GrandPapillon

and guess what, if the ISP receive complains for your activities, you will still be "shutdown"

"bullet proof" hosting for illegal activities does not exist, even TheTorrentBay had to change servers and IPs hundreds of times over 15 years, because no where was safe.

Eventually they called it quit, despite some early success in having protection from the EU

8 minutes ago, fdsa said:

and thus you've proved that you have no idea about the topic, same with the cryptocurrencies and possibly other topics I dont remember.

haha, I think I just exposed you for your full ignore on that topic, crypto boy ????

nobody in any "legal" activity is paying for $1000 domain names and hosting ????

hence why showing a dodgy invoice like this for KYC could actually raise major "red" flags for compliance

because nobody "normal" is paying that kind of money for a basic hosting,

now if you are a crypto miner and need a lot of CPUs, and some high flying gamer boy needing "buying tokens", then hosting will be "expensive" and more like $5K/$10K a year with expensive hosts starting at $150/mo

36 minutes ago, fdsa said:

A "bulletproof domain" means a domain name that will not get disabled by the registrar if any "abuse report" comes.

A "bulletproof hosting" (what I've rephrased as a "safe location") means a server or a web hosting account that will not get turned off or disabled by the hosting provider if any "abuse report" comes.

Those ads about "offshore bulletproof hosting" for $25 (and even for $250) you might have seen in Google are fake.

ok not sure about that one,

the "bulletproof domain" do not exist, at $25 or $1000, registrars have to follow court orders if there is an IP complain, failing to do that and ICAAN will get involved or some "root server" registrar will eventually turn you off. They have no other choice. Criminal activities have no "protection".

I have a "controversial" domain and for over 25 years, no registrar disabled me, despite some "abuse reports", and even though Google has blacklisted that domain name in the Search engine at the request of a "powerful organization" on the web. Without court orders or a clear violation of registrar policies, they can't turn you off. And if they do, file a complain to ICAAN. I certainly didn't pay $1000 on annual fees for this.

as for "Safe hosting", I can see some ISP taking advantages of "hosting" controversial websites and illegal activities (hackers, porn, warez, bittorrent etc...) and charging a fortune for accepting them and burning their IPs address in the process ????

now if someone is foolish enough to register a domain name at the same place with their hosting solution, and start selling "illegal" sh*t, then they get what they deserve, at $25 or $1000.

Always separate domain hosting provider from your web hosting provider, that's basic "proofing" for you web activities.

On 3/18/2022 at 6:29 AM, fdsa said:

Yes, you are right - "hardening" the webserver is not "website hosting" and it has nothing to do with the hosting cost.

Still buying a bulletproof domain + hosting the website in a safe location could cost well above 1000 USD/mo.

now you puzzle me, bullet proof domain? care to elaborate, out of curiosity, what is your definition of "bullet proof domain" ????

"hosting in safe location", same here, I am curious what you mean by "safe location"

1 hour ago, Golden Triangle said:

What is KYC ?

a new crypto ????

8 hours ago, Lemsta69 said:

interesting. I've had to KYC with a bunch of crypto outfits otherwise I can't use their services. I don't like it but consider it a necessary evil. 

very convenient too when the exchange steal your cryptos and cash them in with your KYC documents at another venue ????

what could possibly go wrong? ????

hiring a security consultant to "harden" your webserver is not "website hosting" ????

4 hours ago, ozimoron said:

How about referencing the timeline?

were you born in 2000? that could explain it,

in case you were a toddler then, all this happened in 2003

5 hours ago, RafPinto said:

Not aggression.
Call it as it is: "WAR"  and Putinsky should be go to court and treated like a "War criminal".

 

it's called an invasion, and no, Putin is no more a war criminal than GW Bush or Obama

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

For instance?

Can't just make a generalisation like that and not back it up with so much better alternatives.

too long to list ????

pay VAT tax is same same as paying tax in a country now?

jesus, they really lowered the bar for KYC ????

6 hours ago, vivananahuahin said:

Is he a teacher or journalist?

both, TELFLEr and part-time journalist ????

14 minutes ago, champers said:

I was in Carls a couple of weeks ago. I enjoyed the Western Burger deal with fries and a coke but, as usual, the aircon was too much.

the whole place is just creepy,

take out only, eat on the beach, or at the side of bar ????

1 hour ago, Jenkins9039 said:

Just an update, i had the questionnaire this evening (free 100thb if completed).

 

Weird how they're asking this information (again) 3rd time.

Oh and something new this time.

 

When exchanges do this, i would advise complying, then cease using, move on, that way you've adhered to the request/law etc, but at the same time, you are no longer putting funds into their pocket, after-all you don't need this for a bank, so why should you need for an exchange.

who pays 1000 USD for website hosting and domain ????

is that tax invoice even legit ? ????

3 hours ago, RT555 said:

Went to CarlJr's 2 days ago here in the US, 1st time and last time. There are better burgers.

3 places I will not go....

 

McD's is fast and cheap

Burger King is not any better

Jack in the Box is just ahead of these 3......jus sayin

indeed, if only they had Wendys here in Thailand

3 hours ago, rvaviator said:

If they only had 5 Guys ... ???? ...  Or how about In and Out Burger ....

probably the worst overpriced burger ever, avoid at all cost

Carl Jr was a good alternative, next BK and MacD in Thailand are actually quite nice compared to other places

7 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

But that was in hindsight. Even though there was never any concrete proof of the yellowcake and Iraq's possession of WMD's, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and the neocon maniacs were given a free pass at the time. It was only much later that they were called out, when the coast was clear and the risks were low. 

amen to that, brother

very easy to be "outraged" when everyone is caught with their pants down,

I was outraged during that episode, and can't believe anyone with a braincell couldn't have known they were being lied to, and chose to "follow" the party line instead.

can't have it both ways now, with Putin war in Ukraine. He learned from the best playbook, the USA :)

7 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Would the editors have been executed had they went out on a limb, and called out Cheney for being the liar and warmonger he was? Maybe, maybe not. But, they sure would have been ostracized. 

amen to that, you can execute "socially" and "politically" a journalist, and it's a done on a regular basis, hence why the majority now "self-censore"

let's not forget the Yellow Cake episode in the WSJ journal, and the CIA outing of a wife's diplomat for calling out Dick Cheney BS on Iraq WMD

7 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Why would SK lie about its huge case numbers and deaths. Surely if they were going to lie it would be to hide them

why do people lie? I don't know, they have thousands of their own reasons for doing so, doesn't really matter ????

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

South Korea never had lockdowns

I wouldn't believe any numbers coming out of any Asian nation though. They just love to lie and save face to show how strong they are to the world, because of their thin egos.