Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Samupaha

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 32
16
@Murderistic, I think it's a real misstep to let Mark be the face of of your marketing campaign.  While it may be unfair to label him a scammer, it is very clear that he is not a good business person.  Fact is, he did at the very least ROYALLY screw up and lost a bunch of money for a bunch of people.  And yeah, it doesn't look good from the outside looking in.  But again, in a civilized society where people have the right to due process, and there are laws against slandering/libeling others (as there should be), no one should be claiming with any certainty that he is a scammer.   

As I've been digging into Banx case for the last few days, I've become very convinced that there is no way it could have been legitimate business. Lyford has been lying, deceiving and misleading people the whole time. When somebody criticizes him, he just denies it aggressively and usually calls the critic "troll" or "hater" who doesn't know anything. Many times he just deletes all messages that he doesn't agree with. Apparently he thinks that if he denies his fraudulent behavior enough many times, people will believe him. So he just continues to do that even when the evidence is totally clear.

According to the messages in Bitcointalk, investors are not happy and Lyford is under investigation. I'd be surprised if he doesn't go to jail because of Banx.

Quote
Here's something that all of Lyford's investors should be looking at, what exactly has he closed down?, there are no formal filings with companies house that I can see so perhaps all he has done is turn off the website & turn his back?, is he naive enough to think that this will suffice?
Then the question arises, what entity exactly sold the shares to the investors>, was it Banx Ltd?, if so than a formal liquidation needs to occur with a full winding up process undertaken with final tax returns filed,
or was it Mark Lyford as an individual? in which case, given that you cannot liquidate an individual if he cannot repay the investors he will need to file for personal bankruptcy (again), this will be a good thing as it will kill his directorships of any other company he may be associated with & offers the investors the opportunity to pursue adversarial proceedings against him to deny him bankruptcy protection from his debts,in other words, kill his credit for at least 20 years,small token,
something to watch
source

Quote
a UK based investor managed to track Lyford down yesterday via 'phone, Lyford agreed to meet the investor to offer an explanation of what had caused the problems & a way forward, no one will be surprised to read that Lyford was a no show, no explanation no excuse he simply didn't turn up, he is a sociopath, he simply does not care about anyone but himself & he will do whatever it takes to get what he wants, he has hurt a lot of people & it means absolutely nothing to him, now the situation is that he sees himself as the victim, after all he has done for everyone!!
anyway, the investor went straight to the police & filed a complaint, best thing he could have done given the circumstances,
source

Quote
"I know Mark didn't set out to scam everyone"

well,maybe not "everyone" but it's close, for my part I know that he stole $30k from me & tried to grab an additional $150k during 2015 & into 2016,in my opinion what he presented to me was pure fabrication from day one, the profits that were allegedly being generated and which he added to my balance statements (giving me a total declared value of $52k in Dec 2015) were bogus & had never been achieved by any legitimate means, (net value today $6.41...........maybe!)

The sheer length of time that Mark kept this scam running could very well be his undoing, there is no logical,sensible or believable explanation for what he was doing or why, we have a total mix of initial inducement to misrepresentation to bogus profit shares to a total lack of fiduciary duty,
source

Quote
As of now I have managed to connect with 7 of Lyfords investors, we are uniting to lodge formal complaints with various authorities, is there any other investor out there that may want to join in?, you can message me via this forum,
I have to say that after talking to my fellow investors that this situation is nothing at all to do with bad luck, it has nothing to do with the world not being ready for Lyford's business, it has everything to do with it being a concerted effort by a morally bankrupt Lyford to scam as much money as possible from wherever he could get his thieving hands on it, he has lied & misled everyone, he is even now still trying to buy time to avert any negative action,
If you are an investor or anyone here knows of anyone that has opted to believe in Lyford at this late stage & to give him time to make things right, get in touch, share your experience, you will find that he is not legitimate, he has no plans to make anyone whole, I'm wondering where the off-shore money is stashed & just when he will hightail it out of Dodge,
Lyford is a con, it is that simple,
source

Quote
He deleted his post on Facebook and therefore all the comments that went with it.

I saw four of the comments he got before it was deleted:

*Begin copy/paste from FB*

Commenter number 1
Think you should hold your hands up and be a bit more truthful Mark. Half a million dollers investment and u created fuck all. Most investors are going to be wondering where the money has gone coz i believe you used Banx shares to pay for the exchange and other services etc. It was only one month ago you were mivering me for more money for investment when you know the company had already collapsed. I can honestly say the trolls were 100% correct, you were running a ponzi scheme and u were caught out. Everything they said was true and the worst scenario for investors has come to pass. I think you owe investors some detailed transparency of where the funds have gone coz as i've said u created next to nothing with alot of money. I hate to say this but its true, your monthly updates in videos etc have proven you to be either full of shit or your living in some kind of dreamworld. I hope you do the correct thing and produce some legitimate transparency where investors can see that you have'nt spunked the investment on other things. Most people as you said yourself invested in you, what a mistake this has proven to be

Commenter number 2
I couldn't have put it better myself

Commenter number 3
Well said Commenter number 1! Turns out the so called trolls have been right about this clown all along! He's spanked away half a million dollars and told us nothing but a pack of lies from day 1. My friends and I invested over £100k into this shambles of a company. I wonder how much of our money he actually has left in his bank? That's a nice big house he's sitting in, who's paying for that? (There were a list of names here) where has our money gone? No transparency whatsoever. Just smoke and mirrors!

Commenter number 2
All the bullshit he's been posting on the forum for the last few months as well. Whilst all long knowing this day was coming. What a scumbag of a human he turned out to be.

*End copy/paste from FB*
source

As for the reason this thread started to begin with, I will just say this.  I personally appreciate investigative journalism or anyone's attempt to uncover a scam or fraud.  But it appears Ian DeMartino is trying to make a very circumstantial case against Michael Taggart based on a couple of erroneous bits of information on a website, and based on his association with Mark Lyford (who himself has only been shown to be a shitty business person). That's pretty flimsy.   Generally speaking, unless you have conclusive evidence, you better not go beyond warning the public about any poor business practices you have uncovered (which is clearly the case with Mark).  In other words, stick to the facts.  Be professional.  And follow the law.  Otherwise you may be worse than the person you are accusing.

According to this pdf, Banx and Taggart have been business partners. It's dated 5th November 2015 when it should have been totally clear to everybody that Banx was a scam that will fail very soon. I don't believe that Michael could have been unaware how Banx was conducting it's "business". After all, he and Mark seem to be good friends. The fact that Michael is still defending Mark so eagerly indicates that either he is a scammer too (but much better hiding his trails) or he is living in totally different reality (he is incapable of being aware of scams even when he is actively taking part in them).

So we are really talking about a real scam here. There is no way anybody can deny it, the evidence is clear. If @Murderistic wants to clear his name, he should at least publish all relevant financial information from the companies that were in business partnership with Banx to show that they were actually doing something legitimate. But given that he tried to hide the realtionship in this very thread makes me believe that we are not going to see anything else besides insults from him.

17
wow you guys are still going here....wow .

And I will be going on. I sincerely think that you and Lyford are hurting both Bitshares and Steem with you presence. Lyford is a scammer and healthy communities should kick everybody like him far away. By fiercely defending him you are implying that you are exactly the same kind of person.

18
1. I was never a part of BANX.  EVER.  I consulted with Mark at times on cases of marketing.  I didn't have anything to do with the decisions he ultimately made there.
I would like to confirm that Michael had never been a part of Banx and has only ever assisted me with marketing consultancy.

What about other way around... has Banx ever been in involved with Michael? Apparently Banx owns (or owned?) half of Remittio. If there is a discussion about relationship between Michael and Banx, don't you think this is something that would be fair to mention?



Screenshot taken from BanxCapital.com.

Would you mind telling how Banx aqcuired the shares? Were they bought with the money that came from Banx investors? Or did Michael just gave half of the company to Banx?

A little bit more on this... according to this pdf, there were quite clearly something more going on than just marketing consulting.

Quote
"Banx owns 50% of Remittio."

"Remember, Banx Shares holders ultimately get a part of the profits from Remittio, Lotto Shares and CrowdMy.com."

"We are working closely with Michael Taggart and his staff, dealing with display advertising for the DMR [Digital Money Revolution] funnel."

"We have some exciting news about DMT [DigitalMoneyTimes.com]. Michael Taggart and I have struck a deal for his company to take 50% of this website."

"We currently have over $25,000 of investment into Lotto Shares."

"CrowdMy.com will be a 50/50 partnership company with Banx and Michael Taggart’s company."

That was the message for Banx investors. They were promised profits from companies owned by Michael Taggart. No wonder that somebody could think that Michael was actually heavily involved in Banx and not only gave some marketing advice.

19
Because the thread was started by an outsider to our community who has never contributed anything to bitshares and who only joined this forum to promote his own article elsewhere and who is now here only to spread FUD.

You think he is here posting again now, after a long absence,  in order to add to our community or the development of BitShares?  Give yourself a shake of the head.

If you read the OP, you can see that he came here to warn us about well known scammers. That is really valuable for Bitshares. Or at least it would be, if people just took him seriously...

I've been researching Lyford and Banx for the last few days and the more I read about them, the more convinced I am that he is a real scammer. DeMartino has been completely right.

This is my latest post on Steem: https://steemit.com/marklyford/@ samupaha/the-case-of-banx-and-c-cex (copypaste the link and remove the space)

20
Mods: Please delete this thread.  :-[

Why would you want anything like that? On the contrary, this should be pinned so that everybody can see what kind of person Michael/Murderistic really is.

You can't solve any problems by hiding them.

21
1. I was never a part of BANX.  EVER.  I consulted with Mark at times on cases of marketing.  I didn't have anything to do with the decisions he ultimately made there.
I would like to confirm that Michael had never been a part of Banx and has only ever assisted me with marketing consultancy.

What about other way around... has Banx ever been in involved with Michael? Apparently Banx owns (or owned?) half of Remittio. If there is a discussion about relationship between Michael and Banx, don't you think this is something that would be fair to mention?



Screenshot taken from BanxCapital.com.

Would you mind telling how Banx aqcuired the shares? Were they bought with the money that came from Banx investors? Or did Michael just gave half of the company to Banx?

22
Wait and see.  :)

I really can't understand how you can think this will end well. I predict bad PR problems for Bitshares (wouldn't be the first time...).

23
MichaelX on steemit has been a prolific contributor since he discovered it recently.  A quick scan of his posts show his awesome levels of competence.

He is the single most important business developer in the world to the near term future of BitShares.

I've been always wondering why Bitshares hasn't managed to attract more great blockchain devs. If Murderistic/MichaelX has been running the show behind the scenes, that might explain something. As everybody can see from his posts in this topic, he is not very nice person. I'd run away and fast if I had to work with him. He is clearly very angry, bitter and can't tolerate any criticism. It sucks quite much to work with people like him.

It was horrifying to read Stan's approval for this person. I'm pretty sure Bitshares will have quite a lot difficulties attracting competent devs or investors as long as Michael and Mark Lyford are associated to it in any way.

Seriously Stan... Nobody cares your personal views about Michael or Mark. What's most important for Bitshares (and Steem) is that any kind of associations with well known scammers are avoided at any cost. Mark has already ruined his reputation in the eyes of public and now Michael is trying very hard to ruin his own reputation too. When you are applauding these guys, you are causing serious harm for the reputation of Bitshares (and Steem).

24
Technical Support / Re: lightwallet closing itself on start up
« on: April 09, 2016, 01:39:23 pm »
Now I'm having this problem and it won't go away. I've tried to uninstall lightwallet and delete ~/.config/BitShares-light directory, but even that doesn't seem to help. 2.0.160330 worked well, this problem appeared after I updated to 2.0.160406 (it worked for a minute or so, then freezed and I've been unable to get it running again).

Code: [Select]
[4626:0409/162336:ERROR:browser_main_loop.cc(189)] Running without the SUID sandbox! See https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/LinuxSUIDSandboxDevelopment for more information on developing with the sandbox on.
libGL error: pci id for fd 15: 80ee:beef, driver (null)
[4656:0409/162337:INFO:renderer_main.cc(200)] Renderer process started
[4626:0409/162337:WARNING:accelerator_util.cc(185)] Invalid accelerator token: command
[4626:0409/162337:WARNING:accelerator_util.cc(185)] Invalid accelerator token: command
[4626:0409/162337:WARNING:accelerator_util.cc(185)] Invalid accelerator token: command
[4626:0409/162337:WARNING:accelerator_util.cc(185)] Invalid accelerator token: command
[4626:0409/162337:WARNING:accelerator_util.cc(185)] Invalid accelerator token: command
[4626:0409/162337:WARNING:accelerator_util.cc(185)] Invalid accelerator token: command
[4626:0409/162337:WARNING:accelerator_util.cc(185)] Invalid accelerator token: command
[4626:0409/162337:WARNING:accelerator_util.cc(185)] Invalid accelerator token: command
[4626:0409/162337:WARNING:accelerator_util.cc(185)] Invalid accelerator token: command
[4626:0409/162337:WARNING:accelerator_util.cc(185)] Invalid accelerator token: command
[4626:0409/162337:WARNING:accelerator_util.cc(185)] Invalid accelerator token: command
[4626:0409/162337:WARNING:accelerator_util.cc(185)] Invalid accelerator token: command
[4626:0409/162337:WARNING:accelerator_util.cc(185)] Invalid accelerator token: command
[4626:0409/162337:WARNING:accelerator_util.cc(185)] Invalid accelerator token: command
OpenGL Warning: glFlushVertexArrayRangeNV not found in mesa table
OpenGL Warning: glVertexArrayRangeNV not found in mesa table
OpenGL Warning: glCombinerInputNV not found in mesa table
OpenGL Warning: glCombinerOutputNV not found in mesa table
OpenGL Warning: glCombinerParameterfNV not found in mesa table
OpenGL Warning: glCombinerParameterfvNV not found in mesa table
OpenGL Warning: glCombinerParameteriNV not found in mesa table
OpenGL Warning: glCombinerParameterivNV not found in mesa table
OpenGL Warning: glFinalCombinerInputNV not found in mesa table
OpenGL Warning: glGetCombinerInputParameterfvNV not found in mesa table
OpenGL Warning: glGetCombinerInputParameterivNV not found in mesa table
OpenGL Warning: glGetCombinerOutputParameterfvNV not found in mesa table
OpenGL Warning: glGetCombinerOutputParameterivNV not found in mesa table
OpenGL Warning: glGetFinalCombinerInputParameterfvNV not found in mesa table
OpenGL Warning: glGetFinalCombinerInputParameterivNV not found in mesa table
OpenGL Warning: glDeleteFencesNV not found in mesa table
OpenGL Warning: glFinishFenceNV not found in mesa table
OpenGL Warning: glGenFencesNV not found in mesa table
OpenGL Warning: glGetFenceivNV not found in mesa table
OpenGL Warning: glIsFenceNV not found in mesa table
OpenGL Warning: glSetFenceNV not found in mesa table
OpenGL Warning: glTestFenceNV not found in mesa table
libGL error: core dri or dri2 extension not found
libGL error: failed to load driver: vboxvideo
[4647:0409/162337:ERROR:sandbox_linux.cc(345)] InitializeSandbox() called with multiple threads in process gpu-process
[4647:0409/162337:ERROR:buffer_manager.cc(342)] [GroupMarkerNotSet(crbug.com/242999)!:D08EC9F9753F0000]GL ERROR :GL_INVALID_ENUM : glBufferData: <- error from previous GL command
[4626:0409/162337:INFO:CONSOLE(1)] "Uncaught Error: Cannot find module "react-highcharts/bundle/highstock"", source: file:///opt/BitShares-light/resources/app.asar/vendors.js (1)
Segmentation fault (core dumped)

25
hey man,If you think that is not fair, you can buy more BTS

If somebody thinks that situation where we are now is bad, then wouldn't it be better to sell everything and wait. After a while BTS price will crash because customers are abandoning Bitshares. Then BTS can be bought back with better price – if the project has any credibility left.

26
Let's not resort to changing the rules because we don't like that an exchange is voting, or we don't like how an exchange is voting.

Why? I see that this situation is very dangerous to Bitshares. It's dividing people, quite possibly driving some away, creates confusion how to continue, makes marketing very difficult... We should take this seriously. There is clearly a weakness in the system that has to be fixed. Otherwise we will suffer from it many times more in the future. Better to remove the risk sooner than later.

27
This is a weakness in the system that we really should fix. Here is my proposal how to do it: Non-transferable BTS & BitBTS – We need to make Bitshares more resilient.

what does "nontransferable" BTS solve?

It forces exchanges and their customers to use BitBTS instead of BTS. It will also help with voter apathy, because more voting power will go to hands of those who are interested in voting. Those who just want to speculate on BTS price are able to do it with BitBTS.

i assume we can trade them? as poloniex i just need then to trade BTS against POLO.BTS and they have them again on their accounts. For me this
is not the right direction. we are here to get more "financial freedom" but want to restrict it in parts who are not welcomed. We need other solutions.

But why would Poloniex do that? It just makes everything more complicated than it needs to be. From their point of view, it's just much easier to convert everything to BitBTS and use that. Customers can move BitBTS into and out from Poloniex, so they will prefer it to BTS that can't be moved.

When this was discussed a while back, biggest reason for rejection of idea was that it was too difficult to implement. With my proposal it should be possible, because it's broken into several steps that are feasible and practical.

It's a great idea for starting a new network.. but for the existing one.. attempting to make the migration will be just as painful as attempting to get everyone to vote.. so in the end.. we will benefit more if people started voting vs. changing/confusing our core asset model.

If it is good for a new chain, it is also good for an old chain. We should be thinking how to be the best chain in the market, not just apathetically accept that we are in a situation where we can't change anything anymore.

I agree that we shouldn't be planning new features anymore, but this is not a feature for our customers. It's a security feature. It's essential. We have to show to the world that we are capable to fight against threats like badly voting exchanges. The threat isn't only that good workers are downvoted, but this kind of attack can be also committee attack, where somebody changes blockchain parameters in a harmful way. By making BTS nontransferable we effectively disable all possibilities to these kind of attacks.

we could make a list of the biggest account not voting and send to them a lot of 1 UIA transaction with a memo to recall them to vote so we get their attention.

The UIA could be named "voting", I create it, distribute it and every time someone sees a not-voting-account we send to him/her some "voting" UIA.

The memo could be a reminder of the importance of voting and a link to a youtube video explaining how important is to keep bts in the wallet and how to easily vote for proxies.

Good, bad, stupid, interesting idea ?

Not bad, but not necessarily very effective. Our system has a weakness: it doesn't incentivize good voting behavior. We should be thinking how we can change the system to work better, not only think how to act in a bad system so that it wouldn't be so bad. In the long run bad system will always give bad results, even when it's run by good people.

28
5. Make BTS non-transferable

When most of the transfers outside our internal exchange are happening with BitBTS, it won't be difficult to just disallow BTS transfers entirely.

I don't understand this part... how do you prevent me from sending my BTS from my account to the account of external exchange (e.g. from paliboyqqq to poloniexwallet)?

It will be in blockchain level. After the feature is implemented, nobody can make any BTS transfers because blockchain doesn't allow it.

There will be only two ways how ownership of BTS is changed: either trading on our internal exchange (selling/buying) or force settlement (owner of BitBTS is able to change BitBTS to BTS, should cost a little bit so that there is no incentive to spam the blockchain).

29
This is a weakness in the system that we really should fix. Here is my proposal how to do it: Non-transferable BTS & BitBTS – We need to make Bitshares more resilient.

what does "nontransferable" BTS solve?

It forces exchanges and their customers to use BitBTS instead of BTS. It will also help with voter apathy, because more voting power will go to hands of those who are interested in voting. Those who just want to speculate on BTS price are able to do it with BitBTS.

i assume we can trade them? as poloniex i just need then to trade BTS against POLO.BTS and they have them again on their accounts. For me this
is not the right direction. we are here to get more "financial freedom" but want to restrict it in parts who are not welcomed. We need other solutions.

But why would Poloniex do that? It just makes everything more complicated than it needs to be. From their point of view, it's just much easier to convert everything to BitBTS and use that. Customers can move BitBTS into and out from Poloniex, so they will prefer it to BTS that can't be moved.

When this was discussed a while back, biggest reason for rejection of idea was that it was too difficult to implement. With my proposal it should be possible, because it's broken into several steps that are feasible and practical.

30
Instead of flaming the antidilultion fraction you should look for none voting accounts and persuade to vote. If you just click randomly
on account names on cryptofresh you will see, that many account are not voting at all. This makes the community weak, because we have
members who has not said what they want.

This is a weakness in the system that we really should fix. Here is my proposal how to do it: Non-transferable BTS & BitBTS – We need to make Bitshares more resilient.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 32