Topic: Livecoin.net Scam - page 16. (Read 13670 times)

So now you can steal money from 1 user, is that normal? And after he stops complaining, can you rob the next one? The main thing is not to rob both at the same time, you're just a genius!

Unfortunately 51% attacks are cheap the perform on small coin networks.  

Even 100 confirmations will not guarantee network safety.  I've seen longer 51% attack double spends. It also will make things like arbitrage much more difficult for the honest users of the exchange.


It depends on the agreement that livecoin has with the developers. A lot of times developers pay to get their coin onto an exchange - that often is accompanied with contractual obligations.

With a 51% attack with double spend the exploit does not occur on the exchange. The coin networks gives valid confirmations that are later tricked into being orphaned by privately mined blocks.

It means that those mined blocks are neither from a decentralized coin network and also shows that the blockchain is not immutable.

Coin developers have the ability to introduce check-pointing or utilizing a hybrid system that makes it more difficult to mount such an attack on the network.

How does a double spend 51% attack work ? Explanation and examples.

because this forum is filled of corrupted people and crew of bastards
we know they

if no one want to say the names, i can do because i have no fear  


I've gone beyond the truth - It's just another lie

And what should we do?

I think we should ask these DT members to go and flag them as well (those who didn't already). As it is pretty obvious that the BiteBTC case has way more solid evidence of scamming as well as way more people complaining about their practices, we would arguably expect all these DT members to line up to flag BiteBTC, right? So what are you waiting for, guys? Or rather, what are you actually fighting for (or against)?

Insolvency just means inability to pay their obligations. For an exchange Livecoin's size -- even if it's just limited to those two coins -- millions of dollars may be nothing to sneeze at. I don't want to speculate too much about that, but we should acknowledge that -- unlike many other exchanges in their position -- they made no move to make their customers whole. That's a red flag.

The OP put forth the scam accusation, but he's certainly not the only one complaining. Here are a few other examples:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/c40uqf/i_obtained_some_monero_at_wwwlivecoinnet_almost_2/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/brd4nf/livecoinnet_xmr_wallet_offline/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/7m64dy/anyone_know_why_livecoin_doesnt_allow_monero/
https://www.reddit.com/r/livecoin/comments/9q005m/disabled_monero_wallet/

I've also seen complaints about other long-term disabled wallets but I'm not sure on the specifics. I see dozens of coins listed with "N/A" under withdrawal fee -- Monacoin and Monero included -- on Livecoin's site. Can anyone confirm whether those wallets are disabled? Are they like Yobit, keeping various wallets in "maintenance" for months/years at a time?

One can conjecture about anything they choose to all day long, as some are doing in this thread. Doesn't mean anything, doesn't help anything, doesn't change anything.

The entire issue still revolves around 1 person's complaints against Livecoin. Insolvency would likely involve limiting withdrawals across several other coins than just the 2 they have issues with. You can bet far more than one customer would be complaining about it here. Who else commenting in this thread besides OP has been negatively affected by Livecoin?

As I mentioned earlier the BiteBTC scam accusation thread has literally hundreds of people reporting being ripped off by them, yet there had never been any DT action taken against them until I tagged them several months ago, and after the flag system was introduced, encouraged people who had been scammed to create a flag.

Despite BiteBTC being a much more clear cut example of an exchange engaging in persistent, habitual wrongdoing, only 3 DTs have supported their flag, meanwhile 16 DTs have supported this one...

I'm not saying what Livecoin did was cool, and I hope they reimburse OP with 0.08 BTC or the PPC he had purchased with it (not sure whats actually in his balance), plus the BTC worth of his current MONA stash at Livecoin prices. Exchanges that suffer losses take customer funds all the time by means of "haircuts," which they also justify in their user terms. Its not a great policy, but it does happen.

The only winner here is Quickseller. This is exactly what he hoped would happen. Is there any doubt that he wouldn't give two shits about OP's problem if he hadn't been kicked from the Livecoin campaign? He's had this long-running, stupid smear campaign against Hhampuz for quite some time now; I bet he's enjoying every minute of this.


The term "trash asset" is being used by Livecoin to refer to coins created by the fraudulent version of the MONA chain, and whatever b.s. it was that created the extra XMR coins. It is not referring to the actual coins themselves.

Let's see how Bittrex will protect against attack 51%



I also spoke about it earlier

---

That's what happens when you add too many "trash assets" to the exchange and forget to follow how they do.

Other exchanges should see this as an example and stop adding "trash assets" which can get 51% attacked.

Safety first.

My understanding is that Livecoin expected them to orchestrate some sort of bailout/rollback fork to reverse their losses. The Monacoin developers refused, which is a perfectly respectable position for developers of a POW protocol. An impasse was reached and Livecoin never did anything to rectify the issue and compensate their customers.

Same with Monero. Livecoin simply expects the Monero developers to pay them $1.8 million to reimburse their losses. Legally, the developers have no liability. It's right in their software license! On the other hand, Livecoin is legally liable for the deposits its customers made and now won't pay out.

The way Livecoin is acting, you really have to wonder how deeply insolvent they might be.

I showed a full history of correspondence with them, why should I hide something, if it will be easily proved?

full records you can read here.
They have already accused me of many times but have never presented evidence, while I always showed them. In the end, according to their words, I was blocked for lying, but if you follow their rules, then lying to is not prohibited, so until now they have not presented any reason for blocking!

Because of their disgusting attitude, for almost a month I did not have access to my money! Why should I incur losses because of their disgusting attitude?!

None of this back and forth matters. The development team is not financially responsible for securing anything short of proving them having been actively engaged in fraud. Everyone invests in these projects at their own risk. Exchanges are responsible for securing assets under its control. The fact that it sat around for months getting robbed is something any halfway competent IT security team would have detected, and is not the responsibility of the development team. As a result of its own negligence it is apparent they are insolvent and do not have the requisite coins to represent its actual token allotment. Given that sorting this out is way more complicated than could be done by such a half assed run company, let alone a team that would have noticed this problem earlier, they are in way over their heads.

Right now I would estimate they are trying to quietly buy into this token and buying time to do so cheaply as they continue to collect trading fees. Holding a customers coins hostage for months is the kind of thing that tends to drive a coins price down. This whole time they are also trying to fumble thru what if any fraudulent accounts are left holding any funds hoping it is significant enough to fill the gap.

Livecoin needs to come clean and stop playing backdoor games. If they don't this is going to be much worse than simply the loss of this one coin holding. Admit fault, issue temporary not withdraw-able tokens to represent the lost funds to be fulfilled over time. Another option would be to "socialize" the losses and give every token holder a haircut for immediate withdrawl. Obviously not going to be popular but being honest about it at least allows people who are not willing to tolerate this response the opportunity to pick other exchanges for future use. Look into the way BTC-E handled it, IMO they did a good job in basically the worst of circumstances. It was a much different cause, but a similar scenario regarding obligations to the customer base but on a larger scale.

They need to drop this policy and do some damage control. If I have to look at their avatars and signatures daily but can not hear from them during an active scam accusation then there is something wrong. Companies have PR teams, use them and not signature campaign managers / participants. Honestly it looks worse the longer it goes.. hence why people are leaving the signature campaign. They are hiding behind you and the other Livecoin signature participants Hhampuz.. not everyone is out to get you.. most, but not all

Props for trying to follow through but I hardly see anything changing, its why they operate out of Belize with an unknown team. Assumption or not that one is pretty clear as to why these places are chosen as a company's operating location.

I agree with you. However it seemed as if they were trying to get in contact with MONA but they ignored them? But again it's hard to make decisions and form judgement based on assumption.

Telling the end user to contact the developers of Mona and Monero doesn't lend any help to Livecoin's situation either. I believe many exchanges/developers/wallets work together to solve bugs/problems/attacks with various coins. Not sure if it is a language thing or that Livecoin believes it is solely the developers fault and that they need to be 100 percent compensated but something is majorly wrong if they can not open a channel with the developers when coins like Monero are being actively traded, and safely at that for quite awhile since the bugs/attacks.

I've asked them and will continue to communicate with them regarding posting their side of the story. What they told me in PM's is the only reason I'm trying to work towards a solution fwiw.

If it's their policy to not share any information regarding specific accounts in public we might have an issue but let's just see what tomorrow brings (I expect them to have some representatives available here then).

They should get on it then. I didn't get that impression though. And their posts in their Russian thread seem to indicate the opposite.


Mostly irrelevant, at least to me. I supported the flag after Livecoin came over here and confirmed that they're holding customer's funds hostage because the customer posted some "information". I don't particularly trust the OP's story and I don't have to, but whatever the OP may have posted doesn't excuse Livecoin confiscating OP's funds.

Alone, the existence of shitty language in their user agreement isn't enough to label an outfit a scam.  But when they take the shitty language literally and act on it, committing a crime in the process, that changes things.  I'm not saying this happened, but it appears the OP was threatened with this possibility.  Not cool.

This is inconsequential to the matter at hand. And not just the Binance part of the story but the whole thingy with ToS. Okay, we have a totally legit and clear-cut ToS, will it prevent an exchange (a coin mixer, online casino, or whatever entity you can think of) from scamming if they choose so (think Cryptsy here)? Not in the least. Does a crappy ToS necessarily turn an exchange or any other entity into scammers? Not in the least, either. It is what they do and not what is written in their ToS which ultimately matters here (and here reads in this accusation)

The bottom line is that, we should put these terms of service aside if we want to resolve the accusation

And that is the one thing I am trying to get them to change but I can't force them to do so. However I don't think it is cause enough to call a service a scam but that opinion will (evidently) differ.

From what I saw they blocked OP's account due to repeated offenses, threats and demands to be made whole on the loss of value on their original purchase of MONA. So if we were to play around with the idea that they did disable the trading pairs for the effected crypto/s (which I advised them to do in my communication with them), and it in fact was proven that OP did not get blocked simply for posting a thread such a this, would the issue still be as severe?

Perhaps.  I may have misinterpreted this post:


But that's not something I care to argue.  What I am more concerned about is the words of LiveCoin themselves, which I do not believe I am mistinterpreting:


There is nothing even remotely resembling that in Binance's ToS.  If I post of a message that I received from their customer support on twitter, Binance isn't going to take my money.  LiveCoin will, they said so.