New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
And what’s your expectation at this point?
Too late, apply for a pause.
So what are the "basic facts" of the story?
Is it possible to "partially" change ownership of an account?
If I take hacking in to account example, if someone's account got compromised, then provider should suspend that account and given the proof of ownership, reinstate or ask the user to move to another account (such as in this case).
In this case, refund the amount for the rest of the period and be done with it. Since OP doesn't mind knowingly breaking which is standard rule for violation of terms and conditions, the refund should be the last transaction that the provider should have with OP.
Part ways and end the drama.
NO, as I said, I did change the password after the purchase. In any case, that is not really the main point, since the account had already been transferred multiple times. It would actually be unusual if none of us had changed it.
Regarding the PayPal dispute, the case was closed within about 5 minutes after I filed it, so I assume it was handled automatically.
Yes
you are right here. It's OP's fault.
Just a simple ticket before making a move could have solved the issue.
IDK people have so much time to start threads and the drama rather than making an inquiry with the provider. A two lines of email is better than assumptions and further wastage of time in writing posts in various forums.
Direct admin on Singapore location is down
and term page on hostbrr website still not has valid cert
wtf is @labze doin
I genuinely do not understand what else I could reasonably provide to prove that I made the payment.
I have already:
I believe that is sufficient to demonstrate that a real transaction took place.
So what is your position regarding the original owner?
Should they simply be allowed to continue using the service as if nothing happened?
Now the archives on the wayback machine magically came back.
@labze I still do not understand the reasoning behind altering or removing the Wayback Machine snapshot in this manner.
Especially considering that you already confirmed a PayPal dispute was ongoing at the time, it naturally raises questions about the purpose of doing so.
Dude. You actually think he has the power to "alter" Archive.org snapshots? Are you dumb on purpose? Those are two different dates, April 14 and April 26.
You can clearly see the captures count has changed from.23 to 29 on the left of the banner.
Look at the url, different timestamp
The count of the captures represent the total saves
You can have a check yourself https://web.archive.org/web/20260000000000*/https://hostbrr.com/terms-conditions/
So you could see my point at the very beginning.
The first screenshot shows when it was working (April 14th), the second screenshot shows it broken (April 26th).
First:
https://web.archive.org/web/20260414173949/https://hostbrr.com/terms-conditions/
2nd link
https://web.archive.org/web/20260426024827/https://hostbrr.com/terms-conditions/
Open your 2nd link, it is 29 too.
But in my screenshot, it is 23.
Please note the difference.
I have a million question for you OP, are you retarded enough to not understand 6 pages of people trying to tell you are in the wrong?
As I said, I committed my mistake and willing to take my responsibility.
But that still does not justify the provider altering or removing Wayback Machine records, especially while a PayPal dispute was actively ongoing from his side.
Can you see my point?
You mean the number of captures? WaybackMachine did it all the time because their infrastructure is a clusterfuck (which is a good and bad thing)
Now, the explanation:
Normally waybackmachine has 7days or sometime >30 days of delay before the snapshot appear on the /web/*/url/* or even be reachable through /web/[timestamp]/url. So, the N of captures is not deterministic, as in the actual numbers of snapshot waybackmachine has (and if you think they should improve it, then donate. They're running at PB scale on shoestring budget)
Edit x6: formatting
PLEASE, the latest archives was April 14 YESTERDAY.
Today, the archive of April 26, May 14, May 15 suddenly come out.
The total archives change from 23 to 29
I'm sure that the archives of April 26, May 14 is exist the day before yesterday when I navigated to the site.
How could the actual number change from 26–27, to 23, and then to 29?
PB cluster won't do that.
i deleted them sry
As I said, it's non deterministic. That's the reality! Face it!
Internet archive won't change the snapshot count because @labze asked.
I'm curious. From your point of view, how do you think labze is modifying the archive?
What even the fcking point of this after you admitted you are in the wrong here?
Are you crying? Butthurt? Or something else entirely affect your health?
He have a contract with the original owner because
the original ownerbought from him?Who you?
And boy stop crying about the TOS and the WaybackMachine it's make 0 point and send you straight up top of the MJJ chart.
The merchant needs to determine whether the modified account（new user) was obtained through a transaction with you (the paying user) or through hacking.
Is it possible to "partially modify" the account ownership?