Topic: Livecoin.net Scam - page 18. (Read 13670 times)

I've laid out the more worrisome phrases in this post: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51720696
I'm not a lawyer, but it would probably be worth the expense to have one draft a user agreement that doesn't violate the law.



Did you?  As nutildah lays out clearly; on May 15, 2018 LiveCoin notices what they suspect to be a DDoS attack on MONA.  On June 7, 2018 they decide it's time to stop trading MONA and freeze the asset.  Three fucking weeks later?



I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree.  

Wrong since it clearly states "If your account has otherwised been suspended or closed by Poloniex" which eludes to a previous section where they state your account may be closed if you violate their terms.

It's the same thing in different words. Get the flags out QS! I've got all night and will go over all the top exchanges terms and we shall see how many flags we need to create tomorrow .

---

Snip from Bitfinex ToS:

"The Site may suspend or terminate the Services to you, your Digital Tokens Wallet, or to any of your Digital Tokens Address at its sole discretion, as required by applicable Laws or where Bitfinex determines that you have violated, breached, or acted inconsistent with any of these Terms of Service."

---

Snip from Binance ToS:

"10. Termination of Agreement
You agree that Binance shall have the right to immediately suspend your account (and any accounts beneficially owned by related entities or affiliates), freeze or lock the funds in all such accounts, and suspend your access to Binance for any reason including if it suspects any such accounts to be in violation of these Terms, our Privacy Policy, or any applicable laws and regulations. You agree that Binance shall not be liable to you for any permanent or temporary modification, suspension or termination of your Account or access to all or any portion of the Services. Binance shall have the right to keep and use the transaction data or other information related to such accounts. The above account controls may also be applied in the following cases:
after Binance terminates services to you;
you allegedly register or register in any other person’s name as Binance user again, directly or indirectly;
the information that you have provided is untruthful, inaccurate, outdated or incomplete;
when these Terms are amended, you expressly state and notify Binance of your unwillingness to accept the amended Terms;
you request that the Services be terminated; and
any other circumstances where Binance deems it should terminate the services."

---

Wrong again

They did notify users that withdrawing/depositing MONA had been suspended until further notice would be given.

They are saying they will restrict your ability to withdraw if you deposit stolen money, laundered money, or have a court order to not allow you access to the money, or very similar. They don't have the ability to not process withdrawals for arbitrary reasons as is happening with LiveCoin.

Further:

Again  , Running a signature campaign for them /= being their brand manager?

---

You are comparing apples to oranges. Both you and I know that it's very different so I've no idea where you are going with this.

---

Snip from Poloniex terms:

"We reserve the right to restrict or refuse to permit withdrawals from your Account if (i) your Account has otherwise been suspended or closed by Poloniex in accordance with this Agreement; (ii) to do so would be prohibited by law or a court order or we have determined that the Digital Assets were obtained fraudulently; or (iii) you have not undergone the required identity verification procedure such that your identity has been verified, as indicated by your Account.

You can check whether or not your Account has been verified by reviewing your verification status under the “My Profile” section of your Account.

Upon closure or suspension of your Account, you authorize Poloniex to cancel or suspend pending transactions."

Any market can be used to speculate on the price of the asset. When you are buying a coin on an exchange, you are buying the actual coin, not a derivative.

If I were to sell a coin I did not have, and did not intend to deliver, the buyer could sell the rights to the coin to someone else if there is a willing buyer.

edit: How about this, you can send 0.15BTC to 3P1o6BafmQomjKjakbK4ske8Lq8hCkJhiU to "speculate on the price of" 10 ETH -- I will not allow you to ever receive this ETH but you can sell this right to "speculate on the price" of ETH to anyone else who is a willing buyer. In my specific case, I am not scamming because I am disclosing your inability to receive ETH ahead of time, but LiveCoin did not do this, and as such is scamming.

Bolded some key parts for you.

When did I become their branding manager? Managing a signature campaign is much different.. speaking of things going over your head.

Who are they more specifically?

They (the exchange) are not selling anything (well, unless proved otherwise). Both buyers and sellers are clients of the exchange (read, traders), and it is them selling and buying everything, not the exchange itself. Simple, isn't it? Does that make them (the exchange) scammers now provided LiveCoin had warned their clients about the state of the asset as in "trashy" (read, you are on your own)?

Surprised their whole ToS went over your head when you became their bitcointalk.org branding manager Hhampuz. Due diligence much?

That is actually very different since they have a market where you can speculate on the coin. If you were to sell a physical good that you wouldn't deliver that would be an actual scam since the buyer could never get anything back for it. Surprised this one goes over your head QS.

Yes it does....

They are selling an asset to someone and the buyer will never be able to take possession of said asset because the seller is refusing to deliver.

This would not be unlike if I were to sell a gold coin that I do not have and have no intention of delivering to any buyer (I would never do that).

Yes, Livecoin's rules aren't nice but it doesn’t mean they're scam. This is unreasonable, i think the real responsibility belong to Monacoin in this case. However, I left the campaign until the problem will be solved.

Which part of their ToS are you talking about? Just curious, as I want to make some cross-references.

Did you read nutildah's post?


This doesn't make them scammers

As I said in my post, the only accusation that can loosely count as a scam attempt is locking OP out of his account. The things you mention further in your post are irrelevant to the accusation. They are inconsequential. The approaches that LiveCoin has taken to deal with the attack and mitigate the aftereffects may not have been the best. They in fact can be even the worst possible (technically, we don't know the gory details, so it is actually a moot point). But then again, that alone doesn't turn LiveCoin into scammers. Though you can always call them incompetent if you please

If LiveCoin is so reputable, and they knew about the MONA attack within a few hours, why did they keep trading the asset?  Why didn't they shut it down?

Reputable exchanges don't keep trading assets they suspect are under 51% DDoS attacks.  Coinbase shuts down assets at the slightest inclining of an attack.  It pisses off their customers to no end, but guess what, nobody loses hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Is LiveCoin responsible for the attack?  No, the hacker is.
Is LiveCoin accountable for continuing to trade an asset they suspected is under attack?  Yes, they are, not their clients who were holding that asset.
Is LiveCoin taking advantage of their (illegal) terms of service to shirk their responsibility to their clients?  Yes, and they admit it.

Businesses suffer losses all the time, there's inherent risk in almost every business.  The biggest risk any business faces is losing all their clients, and ironically this is directly linked to how said business treats those clients.  LiveCoin is far from a "reputable business," just look at how they use their ToS to reject any and all accountability.  Those of us who would like to promote cryptocurrency into the mainstream should be ashamed of businesses such as LiveCoin, and we certainly shouldn't be defending them.

Livecoin is a reliable exchange that has been running smoothly since 2014 and I have used it in the past. In addition, Hhampuz is a great campaign manager, one of the most trusted members of the forum.

In my first post about this topic, I mentioned that I am a major investor in the coin called Hdac, which uses the Lyra2Rev2 algorithm. I had a huge financial loss when Hdac got attacked, so I can empathize with the OP. Nevertheless I've never thought accusing any exchange because of my loss after the attack on Hdac because i was thinking it's Hdac's team fault. It's exactly the same thing here.

[1] [Warning] Hdac MainNet Malfunction Found
[2] [Announcement] Cooperation Request for All Hdac Mining Partners

Although we warned them with our investor group about Lyra2Rev2 algorithm, they ignored our warnings and allowed this attack.

One week after the attack on 6 September 2018 with Dayun Zig Z1, the price of the HDAC increased to 2x
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/hdac/

Two weeks after the attack on 17 May 2018 with Dayun Zig Z1, the price of the MONA increased to 3.5x
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/monacoin/

One month after the attack on 5 December 2018 with Dayun Zig Z1, the price of the VTC increased to 3x
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/vertcoin/

These three coins, despite our warnings, took no action on this issue.

Can someone tell me? Why was the coins valued after the attack? It's not normal but you are still accusing only LC. I think the Mona's team also responsible from this attacks because investors warned them multiple times but they choosed let that happen. They preferred not to do anything to prevent the attack. Why?

I would like to thank Livecoin and Hhampuz for accepted me to this nice signature campaign.

I'm leaving the signature campaign, good luck everyone.

when you arrived at the gas station, which is located in the middle of the desert, the rules of which state that before you put the gun in the gas tank, you have to put it in the ass, what you will do: 1. You will insert the gun in the ass; 2. You will go on foot; 3 You declare that it is not legal, and you will demand to sell gasoline, as the law says?
Judging by your thoughts - you must select option 1

let's then read the answer of the developers
https://askmona.org/11384

And if you read the Russian branch, you will understand that blocking users without a reason occurs regularly. And at the moment they have a similar problem with MONERO coin.

Just want to add a few things. I kept them to myself all these days but now it seems to be the right time to speak out


Let's be honest, no one likes such ToS. In fact, no one likes any ToS. But I don't actually see anyone here telling the exchange how they should change their terms. If you disagree with them (which I understand), don't use the exchange, as simple as it gets. Still, if you think their ToS are violating local laws (let's assume you are a lawyer and know your thing), file an official complaint to a regulating body of that country. But really, some random dude on BTT telling a service (exchange, mixer, casino, etc) they should change their ToS is ridiculous. But even if not, why stop at LiveCoin then? There are literally hundreds of services out there whose representatives are active on the forum. Why not check their ToS as well now?


Locking this user's account is the only thing which can be remotely construed as an attempt at scamming by LiveCoin (even if it is legit according to their ToS). All other things that the exchange has been accused of here is what technically constitutes market risk

OK, so a guy has a problem with an exchange in 2018, and shows up over a year later to demand his funds - something he had given up pursuing for one reason or another - now that BTC has risen back out of its slump. Livecoin collects between $50k and $90k per day in trading fees. Seems to me like if they believed they were at fault, they would simply compensate this user for their losses, which is a comparatively small amount of money.

The only reason they are not giving in to the user's demands is because they believe he is in the wrong and they are in the right. And according to their Terms of Service (like them or hate them), they are right. Should the language in their ToS be updated to sound like they are not looking for reasons to with-hold user funds? Absolutely, I don't disagree with that part.

Livecoin was one of the first exchanges to notify Monacoin of the selfish miner attack, posting this in the Monacoin thread a full 2 days before Monacoin acknowledged the attack:


The "selfish miner" sent a bunch of bogus coins to the Livecoin exchange (as well as Bittrex and a couple others) and cashed them out for BTC. (BTW, this fraudulent chain of Monacoin is what Livecoin has been referring to as a "trash asset" -- not the real Monacoin itself). Livecoin then issued the following statement in the aftermath:


Deposits and withdrawals of MONA to Livecoin have been suspended since. They supposedly lost around $90k worth of other coins (probably mostly BTC) to the attacker.

I think I can explain why they left the bogus chain "trash asset" up for trade -- they didn't want to just leave their MONA holders with nothing, and perhaps they maintained hope they would someday be reimbursed by the Monacoin devs in the form of MONA, which they could then distribute to their holders.

I suppose the best solution would have been to purchase MONA from elsewhere and recompensate their holders that way, but again, Livecoin firmly felt they were in the right and had not violated their end of the agreement with their users, pointing to clauses denying themselves of liability in the case of "malfunctioning software."

For a long time Poloniex left BitcoinDark (BTCD) on their exchange available for trading, for over a year after it had stopped being mined. There was no way to move it in or out of the exchange, as the project's devs were absorbed by Komodo, yet Poloniex didn't feel the need to disable trading for it, even though it was an utterly useless asset.

My verdict/opinion: they should re-enable the user's account, allow him to sell his "trash asset" version of MONA on the exchange, and take his BTC proceeds off the exchange (0.08 BTC + the converted MONA). Then, bar the user from making future deposits of any sort, effectively closing his account.

Before you burn me, Hhampuz, and everybody else involved at the stake, just stop to take a couple of things into consideration:

- OP is but 1 man representing himself. There have been relatively few complaints against this exchange, and as its been open since 2014, its reputation shouldn't be destroyed over 1 incident. If you want to see what a real scam accusation thread against an exchange that probably is scamming its customers looks like, I invite you to check out the BiteBTC scam accusation thread.

- I highly doubt OP wrote the OP. It looks like he definitely had coaching, and while that does not change the facts, it suggests that his cause may have been furthered by those with ulterior motives. The fact that the usual parties are using this as an excuse to jump down Hhampuz's throat and are hyping the affair as a much bigger calamity than it actually is is hard to ignore.

Normally this would be a situation of he said vs she said, but in this case Livecoin has done SO MANY underhanded and shady things I have seen other failing exchanges do, that I have no question they are largely if not completely at fault here. As I explained before, I have personally witnessed this pattern of behavior from exchanges from the perspective of not just a user but a development team. They are struggling to find any lame half assed excuse they can to cover their asses just a little bit longer. There are no reasonable justifications for these repeated failures which clearly demonstrate negligence if not active fraud. They started making a bunch of money, started getting self assured and sloppy, and didn't put any of it back into security. Now they want to blame everyone under the sun. There is no way this exchange is not insolvent, because if it wasn't they wouldn't be actively cutting their own throats by acting like this.