The escrow Mr. Notaek did find a reasonable solution in which I hope all involved parties are happy.
Injustice as far it it can been undone has been undone.
Thread = Locked
Trust review = Revised.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
- Edmund Burke
Topic: OPHION Escrow Notaek chooses greed over logical sense (Read 837 times)
Time to close this thread.
So here's the finalization of the mess:
I made a mistake in returning the funds to scammer instead of waiting for the next day. ( I received the email at 1 am and took the decision soon after)
All the pending payments are hereby cleared: b97205dbdda3f7f87ff8817448fb57606553b9b1b4c861c0fb3f8e0054b941d6
Those who were not eligible for payment also received $1 as compensation: 6584f7b04062dd123a3a1dd69226e71e9a27c865e9939566cb976dd940116e0a
Everyone makes mistakes at some point of time. Learning from a mistake is what makes oneself sensible.
And insulting always isn't a perfect solution to a problem.
I made a mistake in returning the funds to scammer instead of waiting for the next day. ( I received the email at 1 am and took the decision soon after)
All the pending payments are hereby cleared: b97205dbdda3f7f87ff8817448fb57606553b9b1b4c861c0fb3f8e0054b941d6
Those who were not eligible for payment also received $1 as compensation: 6584f7b04062dd123a3a1dd69226e71e9a27c865e9939566cb976dd940116e0a
Everyone makes mistakes at some point of time. Learning from a mistake is what makes oneself sensible.
And insulting always isn't a perfect solution to a problem.
I don't see how he was 'fast' he has reacted today and he was far for fast. He seem to be ignoring all threads throughout the day.
@all
I am not here for 10 dollars... This is something way bigger then that. An signature member/escrow who, and I state this again, deliberately did action to harm signature members.
There are 4 and problaby more reason to NEVER do such a thing. Yet he chose do it. If you read this reasons you will not believe a member with this stature would do this except for self gain.
I've said it before and I am happy to say it before. Yes, I've lost 0.025 BTC, but never should such a person be responsible for funds or even a campaign, since he clearly has proven to be a very non-reliable factor.
This is not a witch hunt, the accusation itself is to protect other users from such a devious and dark person. Isn't the trust system made for this exact reason?
@all
I am not here for 10 dollars... This is something way bigger then that. An signature member/escrow who, and I state this again, deliberately did action to harm signature members.
There are 4 and problaby more reason to NEVER do such a thing. Yet he chose do it. If you read this reasons you will not believe a member with this stature would do this except for self gain.
I've said it before and I am happy to say it before. Yes, I've lost 0.025 BTC, but never should such a person be responsible for funds or even a campaign, since he clearly has proven to be a very non-reliable factor.
This is not a witch hunt, the accusation itself is to protect other users from such a devious and dark person. Isn't the trust system made for this exact reason?
Notaek made a mistake here, which I think he by now is aware of.
However, he also seems to be ready trying to fix that mistake and work things out.
However, he also seems to be ready trying to fix that mistake and work things out.
I request BTCat to prepare his spreadsheet and send me the amount I need to repay.
Lets see if I can find a solution to this.
I'd at least give him the chance to react and do what he plans to before joining in together and bashing him to the ground (which will help no-one right now).Lets see if I can find a solution to this.
Yeah he did a mistake there.I think he was a little fast with his decision that eventually turned out to be a wrong one.He should have already thought of asking about it with the participants .ATM as Lutpin said instead of bashing him we should give him time to react.He has ATM no choice rather than paying signature posters from his own pocket as Quickseller said above.
Notaek has violated the true meaning of escrow , in fact he was used as escrow to insure that everyone is paid on time but he failed to act accordingly. I must say now it is notaek turn to reimburse the money and the participants should be paid.
I will say he wasn't ready for that kind of situation and did up a mistake reacting to it fast.He is still good in taking up decision and am sure he will find a solution to this problem.
Notaek has violated the true meaning of escrow , in fact he was used as escrow to insure that everyone is paid on time but he failed to act accordingly. I must say now it is notaek turn to reimburse the money and the participants should be paid.
I'm appointed by Hazelnutter to hold the funds for this campaign and this is the address for that purpose: 1833TEnNNzLkgvyT9BqfxQFH9JBHFr8AGs
Signature can be verified here.
Code:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
I, notaek from bitcointalk, am holding the funds for Ophion Signature Campaign on: 1833TEnNNzLkgvyT9BqfxQFH9JBHFr8AGs
This is to ensure that the funds are safely insured and I'll be rolling out payments for the campaign from time to time.
Signed on May 14, 2016
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Keybase OpenPGP v2.0.53
Comment: https://keybase.io/crypto
wsBcBAABCgAGBQJXN5dZAAoJEBI9bCdjrvBENcEIAKYGIZCQLAH2bdY9boEVq0Sw
h3zK33htpBXk4vJaMwT6bavD5OYbCAH3NoF5lynrfMU5Yxdss+kGprvP8aFnhtmB
hYOxBwFMOujAYHmfy4s4WagX/BOOCLIoj5+tfTKx8YmDiF2yBp69LDou73xJaOdd
E/boofRjveegKgvKcz3a4uVKkAZxICoP5FGjRKSOb6aQMmF8UjuYW4YI1XenAMbT
4CRaecZ67GIy2ugTWBzkC6lArWoDEYDkG0S0Z5TgEUirw0gQIbUveysvWppTKz08
eTgB8FaEWdOGfbLeiuQQXFmKRMTzV74fGcYY89B8lp6gdn7MdsWhThrUu0ZT2Fo=
=OBQ8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Signature can be verified here.
I am not sure why he would return the funds when participants are owed money and he is guaranteeing payment to the participants.
I would say that if participants end up not getting paid by the people behind the signature campaign then he will need to pay his own money to pay the signature campaign participants up to the amount he was holding in escrow. Otherwise he is not honoring his promise to "insure" the funds.
While it may seem that it would be a good situation for all other campaign managers to see this type of situation happening to another member i assure you i personally am not getting any enjoyment out of this scam accusation. These mistakes look bad for all managers period. Same goes for situations such as gianluca. I posted my opinion of the guy but at no point in time did i try n swoop in n steal the campaigns he is managing.
I have no clue if notaek is involved or if he just did something ignorant but anytime members are screwed out of funds its a shitty situation. If notaek ever finds himself in this situation again i think the best course of action for him would be to explain to the owner of the campaign, no matter if closing the project or not, is under obligation to pay the participants he hired. The funds he put in escrow are put there to protect the company, the advertisers, and the campaign manager. Theyre not refundable if a campaign is active. Now if a few ppl didnt qualify for the 1st weeks payment and funds are left over, then yes close the project and recieve the left over funds.
The question im asking myself is does notaek deserve a neg? The only answer i can provide is no unless he is found to be involved in the scam. Is he responsible to pay the users who are owed money? Well being as he was the escrow for the campaign and admittingly sent the funds back i would say yes.
If anyone disagrees post your own opinions
I have no clue if notaek is involved or if he just did something ignorant but anytime members are screwed out of funds its a shitty situation. If notaek ever finds himself in this situation again i think the best course of action for him would be to explain to the owner of the campaign, no matter if closing the project or not, is under obligation to pay the participants he hired. The funds he put in escrow are put there to protect the company, the advertisers, and the campaign manager. Theyre not refundable if a campaign is active. Now if a few ppl didnt qualify for the 1st weeks payment and funds are left over, then yes close the project and recieve the left over funds.
The question im asking myself is does notaek deserve a neg? The only answer i can provide is no unless he is found to be involved in the scam. Is he responsible to pay the users who are owed money? Well being as he was the escrow for the campaign and admittingly sent the funds back i would say yes.
If anyone disagrees post your own opinions
Interesting since you were quite fast on the the gianluca campaign (yeah I read a lot) tos say so it wasn't me?
I don't think you are even in a position to judge or talk, because well. you are a signature campaign manager yourself. Your amateurism makes you react to this thread for whatever reason but you seem to be bored. Of felt bad or do some good to your (buddy) notaek.
Let me tell you Yahoo. If my colleague was attacked I would be ignorant. Just doing my work. But wherever signatures managers are, you seem to pop up. And you are the only one one..The smater, wiser sig. managers dececidd to keep away from this or the other threads, But you didn't that's sad man. I feel for you. I wist I could hire you to block you.. Because in a way you are nothing better then the scammers, backing up the wrong guys.. .
Im not backing up anybody here. I gave my opinion same as you, only im not butthurt over my 10$. Youre pissed off, i get it, but direct your anger in a different direction. If you want to go on a crusade start with yourself and learn how to spell
I don't think you are even in a position to judge or talk, because well. you are a signature campaign manager yourself.
Wouldn't that put me in the same situation? (If none told you yet, I manage signature campaigns myself.)Yet I am, and will continue to, talk right here about right this.
And you are the only one one..The smater, wiser sig. managers dececidd to keep away from this or the other threads, But you didn't that's sad man.
Which would make me as stupid as him, I guess.Btw, you made a little typo in your avatar over there.
The guy is called "notaek" not "noteak".
While it may seem that it would be a good situation for all other campaign managers to see this type of situation happening to another member i assure you i personally am not getting any enjoyment out of this scam accusation. These mistakes look bad for all managers period. Same goes for situations such as gianluca. I posted my opinion of the guy but at no point in time did i try n swoop in n steal the campaigns he is managing.
I have no clue if notaek is involved or if he just did something ignorant but anytime members are screwed out of funds its a shitty situation. If notaek ever finds himself in this situation again i think the best course of action for him would be to explain to the owner of the campaign, no matter if closing the project or not, is under obligation to pay the participants he hired. The funds he put in escrow are put there to protect the company, the advertisers, and the campaign manager. Theyre not refundable if a campaign is active. Now if a few ppl didnt qualify for the 1st weeks payment and funds are left over, then yes close the project and recieve the left over funds.
The question im asking myself is does notaek deserve a neg? The only answer i can provide is no unless he is found to be involved in the scam. Is he responsible to pay the users who are owed money? Well being as he was the escrow for the campaign and admittingly sent the funds back i would say yes.
If anyone disagrees post your own opinions
I have no clue if notaek is involved or if he just did something ignorant but anytime members are screwed out of funds its a shitty situation. If notaek ever finds himself in this situation again i think the best course of action for him would be to explain to the owner of the campaign, no matter if closing the project or not, is under obligation to pay the participants he hired. The funds he put in escrow are put there to protect the company, the advertisers, and the campaign manager. Theyre not refundable if a campaign is active. Now if a few ppl didnt qualify for the 1st weeks payment and funds are left over, then yes close the project and recieve the left over funds.
The question im asking myself is does notaek deserve a neg? The only answer i can provide is no unless he is found to be involved in the scam. Is he responsible to pay the users who are owed money? Well being as he was the escrow for the campaign and admittingly sent the funds back i would say yes.
If anyone disagrees post your own opinions
Interesting since you were quite fast on the the gianluca campaign (yeah I read a lot) tos say so it wasn't me?
I don't think you are even in a position to judge or talk, because well. you are a signature campaign manager yourself. Your amateurism makes you react to this thread for whatever reason but you seem to be bored. Of felt bad or do some good to your (buddy) notaek.
Let me tell you Yahoo. If my colleague was attacked I would be ignorant. Just doing my work. But wherever signatures managers are, you seem to pop up. And you are the only one one..The smater, wiser sig. managers dececidd to keep away from this or the other threads, But you didn't that's sad man. I feel for you. I wist I could hire you to block you.. Because in a way you are nothing better then the scammers, backing up the wrong guys.. .
I think it's prudent for the DT members to hold off on the negative feedback for right now, until the facts are in or until the situation gets resolved. And I understand how pissed off the campaign members must be, and I'd totally get it if they left negative trust. It's a lousy situation, but bitcoin is chock-full of lousy situations just like this one.
1) You are enjoying this like Real enjoys a defeat of Barcelona and all signature managers, yahoo, zengry.
No, I'm not. You may believe me there or you may not, either way, I can honestly say I do not enjoy this.While there is a little competition amongst signature campaign managers (obviously), I also tend to maintain good relations with some of them.
Notaek is one example, I've initially suggested him to the admins of NakedBitcoins, which led to him running their campaign.
Another example would be SFR10, who is in my campaign for a long time now, and who I value on a personal level.
Yahoo I had my run-ins with, but I don't hold any grudge against him (and I hope neither does he).
2) His plan? you have read his comment too. He is playing innocent.
I've also read the PMs we both exchanged afterwards.All I'm saying is that I want to give him a chance to come clean with everything.
He might just yet have realized how big a mess he is in.
Integrity is important to me and this thief should be caught before he does more damage
I tend to think of myself as a person with integrity, which is a core value to me aswell.
While it may seem that it would be a good situation for all other campaign managers to see this type of situation happening to another member i assure you i personally am not getting any enjoyment out of this scam accusation. These mistakes look bad for all managers period. Same goes for situations such as gianluca. I posted my opinion of the guy but at no point in time did i try n swoop in n steal the campaigns he is managing.
I have no clue if notaek is involved or if he just did something ignorant but anytime members are screwed out of funds its a shitty situation. If notaek ever finds himself in this situation again i think the best course of action for him would be to explain to the owner of the campaign, no matter if closing the project or not, is under obligation to pay the participants he hired. The funds he put in escrow are put there to protect the company, the advertisers, and the campaign manager. Theyre not refundable if a campaign is active. Now if a few ppl didnt qualify for the 1st weeks payment and funds are left over, then yes close the project and recieve the left over funds.
The question im asking myself is does notaek deserve a neg? The only answer i can provide is no unless he is found to be involved in the scam. Is he responsible to pay the users who are owed money? Well being as he was the escrow for the campaign and admittingly sent the funds back i would say yes.
If anyone disagrees post your own opinions
I have no clue if notaek is involved or if he just did something ignorant but anytime members are screwed out of funds its a shitty situation. If notaek ever finds himself in this situation again i think the best course of action for him would be to explain to the owner of the campaign, no matter if closing the project or not, is under obligation to pay the participants he hired. The funds he put in escrow are put there to protect the company, the advertisers, and the campaign manager. Theyre not refundable if a campaign is active. Now if a few ppl didnt qualify for the 1st weeks payment and funds are left over, then yes close the project and recieve the left over funds.
The question im asking myself is does notaek deserve a neg? The only answer i can provide is no unless he is found to be involved in the scam. Is he responsible to pay the users who are owed money? Well being as he was the escrow for the campaign and admittingly sent the funds back i would say yes.
If anyone disagrees post your own opinions
Notaek made a mistake here, which I think he by now is aware of.
However, he also seems to be ready trying to fix that mistake and work things out.
However, he also seems to be ready trying to fix that mistake and work things out.
I request BTCat to prepare his spreadsheet and send me the amount I need to repay.
Lets see if I can find a solution to this.
I'd at least give him the chance to react and do what he plans to before joining in together and bashing him to the ground (which will help no-one right now).Lets see if I can find a solution to this.
Lutpin come on man.
1) You are enjoying this like Real enjoys a defeat of Barcelona and all signature managers, yahoo, zengry.
2) His plan? you have read his comment too. He is playing innocent.
This guy is in on it. And not a little bit.
Just check the facts. He deserves a negative until he proves a negative.
I got no interest in this since I forfit my 10 dollars
. Integrity is important to me and this thief should be caught before he does more damage Notaek made a mistake here, which I think he by now is aware of.
However, he also seems to be ready trying to fix that mistake and work things out.
This may be true but mistakes like those can really affect people. I mean the campaign was 1 day before payment. Can I just hire a signature campaign manager and set up a fake campaign and 1 day before payment ask for my bitcoins back? It was a mistake but it was a very stupid one. However, he also seems to be ready trying to fix that mistake and work things out.
I request BTCat to prepare his spreadsheet and send me the amount I need to repay.
Lets see if I can find a solution to this.
I'd at least give him the chance to react and do what he plans to before joining in together and bashing him to the ground (which will help no-one right now).Lets see if I can find a solution to this.
Notaek made a mistake here, which I think he by now is aware of.
However, he also seems to be ready trying to fix that mistake and work things out.
However, he also seems to be ready trying to fix that mistake and work things out.
I request BTCat to prepare his spreadsheet and send me the amount I need to repay.
Lets see if I can find a solution to this.
I'd at least give him the chance to react and do what he plans to before joining in together and bashing him to the ground (which will help no-one right now). Lets see if I can find a solution to this.
I wake up and saw the scam accusation thread made by user Joel , I just wonder the decision made by notaek is really bullshit and immature.
What happened: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1472638.100
Scammers Profile Link: Notaek https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/notaek-76847
Reference Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1472638.100
Amount Scammed: It's hard to say how much he got, but .3 BTC seems a ok figure
Payment Method: Bitcoin
Proof of Payment: Anything associated with these Addresses could be an answer https://blockchain.info/address/1LnjyM12aPkzceninWeoEFkiTYXpVNH6Tp Altough with the mixers it's hard to say.
PM/Chat Logs: N/A
Additional Notes: This thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1472638.100 and especially this reaction should explain all:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14915087
There is a difference between being dumb (no understanding of real world events) and acting dump. The fact he paid it just hours ago, while the scam was "cleared" early morning tells it all.
The Manager BTCat also doesn't seem very 'intelligent' he closes the thread without ANY explanation at all. Which is suspicious
Scammers Profile Link: Notaek https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/notaek-76847
Reference Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1472638.100
Amount Scammed: It's hard to say how much he got, but .3 BTC seems a ok figure
Payment Method: Bitcoin
Proof of Payment: Anything associated with these Addresses could be an answer https://blockchain.info/address/1LnjyM12aPkzceninWeoEFkiTYXpVNH6Tp Altough with the mixers it's hard to say.
PM/Chat Logs: N/A
Additional Notes: This thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1472638.100 and especially this reaction should explain all:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14915087
There is a difference between being dumb (no understanding of real world events) and acting dump. The fact he paid it just hours ago, while the scam was "cleared" early morning tells it all.
The Manager BTCat also doesn't seem very 'intelligent' he closes the thread without ANY explanation at all. Which is suspicious
Jump to: