funds” of this user, were ready to support him.

Livecoin has been a member of this forum for many years, we always send the beginners here for guidance, since we are sure that this is the right place where the people can find the information they need and ask questions they have. Yet it makes no sense to block users without any reason and to lock small amounts at their balances. Yes, there always might be some unsatisfied customers, who make mistakes through lack of experience, but instead of trying to analyze them and make conclusions, start blaming everyone else for their failures. Nevertheless, these are only a few, there any many more users successfully trading at our Exchange for years.

Attention! Livecoin exchange is under massive Black PR attack. A lot of accounts spread fake information.
We ask our clients to help us by posting of positive messages or support our Exchange with trust.

Stop claiming things you don't know to be fact. You don't know they aren't able to pay their debts. If anything it sounds like they don't want to because they don't feel obligated to. I'm not saying that's the best way to go about the situation, but you are just assuming they are insolvent -- that's your assumption, and only an assumption.


The difference is Bitfinex got hacked for $72 million. That was explicitly their fault. Livecoin didn't get hacked, they got taken advantage of through a flaw in Monacoin's Lyre algorithm. BTW, Bitfinex didn't actually repay their customers, a new incoming, particularly gullible class of "shareholders" did.


I'm not denying that this is the case. However, without constant monitoring of the blockchain and looking for blocks mined too quickly, its impossible to know that an attack is underway, and therefore the number of confirmations needs to be increased. Its worth nothing that they stopped deposits as soon as they learned of the attack. Like with Monero, Livecoin are the ones who informed the developers about vulnerabilities in their software. They caught wind of the attack and ceased deposits and withdrawals a full 6 days before the Monacoin dev recommended increasing the number of confirmations before accepting a deposit to 100.


What do you mean "did nothing"? They were the first to figure out what was going on and shut down deposits and withdrawals immediately thereafter. They immediately reached out to the Monacoin developers and told them about the issue.


This is a disingenuous comparison by the very nature of how cryptocurrency works. Its of course not nearly the same thing.


Bittrex apparently lost no funds in the incident so there wasn't anything to "steal." I agree that Livecoin could have handled things better, but given the fact that there is only 1 user complaining about this issue on the forum, the entire thing seems way overblown.

They are the victims of theft and they are insolvent. These aren't mutually exclusive.


Insolvent means being unable to pay their debts. That seems like the state of things to me. Livecoin should have converted MONA balances to debt tokens, denominated in fiat if necessary. Instead, they simply lost their customers' coins, refused to pay them out, and when customers complain, they disable their accounts and accuse them of violating terms.

This is obviously unscrupulous behavior. Stop trying to rationalize it.


Bitfinex immediately converted the insolvent accounts to debt tokens which they reimbursed. Livecoin did no such thing.

With regard to the recent margin lending fiasco, Poloniex has reimbursed 10% so far. We'll see what happens from here but I would say their actions have been less than scrupulous as well. I also think the risks with P2P lending are more concrete -- if borrowers default, lenders may not recover the principal. This is a peer-to-peer contract.

In contrast, customers deposited coins to Livecoin, Livecoin lost them in an attack due to their own negligence, and then they told their customers to eat the losses. These are two very different things.


Yes, and Livecoin didn't account for the unreliability of Monacoin confirmations. They negligently accepted deposits and allowed withdrawals with far too few confirmations. They suffered double spending and passed the losses onto customers rather than eat the losses themselves.

Livecoin was allowing deposits, withdrawals, and trading and did nothing in spite of the known vulnerability. They were completely negligent. Imagine if exchanges accepted zero-confirmation transactions in Bitcoin and then began blaming Core developers because customers managed to double spend attack them. This is the same thing. It's laughable. An exchange needs to require sufficient confirmations and have internal controls to detect/delay fraudulent withdrawal attempts. You're giving them a free pass for their negligence.

When the attacks occurred on Monacoin, Bittrex didn't steal from their customers and permanently disable withdrawals. Livecoin should learn from their example.

For a number of years you've been one of the biggest trolls on the forum and this is the last time I will dignify you with a response.

Insolvency is the inability to pay back debts. Livecoin has the ability -- they are choosing not to in the case of Monacoin holders. While I don't think this is the best approach to the situation, they are claiming their rights under their terms to do so. Besides, being "insolvent" usually refers to the entire state of a business. It seems to me that outside of their whole issue with Monacoin, other business operations remain entirely functional.

Somebody told me they were also having problems with XMR, I don't know anything about that. I have just been a casual user of Livecoin for almost 3 years and never once experienced any problems with them.

How is this anything other than being insolvent?

Seems like you're purposefully trying to conflate insolvency with being the victims of theft. They are obviously not insolvent, they simply don't have the Monacoin to reimburse their holders, and whether you agree with it or not, they feel they did not violate the terms of their agreement with their customers, and are under no obligation to reimburse them.


This is actually pretty commonplace in exchanges. Poloniex, Bitfinex and others have passed losses on to their customers in the way of "haircuts." Not saying its a great thing, but these exchanges will also point to clauses in their terms that legally allow them to do this. When somebody shorted CLAMS into near oblivion a couple months back, Poloniex passed their losses on to all BTC lenders.


Incorrect. Maybe you just made a typo, but it was Monacoin that was attacked. They were targeted because of their particularly vulnerable difficulty readjustment mechanism. A few other coins using the same Lyra algorithm were also attacked around the same time period:

They've admitted to being insolvent? It seems really irresponsible to allow trading of assets they don't hold in custody.


Suspending withdrawals while allowing trading is not enough. That's what scammer exchanges do. Instead of compensating their depositors in any way -- like other exchanges have done with debt tokens and periodic buybacks -- they allowed the market to price in the insolvency so that MONA holders got completely screwed. Obviously, Livecoin wants to be made whole by the developers -- which will never happen -- and they've decided to pass on the losses to depositors.


Livecoin was attacked through a selfish mining attack. This has nothing to do with the developers.

This is not true. It would seem Livecoin holds zero MONA coins, and you know this. They couldn't release your MONA to you if they wanted because, as they've already explained to you, they don't exist.


Also incorrect. izooomrud made this allegation but it was quickly disproven thanks to archived copies of the Livecoin ToS.


They did this at the time it happened, over 1 year ago. They posted a notice on their site saying all MONA withdrawals and deposits were suspended. I suspect the reason why the coin is still "traded" is because they didn't want to dismiss the chances of them eventually being reimbursed by the developer.

Livecoin was the first exchange to attempt to contact Monacoin developers about the attack.


They apparently knew about the Monacoin attack before the developers did.

It is when the exchange doesn't control the coins anymore.

It looks like MONA was 51% attacked last year and Livecoin lost considerable funds. They disabled the wallet indefinitely but allowed trading to continue. Over time, the exchange rate became completely disconnected from the market because Livecoin stopped paying withdrawals.

At best, they are trying to force this user to buy BTC on the market at very unfavorable exchange rates, because MONA is worthless on Livecoin now. At worst, they might be stealing his money outright, given that his account was disabled and he hasn't received any money back.

Is it really that hard to release such withdrawal?I cant even say that the said behavior of its clients or user is a major violation or did broke their Terms.

Stock exchange officer continues to lie and not give facts
Please read my full answer here and if you find that I am right, please support my flag it is very important!

Apparently, you change your user agreement at will with no notice to users, and retroactively apply the terms. Pray tell, what local laws were broken? I don't think your terms are even legal or enforceable in most jurisdictions. You can't legally steal customer funds just because they publicly posted correspondence with your support.

If you are insolvent and can't fulfill withdrawals for a particular asset, you should de-list the market and come clean to your users. You shouldn't allow trading to continue on assets like this.

Client makes wrongful accusations toward our Exchange. The status of the mentioned asset is indicated as the lowest and not recommended for purchase. The client has knowingly bought the trash asset. The fact that the asset is not available for withdrawal at the moment, is not a scam. The acquired funds is still in the client’s account, he can sell this asset after the purchase, and withdraw BTC for example.

We gave all explanations to the client as well, we suggested a few ways to solve this situation, but he refused. He threatens, abuses our staff and publish slander that has nothing to do with reality. Such behavior is illegal itself, it broke User Agreement as well local legislation too, this is a true SCAM. We also consider connivance of the bitcointalk administration in such questions - inappropriate.

stock exchange officer deliberately distorted all the facts, read my answer with the evidence here

Communication and relationship between client and Exchange is regulated by User agreement, which every user accepts at registration. There is no way to register without accepting the user agreement. However, rarely, some clients ignore and flagrantly breach the User agreement.

For the first time of violation of rules, we just warn client, but in case of repeatedly violations, account may be blocked for verification and further investigation. But, even in this case, we allow to withdraw all funds after the removing of false information and consequences caused by this publication. In some cases, verification may be required by the security team.

This is exactly what happened to the said client. This client created a ticket with a demand to enable withdrawal of MONA for his account, what is absolutely impossible because of the attack on the MONA network and public refusal of the developers to bear responsibility for that. We replied to the client with the explanation regarding MONA asset, but he decided to start spreading false allegations, publicly accusing the Exchange of fraud, and thus misleading the other clients, - your message is another proof of that.

The client is clearly provoking a conflict, ignoring all suggested options of settlement. Earlier this client said that all information, violating the user agreement had been removed, but the investigation found out that, on the contrary, there is much more such information now. All further discussions of this issue will be held solely with the client and only after eliminating all negative effects.