Pages:
Author

Topic: Nefario - page 39. (Read 198678 times)

sr. member
Activity: 471
Merit: 252
October 16, 2012, 12:16:38 PM
I'm still waiting for an email...
newbie
Activity: 6
Merit: 0
October 16, 2012, 10:34:49 AM
I got my email, but not any funds.  got the email 3 days ago.
legendary
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1002
October 16, 2012, 10:06:54 AM
Why don't you make me a moderator Theymos?

Is it because I would actually ban some of the slimeball fucks who infest these forums?

Sorry to burst your bubble, Vampire Princess, but Moderators don't have ban powers.
legendary
Activity: 1264
Merit: 1008
October 16, 2012, 09:34:08 AM
I'd just like to take this opportunity to give props to Gavin Andresen on his warnings about GLBSE back in the days of the bitcoin show. 
vip
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
13
October 16, 2012, 09:28:37 AM
theymos... but what would you take as an evidence? I mean what do you think the police wold take as evidence when the police would care about bitcoins. They would use the exact same info. So i dont fully get why you did this.

Would you give out the details when #bitcoin-police checked the traces in database and ask you for evidence? Otherwise bitcoinuser would be in disadvantage to real world user again. Because btc isnt real money for the real police yet.

My current policy is to release IPs only in these cases:
- Police send me convincing evidence that someone is guilty. I then release IPs to the police only. (This has happened.)
- A court with jurisdiction over the forum sends me a subpoena that isn't obviously unjust. (This has not happened.)
- A scammer is absolutely proven to be guilty and stops reasonably negotiating with his victims.
- Someone is repeatedly evading bans.

The accused person in the GLBSE case wasn't absolutely proven to be guilty, and wasn't even given a chance to respond to the allegations. Nefario never went to the police as far as I know.

I'm not sure whether I should release IPs at all, really. I'd like to see a discussion about the morality of this. Releasing IPs enables people to act violently toward the accused person, either in person or through police. Is it really right to commit violence against someone just because he did something non-violently over the Internet? I'm not sure. Services should ideally be set up so that scamming is impossible and as a result no one is ever tempted toward violence.

You are aware of far more than you let on. The person in question is (and was) currently operating a business on these forums that is highly succeptable to fraud. The person in question has long since admitted his guilt and returned, according to both you and others, a substantial (but possibly not total) sum of the money he took. Said person does not have a scammer tag and has to my knowledge not yet been revealed.

This situation was handled extremely irresponsibly by all parties involved. In particular, now that it's public knowledge, I will comment on the fact that you as an officer of GLBSE and majority shareholder failed to act in the best interests of GLBSE and use your power to help catch the person in question. As a result of that you delayed and endangered GLBSE user funds.

As someone who lost over $10,000 of personal money when GLBSE shut down I guess I have a lot of misdirected upsetness. You need to wake up theymos and realize the position you find yourself in is not one which sits well with a lassiez-faire attitude. You are a poor moderator. You need to think, and to make some just decisions around here. This forum needs justice. Why don't you dish some out? In the case of MPOE-PR paying people to troll on these forums I want you to think very carefully about this next bit. These forums contain several extremely well documented cases where people have experienced financial loss as a direct result of trolling done on these forums. If you want to see police orders in no short order I can promise you, one day you will. I don't mean on you I mean on others. Why don't you do what is right and not let that kind of thing happen in the first place? I've lost contracts as a direct result of the trolling on these forums. Think about that for a moment. I can easily demonstrate directly related financial damages. That is ample grounds for libel and slander cases -- i'm talking real high class stuff here. Malicious criminal slander. You need to police these forums or hire someone to do it proper.

Why don't you make me a moderator Theymos?

Is it because I would actually ban some of the slimeball fucks who infest these forums?

Think for a moment what that says about your forum moderation policy. Please.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1083
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
October 16, 2012, 08:55:31 AM
I only have read that theymos sent the coins to the paperwallet that coldhardmetal was supervising. But i didnt read that the money moved from there. What was the address of the paper wallet? It should be proofable fast.
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
October 16, 2012, 08:42:55 AM
Blahblahtrollishblah

hero member
Activity: 742
Merit: 500
Its as easy as 0, 1, 1, 2, 3
October 16, 2012, 08:29:13 AM
Its a lie. He has all the coins already.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1083
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
October 16, 2012, 08:14:20 AM
So are the missing 10% because ColdHardMetal didnt send the btc from paper wallet to nefario so he can pay it back?
sr. member
Activity: 251
Merit: 250
October 16, 2012, 04:31:25 AM
I got mail and 90% of my coins
legendary
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1064
Bitcoin is antisemitic
October 16, 2012, 04:18:58 AM
I received about 60% of what I expected, but I am not sure that is from GLBSE. I got no mail also.
The sending address ends with: RH4Bub
Anyone got reimbursed from such address?
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
October 16, 2012, 02:45:09 AM
Coins in my wallet. Done and dusted.
full member
Activity: 199
Merit: 100
October 16, 2012, 02:31:27 AM
Quote
Your GLBSE account has been partially processed. 90% of your funds have been returned to you with this payment. Once we recieve the remaining funds from our treasurer and secretary the final payment will be made and you will be informed. We will also inform you when we process your assets, allowing you to continue your relationship with your issuer.

Mail received but no coins in my wallet.
vip
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
13
October 16, 2012, 01:32:26 AM
BTC magazine interviews Nefario concerning GLBSE closing
 http://bitcoinmagazine.net/interview-with-glbses-nefario/

The one exploit that accepted negative share values to be traded was interesting.

Nefario lied about this in the interview. Not sure why, but he lied about the timing of the attack.
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 500
Whoa, there are a lot of cats in this wall.
October 15, 2012, 11:02:52 PM
I'd be careful about releasing IPs without a search warrant or court order, which would obviously provide you immunity if you complied.  But if someone were to take the type of action you describe in your post, you couldn't be criminally prosecuted, but you could be made a party to a wrongful death/personal injury type of civil suit.  A plaintiff (or even a defendant through comparative fault) could try to place a percentage of the liability at your feet for negligence or maybe even an intentional tort, such as intentional infliction of emotional distress.  

They could try but those causes of action seem to be much more difficult to pursue in the US than is commonly believed.  Not to mention the fact that there's little point in seeking damages from someone with no capacity to pay.

As one who knows a little bit about personal injury law  Wink , I would say it would be better to avoid the issue altogether.  He could be made a party.  Would he get a judgment entered against him?  Who knows.  Depends on the facts of each case.  But either way that's a major headache he could avoid just by not releasing the IP addresses, unless required to by law.  

Edit:  100th post.  Sweet - Full Member now Smiley 
hero member
Activity: 868
Merit: 1000
October 15, 2012, 10:58:41 PM
I'd be careful about releasing IPs without a search warrant or court order, which would obviously provide you immunity if you complied.  But if someone were to take the type of action you describe in your post, you couldn't be criminally prosecuted, but you could be made a party to a wrongful death/personal injury type of civil suit.  A plaintiff (or even a defendant through comparative fault) could try to place a percentage of the liability at your feet for negligence or maybe even an intentional tort, such as intentional infliction of emotional distress.  

They could try but those causes of action seem to be much more difficult to pursue in the US than is commonly believed.  Not to mention the fact that there's little point in seeking damages from someone with no capacity to pay.
legendary
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1570
Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending
October 15, 2012, 10:57:26 PM
Quote
Police send me convincing evidence that someone is guilty. I then release IPs to the police only. (This has happened.)

Theymos, I'm not sure if you truly meant to state it that way. (innocent till proven guilty by a court of law, not by a police officer, otherwise we're all in a heap of hurt)

~Bruno K~
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 250
October 15, 2012, 10:45:23 PM
My current policy is to release IPs only in these cases:
- Police send me convincing evidence that someone is guilty. I then release IPs to the police only. (This has happened.)
- A court with jurisdiction over the forum sends me a subpoena that isn't obviously unjust. (This has not happened.)
- A scammer is absolutely proven to be guilty and stops reasonably negotiating with his victims.
- Someone is repeatedly evading bans.

The accused person in the GLBSE case wasn't absolutely proven to be guilty, and wasn't even given a chance to respond to the allegations. Nefario never went to the police as far as I know.

I'm not sure whether I should release IPs at all, really. I'd like to see a discussion about the morality of this. Releasing IPs enables people to act violently toward the accused person, either in person or through police. Is it really right to commit violence against someone just because he did something non-violently over the Internet? I'm not sure. Services should ideally be set up so that scamming is impossible and as a result no one is ever tempted toward violence.

I would encourage you to keep that sort of information to yourself... unless you've been served a lawful request for it by authorities. No point opening yourself to the liability if somebody goes and shoots someone.

legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1083
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
October 15, 2012, 09:47:05 PM
theymos... but what would you take as an evidence? I mean what do you think the police wold take as evidence when the police would care about bitcoins. They would use the exact same info. So i dont fully get why you did this.

Would you give out the details when #bitcoin-police checked the traces in database and ask you for evidence? Otherwise bitcoinuser would be in disadvantage to real world user again. Because btc isnt real money for the real police yet.

My current policy is to release IPs only in these cases:
- Police send me convincing evidence that someone is guilty. I then release IPs to the police only. (This has happened.)
- A court with jurisdiction over the forum sends me a subpoena that isn't obviously unjust. (This has not happened.)
- A scammer is absolutely proven to be guilty and stops reasonably negotiating with his victims.
- Someone is repeatedly evading bans.

The accused person in the GLBSE case wasn't absolutely proven to be guilty, and wasn't even given a chance to respond to the allegations. Nefario never went to the police as far as I know.

I'm not sure whether I should release IPs at all, really. I'd like to see a discussion about the morality of this. Releasing IPs enables people to act violently toward the accused person, either in person or through police. Is it really right to commit violence against someone just because he did something non-violently over the Internet? I'm not sure. Services should ideally be set up so that scamming is impossible and as a result no one is ever tempted toward violence.

Then scammer will be fine here in the forum because what police or court is taking bitcoin serious? That means you give away free "go out of jail" cards here.

And i dont see why the data nef presented should be wrong. I mean he clearly has to see what user did what action. Even when the person is another one for some reason i dont see... at the end speaking with him could clear this. But simply staying in front of scammers and protecting them this way... i dont know. Doesnt sound right.

I think in bitcoinworld, where police and court doesnt care, you should respect bitcoin-police or some similar persons because the way you describe it no one had a chance otherwise.
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 500
Whoa, there are a lot of cats in this wall.
October 15, 2012, 09:00:21 PM
theymos... but what would you take as an evidence? I mean what do you think the police wold take as evidence when the police would care about bitcoins. They would use the exact same info. So i dont fully get why you did this.

Would you give out the details when #bitcoin-police checked the traces in database and ask you for evidence? Otherwise bitcoinuser would be in disadvantage to real world user again. Because btc isnt real money for the real police yet.

My current policy is to release IPs only in these cases:
- Police send me convincing evidence that someone is guilty. I then release IPs to the police only. (This has happened.)
- A court with jurisdiction over the forum sends me a subpoena that isn't obviously unjust. (This has not happened.)
- A scammer is absolutely proven to be guilty and stops reasonably negotiating with his victims.
- Someone is repeatedly evading bans.

The accused person in the GLBSE case wasn't absolutely proven to be guilty, and wasn't even given a chance to respond to the allegations. Nefario never went to the police as far as I know.

I'm not sure whether I should release IPs at all, really. I'd like to see a discussion about the morality of this. Releasing IPs enables people to act violently toward the accused person, either in person or through police. Is it really right to commit violence against someone just because he did something non-violently over the Internet? I'm not sure. Services should ideally be set up so that scamming is impossible and as a result no one is ever tempted toward violence.

I'd be careful about releasing IPs without a search warrant or court order, which would obviously provide you immunity if you complied.  But if someone were to take the type of action you describe in your post, you couldn't be criminally prosecuted, but you could be made a party to a wrongful death/personal injury type of civil suit.  A plaintiff (or even a defendant through comparative fault) could try to place a percentage of the liability at your feet for negligence or maybe even an intentional tort, such as intentional infliction of emotional distress.  
Pages:
Jump to: