except that 1 USB stick each was delivered to the Rep and Dem party offices.
do you consider that fact any indication that someone obtained those documents?
Topic: The Entire World Just Found Out about Bitcoin! - page 6. (Read 13176 times)
do you consider that fact any indication that someone obtained those documents?
why is everybody making such an overblown story from that? anyone with a brain can figure out the following things: (crosspost from g+)
just by skimming the text at http://pastebin.com/1j1yzQ9S , i think of the following indications why its a hoax:
1 - anyone could have written this text on pastebin. there is zero proof somone got their hands on any document at PwC
2 - the way the document is written is in a very emotional way and trys to provoke back and forth.
3 - it would be much more effective to privately contact romney/PwC for extortion. if they would pay the way described it would be a gigantic media blowout against romney so they have no choice as to ignore it or try to settle without bitcoin (anyone can observe what is paid on the given address)
4 - the payment instructions are somewhat ambigously defined, if it was real i would expect a round bitcoin amount.
5 - if real, they would have provided some real proof and details, like document ids, filenames, paths, or some details from the documents.
6 -if he is trying to show his insight into internal PwC ongoings, why is he quoting the receptionist number? i would reference the phone extension closest to the original physical storage location of the documents (either IT or a specialist department)
7- the last two lines which should appear as some sort of "proof" are deliberatly chosen to make fun of his momonism (is that the P.C. term?) again, just provoking.
just by skimming the text at http://pastebin.com/1j1yzQ9S , i think of the following indications why its a hoax:
1 - anyone could have written this text on pastebin. there is zero proof somone got their hands on any document at PwC
2 - the way the document is written is in a very emotional way and trys to provoke back and forth.
3 - it would be much more effective to privately contact romney/PwC for extortion. if they would pay the way described it would be a gigantic media blowout against romney so they have no choice as to ignore it or try to settle without bitcoin (anyone can observe what is paid on the given address)
4 - the payment instructions are somewhat ambigously defined, if it was real i would expect a round bitcoin amount.
5 - if real, they would have provided some real proof and details, like document ids, filenames, paths, or some details from the documents.
6 -if he is trying to show his insight into internal PwC ongoings, why is he quoting the receptionist number? i would reference the phone extension closest to the original physical storage location of the documents (either IT or a specialist department)
7- the last two lines which should appear as some sort of "proof" are deliberatly chosen to make fun of his momonism (is that the P.C. term?) again, just provoking.
except that 1 USB stick each was delivered to the Rep and Dem party offices.
This is actually a decent point....bitcoins could be used to make/take illegal campaign contributions on the down low. That said, I think btcs instability would help to curb that.
You can bet that plenty of elected officials would love to be able to accept dirty money without risking the embarassment of having their freezer full of cash discovered.
why is everybody making such an overblown story from that? anyone with a brain can figure out the following things: (crosspost from g+)
just by skimming the text at http://pastebin.com/1j1yzQ9S , i think of the following indications why its a hoax:
1 - anyone could have written this text on pastebin. there is zero proof somone got their hands on any document at PwC
2 - the way the document is written is in a very emotional way and trys to provoke back and forth.
3 - it would be much more effective to privately contact romney/PwC for extortion. if they would pay the way described it would be a gigantic media blowout against romney so they have no choice as to ignore it or try to settle without bitcoin (anyone can observe what is paid on the given address)
4 - the payment instructions are somewhat ambigously defined, if it was real i would expect a round bitcoin amount.
5 - if real, they would have provided some real proof and details, like document ids, filenames, paths, or some details from the documents.
6 -if he is trying to show his insight into internal PwC ongoings, why is he quoting the receptionist number? i would reference the phone extension closest to the original physical storage location of the documents (either IT or a specialist department)
7- the last two lines which should appear as some sort of "proof" are deliberatly chosen to make fun of his momonism (is that the P.C. term?) again, just provoking.
just by skimming the text at http://pastebin.com/1j1yzQ9S , i think of the following indications why its a hoax:
1 - anyone could have written this text on pastebin. there is zero proof somone got their hands on any document at PwC
2 - the way the document is written is in a very emotional way and trys to provoke back and forth.
3 - it would be much more effective to privately contact romney/PwC for extortion. if they would pay the way described it would be a gigantic media blowout against romney so they have no choice as to ignore it or try to settle without bitcoin (anyone can observe what is paid on the given address)
4 - the payment instructions are somewhat ambigously defined, if it was real i would expect a round bitcoin amount.
5 - if real, they would have provided some real proof and details, like document ids, filenames, paths, or some details from the documents.
6 -if he is trying to show his insight into internal PwC ongoings, why is he quoting the receptionist number? i would reference the phone extension closest to the original physical storage location of the documents (either IT or a specialist department)
7- the last two lines which should appear as some sort of "proof" are deliberatly chosen to make fun of his momonism (is that the P.C. term?) again, just provoking.
Mitt Romney did this himself, and he has secretly been investing in bitcoins the past few months. His plan all along was to make a big deal out of not sharing his tax returns so everybody would notice when they were "stolen". Then suddenly everybody finds out about bitcoins, the price spikes as people rush into this wonderful new currency, and he sells his massive bitcoin holdings at a hefty profit. Then he can retire, if he doesn't get elected president.
Ok, now I am going to take off the tin-foil hat and go back to normal.
Ok, now I am going to take off the tin-foil hat and go back to normal.
http://i.imgur.com/6oZVa.jpg
To be honest, I'm sure all kinds of blackmail threats are made towards candidates every election year. What's notable about this one - hoax or not - is that it became public.
To be honest, I'm sure all kinds of blackmail threats are made towards candidates every election year. What's notable about this one - hoax or not - is that it became public.
where'd you get that?
It was linked to on SomethingAwful. It probably came from the reddit thread. It's likely something someone knocked up just for shit and giggles.
http://i.imgur.com/6oZVa.jpg
To be honest, I'm sure all kinds of blackmail threats are made towards candidates every election year. What's notable about this one - hoax or not - is that it became public.
To be honest, I'm sure all kinds of blackmail threats are made towards candidates every election year. What's notable about this one - hoax or not - is that it became public.
From Reddit :
Quote
The reason it's a hoax, and not even an elaborate one at that, is that Page 1 makes zero sense.
First - you remember all those hedge fund income statements we saw? All that income flows to Line 17. It is essentially impossible that this is a flat $50,000. Whoever created this did it poorly. Line 12, Business Income, is for my consulting business, or my speaking engagements, or my flower store, or my interior design business.
Even more obvious is that Line 12 would almost without a doubt be subject to self-employment tax. That would be about 2.6 million dollars.
You see how line 28 has nothing on it? That should be 50% of the self-employment tax shown on page 2, which we don't see. So in short, the income is on the wrong line and even if it were right, there is no corresponding deduction for the self-employment tax.
The end.
First - you remember all those hedge fund income statements we saw? All that income flows to Line 17. It is essentially impossible that this is a flat $50,000. Whoever created this did it poorly. Line 12, Business Income, is for my consulting business, or my speaking engagements, or my flower store, or my interior design business.
Even more obvious is that Line 12 would almost without a doubt be subject to self-employment tax. That would be about 2.6 million dollars.
You see how line 28 has nothing on it? That should be 50% of the self-employment tax shown on page 2, which we don't see. So in short, the income is on the wrong line and even if it were right, there is no corresponding deduction for the self-employment tax.
The end.
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ze9zn/hackers_say_they_nabbed_romneys_tax_records_plan/
http://i.imgur.com/6oZVa.jpg
To be honest, I'm sure all kinds of blackmail threats are made towards candidates every election year. What's notable about this one - hoax or not - is that it became public.
To be honest, I'm sure all kinds of blackmail threats are made towards candidates every election year. What's notable about this one - hoax or not - is that it became public.
where'd you get that?
Google search by image turns up nothing... Strange
This is definitely a negative thing, although it will more than likely cause a short term bubble it will wake politicians up to the fact there's an online currency that makes all the worlds banks NYC policies redundant. accepting bribes and kickbacks easy.
fixedThis is actually a decent point....bitcoins could be used to make/take illegal campaign contributions on the down low. That said, I think btcs instability would help to curb that.
This is definitely a negative thing, although it will more than likely cause a short term bubble it will wake politicians up to the fact there's an online currency that makes all the worlds banks NYC policies redundant.
The nature of this scam will highlight just how dangerous to a government that can be.
The nature of this scam will highlight just how dangerous to a government that can be.
why's that? he could've just as easily asked for $1M USD's and you wouldn't have batted an eye. but Bitcoin and you do?
No that's exactly the point I'm making you couldn't have just as easily asked for $1 USD's
why not? drug dealers do it all the time. and some banks.
How can you possibly do something high profile like this with either cash or normal banking I don't understand your reasoning?
Now on The Wall Street Journal.
They say there is "no evidence that anybody had gained access to Mitt Romney’s old tax returns" according to accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers.
They say there is "no evidence that anybody had gained access to Mitt Romney’s old tax returns" according to accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers.
They also don't even mention bitcoin in this one.
duh
Now on The Wall Street Journal.
They say there is "no evidence that anybody had gained access to Mitt Romney’s old tax returns" according to accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers.
They say there is "no evidence that anybody had gained access to Mitt Romney’s old tax returns" according to accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers.
They also don't even mention bitcoin in this one.
So if someone ask a ransom in dollar then they will ban dollar?
http://i.imgur.com/6oZVa.jpg
To be honest, I'm sure all kinds of blackmail threats are made towards candidates every election year. What's notable about this one - hoax or not - is that it became public.
To be honest, I'm sure all kinds of blackmail threats are made towards candidates every election year. What's notable about this one - hoax or not - is that it became public.
where'd you get that?
Now on The Wall Street Journal.
They say there is "no evidence that anybody had gained access to Mitt Romney’s old tax returns" according to accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers.
They say there is "no evidence that anybody had gained access to Mitt Romney’s old tax returns" according to accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers.
This is definitely a negative thing, although it will more than likely cause a short term bubble it will wake politicians up to the fact there's an online currency that makes all the worlds banks NYC policies redundant.
The nature of this scam will highlight just how dangerous to a government that can be.
The nature of this scam will highlight just how dangerous to a government that can be.
why's that? he could've just as easily asked for $1M USD's and you wouldn't have batted an eye. but Bitcoin and you do?
No that's exactly the point I'm making you couldn't have just as easily asked for $1 USD's
why not? drug dealers do it all the time. and some banks.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but I definitely agree that this will make bitcoin seem more like a threat than if it were presented under other circumstances.
This is definitely a negative thing, although it will more than likely cause a short term bubble it will wake politicians up to the fact there's an online currency that makes all the worlds banks NYC policies redundant. accepting bribes and kickbacks easy.
fixed 
hackers gonna hack
This is definitely a negative thing, although it will more than likely cause a short term bubble it will wake politicians up to the fact there's an online currency that makes all the worlds banks NYC policies redundant.
The nature of this scam will highlight just how dangerous to a government that can be.
The nature of this scam will highlight just how dangerous to a government that can be.
why's that? he could've just as easily asked for $1M USD's and you wouldn't have batted an eye. but Bitcoin and you do?
No that's exactly the point I'm making you couldn't have just as easily asked for $1m USD's
Jump to: