Topic: Theymos: What the fuck is up with BFL and TradeFortress? - page 10. (Read 14312 times)

Can I just remind people that I am over 10 BTC out of pocket as a direct result of TradeFortress's actions.

Only one user took 1 BTC, as a test, and offered it back to me.

*AFTER* that TradeFortress sent one of his IOUs for 15BTC to bitcointalk user aadje93 ripple address rMyHUbgreHFvvxoD5pGmg1fKRdSBHisy39 who then immediately withdrew 9.15 BTC to bitstamp.

See https://ripple.com/graph/#rH3bZsvVUhzugvcYuJVoSYCEMHkfK6wHNv

Mods: please check the IPs of this user aadje93 to see if it's the same as TradeFortress.

TradeFortress personally took these actions AFTER the entire thing was proved and tested, he issued a IOU to the above user so they could take the BTC he sent to them, the BTC he took from me.

These are legitimate concerns and questions, however what TradeFortress did does not illustrate your concerns, it merely shows that he can use technology that newbies don't understand to facilitate a fraud.   At this point in the Ripple system you don't trust any issuer of USD that you don't trust equally with another issuer.  You may not like it, but that's how it works right now.  He is taking advantage of ignorance, while simultaneously misleading through half truths and lies.  Read his post on the Newbie board if you're unclear on this.

He said he was going to deposit 1 BTC in to a person's Ripple account.    A newbie who barely understands Bitcoin is not going to understand that in a completely different system (Ripple) that BTC is an IOU.    Then add an additional layer of complication in that most people are not used to being in control of who they trust when it comes to money IOU's (government usually is) and you have a recipe for theft that is unnecessary and proves nothing but that Tradefortress is willing to hurt people in order to take down Ripple.

The worst part about it is he has credibility on this board and so newbies are liable to trust him (Luckily a moderator put warnings on his OP, since all warnings by other people were self-moderated by Tradefortress).  Abusing this trust and not having moderators put a REAL stop to it  - This is just plain wrong.

Yeah I don't want to doubt your trust and reliability, but when I read a post that's making a pretty strong accusation against the owner of a service that I recently deposited money to (CoinLenders) it worries me. Nevertheless thanks for reassuring your trustworthiness I actually bought another bitcoin today to deposit into my CoinLenders account. BTW how popular is your site? I mean you can't guarantee that my BTC will gain any interest if it isn't loaned right? With that said, can I have your permission to advertise CoinLenders on my signature space in an effort to try to provide entrepreneurs an option for funding and hopefully increase my chances of earning interest? Or am I not understanding the concept of your business?

Thanks TradeFortress, I think you're doing everyone a service by getting them to take a hard look at how ripple works.

I was just at the bitcoin conference, and I had at least a dozen conversations about ripple. Pretty much none of the people I spoke with understand it. Even some of the guys in the ripple booth (though they were courteous and eager to help), got stumped on some issues.

My primary concern with ripple is exactly what TradeFortress has just demonstrated. Ripple IOUs have different values based on the issuer. If they traded on an open market, you would see this. IOUs for a trusted institution are worth more than IOUs for a less trusted one. E.g. you might see Bitstamp USD IOUs trading against Weexchange IOUs at a non-1 rate, such as 1.1.

But we don't see that in ripple (as far as I can tell). Instead, we see a markets labelled by the currencies only, such as USD/XRP. But whose USD? Where's the Bitstamp USD / Weexchange USD market?

The fact that default risk fluctuates is acknowledged by participants in the real financial markets. We have credit markets. The values of various entities' credit float against one another. They are not all the same.

When I posed this question in the ripple booth yesterday, here is the (paraphrased) answer I got:
me: "So what's up with this automatic liquidity providing, given that some IOUs are more valuable than others? Couldn't we have a 'bank run' type situation when a gateway starts to look like they're in financial trouble, and innocent ripple users who happened to be 'asleep at the wheel' at the time wind up holding all the bad debt?"

ripple employee: "Good point. I think that the protocol supports setting a price at which you are willing to exchange a certain issuer's IOUs for another issuer's. It doesn't have to be 1:1. I think the client just doesn't support this yet."

me: "Okay, cool. But does it have to be a fixed amount or is there some kind of floating rate?"

ripple employee: "I think it's just a fixed amount."

Needless to say, I was not particularly impressed by this answer.

Honestly, I expect to be wrong about this, because there are seemingly a lot of smart guys involved and they really seem to have strong technology. Can they really have missed some basic facts about how markets work? Na, probably I missed something. But I'm definitely not betting on it until I hear a satisfactory answer.

Pro tip: I don't break promises / contracts or scam people. Hence why I have done unescrowed trades of 300+ BTC near the peak, ssh access to servers with tens of thousands of coins, report SQL injections to btct.co/Burnside, report XSS to ukto for bit funder, paid out insurance for btcinvest, made shareholders happy, and depositors too while making me a lot of profit too.

Scammer accusations are sometimes legitimate, and sometimes just people who are butthurt and want revenge. Always do your own due diligence before doing business with someone. No amount of opinions on forum (whether positive or negative) will ever matter as much as your own common sense when dealing with people.

Damn this scam accusation against TradeFortress sounds pretty serious. Should we be cautious when using the services he advertises in his signature space? I personally love his CoinLenders site and idea. I wouldn't mind attempting to increase my BTC amount. Especially since I don't have the skills to make a mining rig.

LOL, "you did this"? I am responsible for the actions of random forum users now.

Are you going to accuse everyone defending me here as being my sockpuppet?

Webr3, dont you understand?

Its very clear that he owes you. As clear as that is the fact the he can pay you "WHENEVER HE WANTS", as long as ther is not a path for you to redeem your IOU.
So better than pushing him is to beg him to give you Bitstamp BTC.

If he has the BTC, then why make you suffer? I agree that he should try to pay you because you helped him to prove his point, as a fellow.
But he cant be tagged as a scammer.

You owe me 10.15 BTC. However, I will accept 9.15 BTC considering you did this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2215271

Exactly why I asked Theymos "If I had made the bet with Ripple IOUs instead, would I still have gotten the scammer tag?". It's a legitimate question that he needs to answer. Apparently scamming expected value, cheating, tricking, promising without delivering, whatever you want to call it-- is fine so long as it utilizes the Ripple system.

I know why you did what you did, I know why I did what I did too. I know I'm not a scammer and I'm pretty sure you're not a scammer. This isn't about you or me, this is about what people classify as "scammers", what criteria Theymos uses to give the tag out (for god's sakes, BFL still doesn't have a tag!), etc. This is about policy, protocol and having a community understanding that it's in fact not okay to play with other people's money to prove points.

MNW's promise was that he will give 100% ROI if pirate defaults. When pirate officially defaulted, he has broken his promise.

Compare to a bunch of tokens / IOUs which has zero terms. No contract unlike MNW, end of story. If I said that I would redeem those for actual BTC, and did not specify a time, then it would have to be a reasonable amount of time.

In Trade fortress case, there are IOUs issued.
This is the payment when you use Ripple trusted pathways.

You trust me 100 BTC, Im free to use them as long as I issue you an IOU.

When will you get them? I don't know. But you have the IOU. Its a Security with no maturity date, no interest, just TRUST.

What has he promised? To pay back today? Tomorrow? Next month?

When you get a loan, when you can be sued? When you default. When you default? When you don't pay it in a pre-accorded period of time.

So, since when Trade Fortress can be asked to pay the IOUs?

I said it in some other thread and want to say it again here. Matthew N. Wright didn't set the deadline for his payment in his prunk bet (there was a deadline for Pirate's payment, not Matt's). So that bet was not binding exactly the same way as IOUs are not binding. There was no date set for payout. Why did Matthew have to pay, but TradeFortress doesn't have to? Maybe so called victims who received money should return them back to Matthew?

No.  He asked people to set their trust flags in ripple and explained to them what would happen if they did.

He definitely needs the untrustworthy tag, at the least. He has asked people to trust him, which they have, with the sole intention of being untrustworthy.

I think the thing with tradefortress is pretty obvious.  He said here is a debt in a system I do not agree with.  I will not pay it.  I do not see how he can be scammer tagged for that.  He could have 'sold' false debt or otherwise made real promises and that would get him a scammer tag.  He did not do that.

I can't believe this. Ripple is an IOU trading system where the IOUs have no settlement date?! How on earth is it working at all? Is there any real business being transacted, or is it just a testing ground for enthusiasts?

I agree that no one can be called a scammer just because they receive something and issue an IOU for it unless they break the terms for settlement. If there are no terms for settlement then, according to the English language, the quantum of the transaction is a gift, and that is the end of the matter.

I don't know how you misinterpreted this:


Anyway, I get that a lot. If misinformation were gold, this forum would be Fort Knox.

When people trusted Trade Fortress they allowed him to do whatever he wants with their money in exchange for "now I owe you xx bitcoins". Thats what the ripple network provides in exchange for TF BTCs.

They cant be redeemed unless you and someone who trusts Trade Fortress trust the same gateway. Then, when you redeem your BTC, someone who trusts Trade FOrtress will have his "gateway btc" exchanged by a "TF BTC".mis this right?

You trust, you learn.