Bitcoin Forum

Are you struggling to understand the following, OP?

Nobody is stopping you from doing anything. You can join in as many ponzis as you wish in the hope of reaping a share of the coins which are stolen from later investors. But don't think your demonstrably untrustworthy behaviour will go unnoticed.

If you don't care that your profit comes from theft then those who deal with you in future should be made aware of that fact. Tagging you with negative trust makes them aware of that fact.


LAWL! Just noticed That's sweet of you to make a gift of this thread for me. Thanks!

There is nothing that could clarify if the Person investing is an investor or a Shill.If there is something that proves then i will be thankful to that guy who did the hard work cause it might stop people from losing the money ,Like i lost hundreds of dollars when i was a newbie.

But you cannot go by judgments and force people not to invest.

Still ignoring the shredding you got from the other thread on this point?

It doesn't matter who is shill and who is 'investor'. Both participate in the ponzi scam in order to help it function and steal more coins.

They are both demonstrably untrustworthy.

Got to agree with Heutamos on this one. With the recent influx of account sales, we no longer know who are the shills.

Looks like you have Convincing Problems ? You don't need to convince that you are right or wrong every time, just get easy.

Oh Wow..I never knew that participation in something you don't like is a scam ? care to elaborate ?

So, according to your Logic the victim(innocent investor) and the criminal are equally dishonest and bad ? Nice knowledge you got devil.

Cryptodevil, I understand what you're doing with the "Get rid of ponzis altogether" thing, but don't you think -repping participants is a step too far? It's a free country, people have free will, and they can invest however much they want, as long as they understand the risks. The only people deserving the negative reps are the ponzi operators.

I believe his argument is "I don't have a problem with people who invest in the ponzi. But if they publicly confirm/support it, they're participating in the fraud as it leads to more people getting scammed". Pretty much the same as Ponzi sig promoters

If you told me you wanted to send money to a ponzi scheme in the hope that you will be sent a greater number of coins in return, would this say to me that you care about where your 'profit' is coming from?

Ponzi schemes make nothing, produce nothing, invest nothing. They steal money from some users to share with other users in return for those users' participation in helping the scam operate.

Which part of that process sound like the people involved should be considered trustworthy?

If there are no participants in a Ponzi there can be no Ponzi.

I think Tagging the Shills is not a bad idea ,who are a part of the team anyways.

No one is telling you or me or to anyone, like i said they can say it all in the thread.

Dont say users , say shills.


The innocent's who don't have complete knowledge of the Ponzi Racket.

That is what, You cannot enforce your own judgments.

Which is why a very clear PSA is posted and if a user messages me to ask why they have been tagged and that they didn't understand what the situation was, then chooses to delete the supporting post they made in the thread, I will delete the rating.

I've done it a few times today already.

At the moment i am -veing people that operate or promote ponzis. maybe you need to read those threads where people post like they are kids getting some candy from a pedo and start crying 20 pages later.

Like always i am willing to remove my -ve if i am proven wrong. fair deal.

So far I haven't seen people who invest in ponzis getting tagged with a negative feedback so your argument of "people who decides what to do with their own money" doesn't make sense to me at all.  :-\
What I see is that those people who openly advertise or in other form promotes the ponzi are the ones who get negged. Which they actually deserve since they are helping to promote a scam and at the same time they are openly robbing other people of their money jut to get a cents of commision and to save your own deposit.

*Grabs the popcorn*

http://i.giphy.com/RbB2YRruc5q6c.gif


People will always fall for ponzis, whether they like it or not. Greed will get the better of all of us. People will just need to be educated of the risks, although there are plenty of threads in the games & rounds section telling people not to invest already.

i think they should never give a negative feedback on those who campaigned their own site.. they try it out first then if it's noy paying then give it a negative feedback. they so wretched if their site pays then their account in bitcointalk have so many negative feedback such as "promoting scam sites or ponzi sites" that's unfair to those have a good intention..

lmao wtf dude? So lose money first, tag later ? None of the admins intentions are good. They make no income running a clean ponzi. All those 2.5% fees and stuffs are shit. 99% of them run away with the pot.

Feel free to do so, your feedback will just go to the troll-retaliation section of the trust page namely "Untrusted feedback".

Anyway I'm "agnostic believer" in this situation, although I don't believe in the "cause" of cryptodevil I don't disagree with him either. You people keep going the wrong way, present a well-placed argument and you may change his opinion regarding the matter at hand. If you keep making ad hominem attacks and like the guy above, expect someone to invest in the ponzi themselves, it will lead nowhere.

So do I now finally get my red tag? I already openly admitted I am a player and still no tag. Or do I need to play first and show my tx before I am eligible?

How many threads do we need on this topic anyway?

1.Considering the Trust system,all signature campaigns should completely remove "Trust" as one of their rules for users to participate in them.

2.Initially it was meant to spot out scammers who literally have ripped people off for dollars  who don't deserve to be here but since then a lot has changed.

3.I see people with highest quality of posts with negative feebacks for silly reasons.I think investing in a Ponzi is a subject limited to one's personal choices ,you can't force him to not to.That being said, if you don't comply with his intentions,you're free to leave him a feedback and this should be understood by the campaign managers that it necessarily doesn't portray one is a spammer and he deserves to be kicked out of campaign if he still has the highest quality of posts .

4.Just my two cents.You don't exactly have to agree with it.

Nah you cant change his opinion. No need to either, that is his right.

But like I said in another thread it is way better to have small scale Ponzi's in here where people lose a few satoshi where they can learn and experience themselves it how it works. (like you can tell your kids not to touch a heater and they have heard you, but let them touch it one time controlled and they know why). It teaches them to be critical thinkers instead of community sheep later in life and are prepared when the real scammers show up.

I have -ved op because he promoted a ponzi. In my eyes that makes him untrustworthy. I could imagine betcoin doesnt want to be connected with people promoting ponzis while wearing their sig.

I will contact the campain manager

If OP simply gave himself pos feedbacks from any random alt, he'd still qualify to be in the campaign*. Thats how stupid the campaign rules of that signature campaign are.

*Although of course, he'd get more negs for trust farming from alts

Although I hate arguments being compared to real life, I slightly agree with it. However, it doesn't explain why they shouldn't get a negative for promoting/supporting the ponzi, which will lead to more users being scammed
The decision of promoting/supporting the ponzi is the user's own, from what I know CD is not forcing anyone to decide what to do with their money, he is essentially saying don't encourage the others to invest only to be scammed later.

Trustworthiness and post quality are two different things, even theymos has clarified that in the thread announcing the trust system

why you should give them a negative feedback if their site pays and if neg bombers have a brain preferrably someone should test the site first with the minimum amt. don't conclude that all investing sites are bad there will be always a paying investing site. and it's in their conscience if they gonna scam or not..

It is really not that hard to explain. A red trust is a warning. Warnings make you aware something is up. They work because they aren't always around us. But when every participant has the same warning on their profile it loses it's message.

When a noob googles bitcoindoubler and comes to the subforum and sees everyone with with negative trust it is nothing special anymore and I doubt they will check it.

A negative trust, a warning should not be giving lightly in my opinion for that exact reason. It should stand out when visiting a page. And it will lose its message in that subforum when everyone wears that tag.

People are free to do whatever they want, including leaving negative trust? LOL. Sorry but you had that one coming.

OP should make an attempt to get Dooglus removed from DT as crypto devil is in dooglus's trust list and Dooglus makes no attempt to ensure fair ratings are given by people in his trust list (in addition to being a scammer, extortionist and promotes numerous scams in exchange for tens of thousands of dollars himself).

That is the only way to get negative trust removed.

Now now, lets not bring personal feud in this

Not a personal feud. This is only facts.

Dooglus does not care about his image because he has enough fan boys from JD to back him up and because his business does not have a very large presence on the forum. So any issues with a negative rating is not going to get resolved via a public discussion

I tend to agree with OP.  Bitcoin is about freedom and people should be able to spend their money how they see fit.   Maybe I should get a neg for indirectly supporting ponzis??

But how come he knew we are alt's ? I mean i wore double while doing it ,but still ?

Freedom of choice, just like freedom of speech, does not equate to freedom from consequence.

Tagging people for being provably untrustworthy does not stop them from continuing to support ponzi scams. Do not conflate the issue with that of denying people their autonomy.

Please tell me more about these "consequences"

It is my money.
It is not in breach of any forum rules to post in that thread.
It is not illegal in real life to participate.
I participated, not promoted.

The ONLY explanation for there being any "consequences" is therefore that it simply rubs YOU the wrong way.

BTW thinking of playing the LOTTO this weekend, I now the chance of winning is slight but please may I please please pretty please?

Oh no, dont do it!!! If you win you will take all the others money!!!

Seriously, you know that is not the same. Ponzi they are NOT lottery.

I agree that it needs to be done something about scammers but to use trust rating is simple abuse and blackmailing. These are also crimes CD... :-\

The unfair dice with house edge ? or the poker ? You are winning the money which people lost while gambling with a 100% losing chance at some point in their Run.Does declaring that makes it legit ?

You might want to read what Stunna says here in 7th sub heading  ---   https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/primedice-3-interview-stunna-primedice-bitcoin-casino/

"Taking away other people money who lost because of the unfair house edge,with cent percent chance to lose eventually " , Is it not what devil is shouting ?

Don't think trust should be used that way because it could hit all of us. I have also participated in Ore-mine and lost around 0.8btc should all people who were promoting ore-mine get negative trust. There enough people who don't see the risk before they start investing.  So be carefully who you give negative trust and for what reason.

lol, I found something out, now I have to run and tell!
What are you two?

FYI, I PM'ed roslinpl within minutes of me receiving the neg trust, and explained the situation and linked him the posts.

What he replied I will keep to myself, I unlike some of you do not throw innocent people under buses.

Have a nice day  ;D

As I already said, you are free to do what you like in your quest for profit. You are not, however, free to do so without there being consequences for displaying behaviour which objectively proves that you care not where that profit comes from, even if it is stolen from other users and shared with you as a reward for your collaboration with the ponzi operators.

The butt-hurt and whining is pathetic. You don't have an objective counter to this simple fact:

Do you have an answer that *isn't* centred around logical fallacy and tone complaint?

Giving negative trust on DT is to communicate to other forum members whether you are provably untrustworthy. Hoping to profit from money stolen from other users is one big fucking slab of proof that you are not trustworthy. I think it is worth ensuring that other forum members are aware of that fact when dealing with you in future.

Grow up and accept responsibility for your actions. Freedom of choice is not freedom from consequence.

pro tip for free: think first, post afterwards

i didnt report you to him, i just asked what they think about people that are in their campaign promoting ponzis. not more, not less.

my days are always nice and full of fun, i eat hate like crisps!

"displaying behavior"
I think the only one here who is displaying any kind of behavior is you.
Simply refusing to see any other point of view than your own, and when people don't comply there will be "consequences"
Trying to blackmail people into agreeing with your point of view does not make it the right or even the only point of view.

But thanks for bumping, the more people who read this thread the better.

Have a nice day.

we will keep this topic on the first page for free!

words to look up for you so far:

- ponzi
- gambling
- abuse
- blackmail

If you are free to promote a ponzi (and yes i agree you are), i am free to leave you a feedback for it because i think you will drag people into it. Well, i think i will just come back to this in a few weeks after the whole thing is broken. like all the others "invests" in that section.

This will be a never ending drama and debate, the forum owner should comment on this matter and solve all the feuds in peaceful manner.

I see that you, just like every other whining dirtbag can't put together a decent argument to counter my assertions.

I'm not refusing to see other points of view, I've already said that I love to have my position challenged with reasoned argument. Trouble is, you and your ilk have no reasoned argument because your support of ponzi scams in your quest for illicit profit is indefensible.

He is trolling hard.I think only Doo can solve this now,try PMing him.

I was asked for my opinion of this thread.

> Someone give you negative trust for participating in a PONZI?

How would anyone even know that you participated in a ponzi? Just play the game if you want to - it's your money and you can give it to a scammer if you like.

I suspect that you received negative trust for promoting the ponzi, not for participating in it. Posting on the forum about how you played the game and made a profit isn't just playing the game, it's promoting the game to others, even though you know it's a scam. You're free to do that if you like, and others are free to leave you feedback drawing attention to how you are promoting a scam.

Told you so guys.

How is posting on their service thread promoting ? That section is actually made or consists only that stuff,No ?

It looks to me like this person was writing about his experience dealing with/playing on that site. He also does not have the influence that would cause millions of dollars to flow to that site upon his (paid, but payment not disclosed until after the scam is revealed) endorsement.

One aspect about gambling that relates to ponzi schemes is that a gambler never loses. So some one posting that they won is really not enough to go off,but this is my opinion. Being that I dabble in the dark art of gambling I wonder if that will be the next step when the moral police come calling!
This is not a troll question but curious if gambling is next on the agenda?
I know you guys have different agendas that have merged so far and just want to see what the future looks like here.

Never understood Ponzi schemes,if something is to good to be true it is. Besides that you go into it with open eyes and only have yourself to blame if you get scammed. People do not need to be protected from themselves,its called enabling!

Unlimited weapons but Limited Target's,what do you expect ?

Thank you both, I was for a little while starting to believe I was the only sane person here.

It looks like this is one instance where Dooglus declares "do as I say, not as I do"

In late 2014, dooglus publicly (claimed to) invest in, publicly played at with very large amounts, gave positive trust to (claiming to have risked 100 BTC), and was a moderator at with his "Dooglus" handle at a site that was very new and had little reason to be trusted with thousands of BTC. The site turned out to be a scam and even after it was revealed this site was a scam Dooglus still promoted the site by proclaiming that it was not certain the site was a scam. This site just so happened to scam their users just a day after Dooglus was able to withdraw all the BTC he (claimed to have) invested at the site. All this was after he had made over 50 BTC between gambling winnings and bankroll profits (if I remember the amount correctly).

Shortly after this incident, he endorsed another site with his signature that outright turned off their servers and ran away with over 2,000 BTC, but again not before Dooglus was able to withdraw all his BTC (and of course profits).

Dooglus was doing much more then telling people about his experience, he was actively telling people to invest and deposit into these scam sites and was getting paid large amounts to do so. The OP in this case is merely telling others about his experience and even warned about a potential danger of the site.

I wonder if devil is going to leave negative trust for people who post about large wins at Just-Dice since Just-Dice is run by a scammer.

I agree with OP that it is difficult to determine a scammer from a legit user, especially on the internet. There are too many DT who blindly leave negative reputation. People find and do work on this forum. While I do not condone promoting ponzis, flagging someone who is obviously profiting from the racket should be negative trusted. Sometimes things are misinterpreted, and the DTers have it in their minds that people are scamming and that's that.

We don't have rights to delete that feedback but we can make a supporting post for the OP in the link below.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1236667.msg14063553#msg14063553

Last last time I checked, ponzis were illegal to operate and invest in. It's your fault you broke the law : You did it off your own free will.

Lets say I were to post on a thread of a scam service (that I knew would scam) saying "Wow, this service is great! I got 2x my profit!". Next day, this service steals all of the money invested. Do you not think I am in the wrong at all for using my position (which Newbie members would likely trust) to promote an obvious scam website?
I think that the trust is completely justifiable. If you want it removed then stop promoting Ponzi scams and contact cryptodevil in a few months and ask nicely to have it removed.

Irrelevant. New users coming across that section will see "Multiplying your Bitcoin in 2 days!" and become interested. More than likely people such as OP will help remove any doubts by vouching for a service which will eventually scam.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't like someone who promotes my service to be also promoting illegal websites which steal other people's money.

Also, sort of off topic, but I really wish people like OP would stop using the word 'blackmail' in cases like this. Cryptodevil would gain nothing by you not promoting in ponzis, he would simply be helping new users to this community to avoid scams. Please look up the definition of blackmail (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=blackmail).

Where in the world are ponzis illegal to invest in? Where did you hear this? I am intrigued and want to know more

Yes OP, the self appointed police made new forum laws a few hours ago, if you invest in ponzi schemes then they say you are a scammer, you can pm theymos about this if you think it is abuse

"A Ponzi scheme is an illegal business practice..." - Source. Literally the first result in Google. (http://www.acfe.com/ponzi-schemes.aspx)

Should you not trust this source, which I can understand, here are sources from official US ("Yet, both pyramid and Ponzi schemes are illegal because they inevitably must fall apart.") (https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/1998/05/pyramid-schemes), UK ("Legitimate trading schemes rely on valuable goods and services, while illegal pyramid schemes focus simply on recruiting more and more investors.") (http://www.actionfraud.police.uk/fraud_protection/pyramid_schemes) and Canadian ("Illegal distributions of securities sometimes involve Ponzi schemes.") (http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/scams-fraudes/inv-fra-eng.htm) websites. Obviously whether said schemes are illegal in a certain country is variable, however in most (if not all) 1st world countries such schemes are illegal.

This sort of mentality has been around on this forum longer than I have. Please stop acting like you know how this forum used to operate to try push your childish vendetta against certain members of the DT system.

And he won't do anything about it. Abuse is defined as spam or other things of the same liking. Theymos has no jurisdiction on whether a feedback is correct or not (similar to every single other member on this forum bar the feedback giver and receiver), and he does not have the time to investigate every case. This is why trust is not moderated.

In most of the western world organizing these Schemes became illegal in the 90s, in Russia I think it was 2013 but i'm not sure about the year but it was pretty recent. But I am unaware about Asia, Africa and South-America though. And at some places next to organizing participating is illegal too.

That source only talks about the small state of the USA and not the international bitcoin community

Where is illegal to invest in? Has anyone ever been arrested for investing? Not running the ponzi, investing

abuse is defined as : use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse.

its literally the first thing that came up when i googled it

Also, are you implying that I have something against OP because he is on DT?
I literally found out that he has on DT just minutes ago

Well now it becomes interesting. And funny.

According to the links in this source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_bitcoin_by_country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_bitcoin_by_country) in Russia and Thailand bitcoin is considered illegal.

So the question arises, if members give people negative trust because in their jurisdiction it is illegal to participate in a Ponzi, shouldn't we give everyone negative trust because in some jurisdictions it is illegal to trade in bitcoin in general?

Ponzis and Pyramids are illegal full stop. If I am a part of a mafia crew, I'm not above the law because I didn't kill anyone.

Trust abuse isn't defined in the same way as abuse on this forum. I'll see if I can find what theymos considers abuse somewhere; I'm sure he posted about it before.

No, I'm implying that you have something against the person that left him negative trust by the way you commonly post things similar to this:
I'm guessing that you have some sort of thing against users such as cryptodevil, mexxer and Lutpin who leave trust that you do not see as appropriate (despite being given good reasoning several times).

Which is why I updated with several sources from official websites of several countries. I am obviously not going to source every single country this way; you can easily find this information yourself. I also mentioned that participation in such schemes may differ from country to country.

I knew someone was going to bring this up.
This is BitcoinTalk. If someone visits this site where Bitcoin is prohibited, they cannot try to claim innocence due to the glaringly obvious title. However, someone new to this forum/Bitcoin in general may see "Get ##% back on your Bitcoin every hour - ReallyLegitInvestments" and be interested. Nothing from this gives the impression that such a service is prohibited, making it very easy for someone naive and inexperienced enough to take advantage of this offer and possibly be scammed.
People should do their own research on things that they invest in, but they don't. This is why the trust system was implemented - so other people can research and report on services and give their impressions.

Let me get this straight, maybe i'm a little slow i cant clearly understand, is investing in a ponzi illegal in your country or any other?

Going by your logic, everyone involved in a shootout using an illegal gun shouold be jailed, even if they have nothing to do with it

edit: also, why are you protecting mexxer-2 and lutpin?

Yes. I live in the United Kingdom if you would like to do further research. Regardless, promoting ponzis is immoral at best. It's completely deserving of a negative trust IMO.

Just like being in a Mafia ring doesn't make you innocent, neither does investing in a Ponzi (especially if you refer new users, similar to what OP is said to have done). If you need to know why this is bad reread my old posts; I say why there.

I don't see that they have done anything wrong, however this is not the place to talk about it.

Stock markets are a ponzi scheme,better neg rep everyone with a pension or a portfolio. Maybe just give every one in the forum neg rep and we can all relax and move on from this crusade.

This is a lie and you know it.

I never told anyone to invest or deposit in either site. I said many times that I *didn't* know who was running them, and that I couldn't vouch for them. I also drew attention to the cheating at dicebitco.in and the missing cold wallet at dice.ninja before it was too late to withdraw, alerting people to the likelihood of them scamming. It's not suspicious that I was able to withdraw from the sites when I saw the clear signs that something was wrong. Anyone paying attention to the warning signs would have been able to do the same.

I wasn't paid anything by either site for promoting them other than when I wore the dicebitco.in signature for 1 week. I don't remember how much they paid per week but it certainly wasn't a "large amount".

Well when I replied to your post before you extended that it just said "it IS illegal" while it is "it MIGHT be illegal depending on your location. See my first post below yours. I know enough about that to know it is not easy to say it IS illegal.

I know this is bitcointalk  ::) So they read the title and not the glaringly obvious warning of the subforum wherein the schemes are placed?


How do you know that if they found a link on google, opened the lalala.ponzi page, clicked on "forum" and get redirected here (what we have seen a lot). Did they even saw it is bitcointalk and not being blindsided by the BTCBTCBTC in their eyes that made them miss the said warning?

And you say it again:


It might be prohibited for them, no way to be sure it is prohibited for them.
Exactly the same with bitcoin though maybe they can't deny they know it is bitcoin but they sure can deny knowing the law on it pretending being young and uneducated ("someone naive and inexperienced")  

it is a thin line when you project local jurisdiction on an international thing.

And yeah it is a lame thing giving someone negative trust because he is using bitcoin on a bitcoinforum, I agree, it is just as lame as giving noobs negative trust for burning their fingers.

Just to prove the issue with the way things are going...

Can you prove you where not involved? Are the accusations only going to be extended to certain people ;)
Just a joke but you can see that the logic is faulty if they do not neg rep you without you providing evidence.

I think it's quite different.

I made it known that I had played at what I believed to be good dice sites. When I became suspicious that things were wrong, I posted about that too.

That's quite different from posting positive reports about ponzi schemes. Everyone knows the ponzi scheme is a scam and that it will eventually stop paying out, and so it is bad form to make positive posts about it, knowing full well that it is a scam.

here you go http://lmgtfy.com/?q=are+ponzis+illegal ... i cant belive ppl argue about it but dont have a clue...

And if anyone doesn't know, it should be said that Quickseller has been trolling dooglus on this forum by repeating his lies again and again whenever he can.  It's his style.  Once QS decides to hate you, he will concoct any convoluted stories he can and repeat them again and again (often using many different accounts) in order to try to damage your reputation.  He used to be so successful at this that people were actually promoting him to default trust and even trusting him with increasingly large amounts of money.  Thankfully, QS' tactics and trustworthiness were revealed when he basically had a public meltdown on the last 10 or so pages of this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.0

I'm just saying this here and now because it's important to call him out when he does this.  Every time one of the people he's attacking says something anywhere, he'll do his best to twist it into an attack onto that person's reputation.  dooglus should be able to offer an opinion on this thread without QS repeating his lies about dooglus,  but since he gets away with that, I feel the need to draw attention to the fact that it's a baseless ad hominem by a guy who spends waaay too much time repeating lies on this forum.

I will ask you this for the third or  fourth time, is investing in a ponzi illegal in your country? Not promoting, investing

please just give me a straight yes or no answer

This is why I think there needs to be double check before we throw accusations around on the membership. Its a corrosive element to be around or involved in when every one is hunting out the next possible perp to take down. If you come across it fine,but to go seeking it out seems like something else is in play. If its power which I kind of think it is about,then earn it the right way and not through others.

I was not taking a shot at dooglus is just happened that he was in this thread or another thread saying these guys where ok to do these negative ratings on people and I thought it was a good spot to try on the shoe. Sent him a pm right after stating it was nothing personal as well,because I am really to lazy to know all the history. Doesnt mean I have not gone back and read every post by some of these guys to see where this issue turned its head. :D
Also wanting to know where some of the brown nosers come from that keep echoing the agenda.

Be as honest as I can be here and it may be my thinking is off. This to me is what happens with those mall security guys,they always wanted to be cops and they harass kids to no end because they get a jolt of what could be or they missed. This feels the same way but I believe it has more to do with making a name for ones self then making the forum better. How did they get into the trust in the first place? It was by doing this,so of course they are going to increase the issue to get more power.
If its not this,then I have a real problem with their moral judgement of people they deem less then upstanding. I will be around to make sure its known that not every one agrees with the antics,no matter how ineffective or effective they may be.

Ok my bit said,give it to me! 8)

Sorry dooglus for using you as a example,was just so ripe a tomato to pick.

Guys for months this drama is not about qs/vod/doog/tsp/DT1/putusallname here, leave it this way.

Just face it:

- We owned acc gens
- we brought down the number of threads for hacked/cracked shit
- we are going after gc scammer
- we are targeting ponzis and hyips
- we have a greater number of people in the lending section

Yeah maybe some people you dont like joined our efforts, we dont care about it. You had your chance, you failed.

Guess what, we have more stuff upcoming. This isnt about your longterm biased relations.

Just watch it, you can go on hating each other when we are done. No hard feelings, we still like you ;)

What are you talking about? the hateleague?

Do you honestly think that tagging those that invest in ponzi schemes will stop people from making them?
Also, how does investing in a ponzi make someone a scammer?

There is a link in my sig written  in red letters. It contains a q&a. If you dont understand it or dont agree with it leave me a post there. After days you dont get it. You can call me member of the brony pony mirical wonderland gang if you like it better.

I would have sticked to that name just to piss people off but tbh i am busy with doing something against all that crap around here, so i just dont care.

Are you trolling or you really have this big of a ego?
You want to be taken seriously it might help if you stop patting yourself on the back and see how you are toxic to the environment.
Forums are about discussion and when people act like dictators, we have to discuss it.

It is not a safety anymore ,The are just backing up.

No No No & No , How is that even a question ?

Let's try this one more time for the dumbest fucks in this thread:

1. It matters NOT whether participating in a ponzi is illegal. This is not even the issue.

2. The profit you seek to make through your participation in these schemes is that which is stolen from other users.

3. Posting of your participation in any form in their threads is UNDENIABLE PROOF that you don't give a shit about other users being ripped off.


Which part of point 3 describes anything other than somebody who is PROVEN THROUGH THEIR OWN ACTIONS to be untrustworthy.

Ergo, you are marked as such so that anybody dealing with you in future understands the type of person you are.


Seriously, fuck all your other whining bullshit, dismantle point 3 with reasoned argument and I will concede. Otherwise shut the fuck up.

Oh look it's MR Big Red Letters with the little Police Shield...

1. The issue is that people are leaving negative feedback for people posting their experience on Ponzi sites and if their experience is positive then they get a negative trust rating. The Ponzi sites are in the gambling section, there is a big warning saying you're an idiot if you invest money but self appointed forum members are singling out other members for posting their positive experience. The heavy handed arrogance of the self appointed forum police laying down the negative feedback is what really grates. As for you Cryptodevil you been going in the Coin Generator thread since almost the beginning screaming 'Scam' in your big attention grabbing font - a gambling site isn't a scam unless the owner decides to run with all the invested money.

2. Just like ALL forms of gambling both traditional, stock market, currency trading and Ponzi the profit you seek is gained from other losses - the bookmakers and casinos don't give you their money they give you the money that others have lost. The only time money is stolen in a Ponzi is when the owner decides to run with all money invested and that makes the owner a scammer not anyone who gambled that they would make money. If a Ponzi legitimately fails due to lack of new investors than the people who got in first and gambled that the site would last long enough to recoup their investment win the game. If a casino goes bust and you are holding their chips it doesn't make everyone who made money in the casino a scammer who has stolen from you. If the casino owner decides to run with the money they are the scammer. The problem is that some ponzis are purely designed to steal money from investors, while others are made to make some cash and they die out rather than be shut down mid round by the owner. If the owner decides to skim off enough money to cover their operation costs and pay them for their time this the House Edge that is their right and fair play to them - just like traditional gambling owners - http://casinogambling.about.com/od/oddsandends/a/houseedge.htm (http://casinogambling.about.com/od/oddsandends/a/houseedge.htm). So just to repeat because I know you find this bit hard to understand Users who make a profit from Ponzis aren't stealing from other users, they have just won the gamble, users who make a lost have just lost the gamble. This does not make it a scam or stealing. Users are not in a position to steal from each other only the site owner has that power.

3. This is wrong. If the site owner decides to scam and continues to run the Ponzi or a new one to sucker new investors and you don't raise a scam accusation thread and constantly shout scam then that is proof that you don't give a shit about other users being ripped off - which is what I did when Dualbitcoin stole from almost everyone and was hounded off the forum after stealing about $100 from people (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1369737.msg13936570#msg13936570 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1369737.msg13936570#msg13936570)). You'll see in that thread the supportive actions of James.Lent who is another member of your self appointed forum police. Participation in a Ponzi thread does not make you untrustworthy as you are simply gambling on whether you are going to win or not, making positive posts about your experience (if it is positive) isn't being a shill or trying to lure other people into the scheme and isn't dishonest - it's more akin to marketing to try to keep the game paying out for as many people as possible not just yourself, because if you've had a positive experience you are more likely to reinvest your profits just like with all gambling. It is no difference to your mate who bets on the horses or who likes casinos telling about the massive win he had at the weekend.

If you think this is undeniable proof of not giving a shit and untrustworthy behaviour then I fully expect you and the rest of the Ponzi police to be going round to all the threads which contain gambling in all forms including trading, and everyone who's signature contains a gambling site signature campaign advert and negatively feedback on every single person promoting those schemes too otherwise you are just as culpable as me, except I'm not so arrogant to assume the role you have given yourself as the last bastion to protect people from gambling even though that is the choice they have made themselves.

I look forward to you conceding as point 3 has been dismantled with reasoned argument, however I fully expect more big red font high handedness and circle jerking.

So, no, you chose to go with more rambling nonsense instead of a reasoned counter-argument.

Do you even logic?

Refute any of it if you can

1. Tone complaint. False equivalence.
2. False equivalence
3. Red herring. False equivalence.

Quick enough for you?

It's too simple.You are wasting your time with that.

No, I would like you show the same level of courtesy I made to you and provide reasoned arguments to refute my points or concede.

I just did refute it, moron. If you're not smart enough to understand the difference between objectively reasoned argument and logical fallacies I don't have the time, nor the inclination, to teach you.

Seriously, you totally deserve that negative trust. Ponzis are designed to con people into investing their life savings, which will be stolen from them forever! You're lucky you're not going to hell... You just got a warning from a DT member. Not to mention, running a ponzi or promoting a ponzi is technically illegal, and if you do this in the physical world(i.e. not bitcoin space) on a large scale you will probably get caught and get thrown into jail...

I think the judgement is totally fair, and seriously, he deserves more ::)

No, you just came across as an egotistical, arrogant prick who just dismissed the reasoned arguments that you requested in your post above out of hand. I gave you a second chance to see if you were genuinely capable of countering my arguments and you just confirmed what I already thought.

Awwww, more tone complaint? Because that's always a reasonable counterpoint, isn't it? "I haven't got an objective argument against your assertion so I will complain that I don't like the way you said it and pretend that equates to a reasoned counter."

I didn't dismiss them out of hand, I dismissed them for being the fallacious bollocks they are. As I said, though, if you're too dumb to be able to see the fallacies within your own rambling diatribe, I'm not going waste energy on trying to raise your IQ.

You are wrong and have no counter argument apart from the incorrect 'Ponzis scam and you're stealing from people'. You're a little child who has learnt a few big words to cover that fact. I'm done with feeding your ego anymore.

Buh-bye, dimwit. While you're stood still trying to figure out how to open the door to perform a truly epic rage-quit-slam on your way out, how about you actually read the utterly absurd statement you wrote:

I believe it is you who is supposed to propose a reasoned counter to my 'Point 3' assertion, something you have failed to do. Simply typing the words, "You are wrong" doesn't actually do anything to support your position unless you back it up with the necessary words describing why I am wrong. Those words needing to not consist of logical fallacy, of course.

In posting your support for a ponzi in a ponzi-scam thread, you are hoping for what, exactly? Could it possibly be that you wish to encourage others to participate so that they send their money in after you and that you will receive a share of their deposit from the scammers? Yes, that is exactly what it is. Eventually the scam *will* collapse because of math, leaving a number of people having lost their money.

You don't want to be the one who doesn't get paid, fact.
You post in ponzi threads to hopefully make sure other users are the ones who don't get paid, fact.
Your lack of shit-giving for other users losing their money in order for you to get paid is undeniable proof of the scumbag you are, fact.

cryptodevil

This user is currently ignored.

Uhuh, sure. Quick! Load up one of your other socks so you can post a supportive and equally-chock-full-of-fallacy post for yourself, I mean 'completely different user' of course!

no


dont mix up yourself with me.


I am taken serious, maybe not by you but this doesnt matter,


You do your "discussion" like you do the whole time, ill do my actions. fair enough

Well it is true it is ripping off people.

Just like when I was working as a designer in construction completely legal with permits and taxes and building codes, we still would charge 5 to 10K for a preliminary design, which is completely conform the market prices, but a rip off in my eyes. Most call that business and do not even consider it being ripping off people because well you got to earn a living right?

Just like when I was a reseller of imported stuff, again with permits and taxes all in order, I could easily triple or more on the prices when selling them below the average retail prices, it is a rip off in my eyes while most call that business which again most do not even consider it being ripping off people because well you got to earn a living right?

So yeah now I'm playing in HYIPs and Ponzi's in my spare time. It is ripping off people again. But at least now I am ripping off people that want the easy life and get rich without putting the work into it instead of people that put their hard worked cash into the "legal business" and paying way overpriced stuff.

And don't come with the argument that at least the legal businesses provided a product or a service as a lot of MLM's and Ponzi's had products that they needed to sell as well as "services". A Ponzi could collect data and addresses whenever they would sell key-rings for 0.005 and provide a product that stands for the coins people put in.


So yeah I'm ripping off people again, life will never change. Where is the morality in that? I recognize I am ripping off people in said schemes, but I also do recognize I am ripping off people under the status off "legal business". The only solution would be becoming a low-wage wage-slave and let your employer do the nasty stuff or becoming completely self sufficient and have no business or trades in this (mainly western) world.

Edit to say:


I am just as free to express whatever I want as you are to rain with neg trust. Luckily we all are.

Demonstrating the above behaviour proves you are untrustworthy, therefore you will be marked as such.

Whining about how the world isn't fair doesn't make your scumbaggery any less repugnant.

If you don't recognize the world of western business for what it is it is fine by me. I didn't say it was to prove any good. You misread again.

you say:


I do give a shit, that is why I chose certain users to be ripped off and others not.


But I gave you a head start. I quoted the warnings and say that I would have put my coins in if they were not busy elsewhere atm. So go ahead tag me. Too bad I only saw one of your friends that I could quote.

Bingo!!!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1339672.msg13665221#msg13665221

User is doing a great job

Keep up the good work Cryptodevil

This forum is piling up with useless dramas of probable ponzi operators.

I must say what Cryptodevil is doing right now should have been done from 2014 when thousands of ponzies came to birth one after another.
Now they are just getting butt burned because you are helping in clearing the junk.

Since you say you have the right to participate and promote a ponzi then one responsible member also has the right to tag you appropriately so that any newbies does not listen to you at one go.

I will suggest Cryptodevil to keep up with this cleaning work and at one point of time we will be able to reclaim the past glory of the forum.

To all ponzi operators: Better go away and start promoting on special ponzi forums. ;D

Says the guy with a gambling signature :shakeshead:

It's ok to promote one form of gambling but not another? Guess if Ponzi's were allowed to do signature campaigns people's tune may change.

They are allowed as per forum rules, but not the community

Are you genuinely this stupid or are you just pretending to be?

Ponzis and regular gambling aren't the same thing. No matter how desperate you are to bitch and whine, it is a false equivalence.

Its been said in your Trust rating why... ::)

There is a reference https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1381372.msg14049882#msg14049882
i guess you can read the rating, right?

You do understand that's how *all* gambling works, correct?
Or did you think dice websit operators are secretly manufacturing widgets & passing the profits on to the gamblers?

P.S. But I liek what you're doing. Dice sites next?

No you dont understand how gambling works and why its different from ponzis. i suggest to look both up.

No, you're an idiot, it is a fact. I suggest you look it up. <==see, I can make meaningless inane replies too :)
Now either explain you mean, or stfu, K?

There is no difference:
1) when you gamble you can either win, lose or break even just the same with Ponzis
2) the longer you gamble to more likely you are to lose everything just the same with Ponzis
3) when you win on gambling you are recouping other player losses (sorry Stealing as your buddy Cryptodick calls it) just the same with Ponzis
4) the House or site owner takes between 10-25% cut of the winning - the house edge (75-90% RTP) but this is ok unless it's a Ponzi and then its a scam.
5) if the bookmaker or casino owner run away with the cash the game turns to a scam just the same with ponzis

There is one big difference
1) forum users actively plug gambling sites with every post they make and don't receive negative trust unlike people who plug Ponzis
Where am I wrong?

Now I *know* you ain't so dumb, this is just playing dumb.

If you send money to an online dice site or casino and pull the lever to see if you have won you don't depend on the players after you being convinced to send money in, in order for you to profit.

Next!

Such a dick

If you send money to an online dice site or casino and pull the lever to see if you have won you depend on the players before you being convinced to send money in, in order for you to profit.

There is no difference

http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Video/150729/tdy_klg_jay_150729.today-inline-vid-featured-desktop.jpg

Bitch

No, now you guys are just making up dumb excuses. Thats a gambler's fallacy that any of your previous rolls, or anyone's for that matter, have an effect on your upcoming rolls.


Edit: Montytherun, don't expect not to be banned when you're trolling

As part of the community I disagree

BwaaahAAAhaaAAAAhaAAAA!!!!

You're so stupid you don't even get how stupid you are for posting this believing yourself to be smart!

'Sides, thought you were putting me on ignore, cowboy? What happened, the butt-hurt ache too much not getting just one more stab at trying not to make a laughing stock of yourself? You'd have been better off remaining silent and thought a fool, than opening your mouth and removing all doubt.

Where do you suppose dice sites get their money, if not from other players, what do you suppose the business model is?
Explain?

I take it back, you ain't playing dumb at all.

Every gambling site has a bank to start with you dumbass. For those who cant afford having a bank, they incorporate Moneypot. Since you dont even know that, might as well just stfu and sit by the side.

Mirror.

Does the sequence of events matter? In other words, does it matter that my winnings come directly from the person who gambles after I do? If they come from the guy who gambled before me, that makes it OK?

Its not about any of your previous rolls, or anyone's for that matter, have an effect on your upcoming rolls - it's about the winnings you make coming from the losses of all the other players who lost in the game, its exactly what Cryptodevil described but before instead of after.

How is that trolling? Surely going into every Ponzi thread multiple times and posting Scam in big red letters when the sites are paying out and the site owner is answering queries is trolling. I was responding to an idiotic post made by an idiotic poster - having a discussion on a discussion forum.

Just because what I've written doesn't fit with your misguided beliefs doesn't make me a troll.

Most Ponzis have a bankroll to start with, even if it's only to start a website & bootstrap the Ponzi.
Just like a dice site -- the initial bankroll is replenished & grows from the players' money. Duh.
You don't think the dice site starts with a bankroll & just keeps on giving it away, do you?
BTW, try to abstain from words like "dumbass" when you talk to your betters.
Learn some fucking manners, faggot.

No, it isn't. Most gambling doesn't involve deception. Ponzi scams *do*.

Ponzi scams promise their victims that they will make a profit. It's a lie, because not everyone can make a profit. Those who don't make a profit are defrauded.

Dice sites make it clear that they are offering a game of chance. They show the odds up front. "You have a 49.5% chance of doubling your money; there is a 1% house edge". Players know they might lose. Nobody's surprised when they lose a coin toss.

If you can't see the difference between these two (basically: Ponzi scams are inherently dishonest, Dice sites aren't) then I don't know how to help you.

The issue is breaking down how far are we going to take this and that's what has me and I suspect others worried.
Since it is not clearly defined and I see some want to go at this like a religious crusade,its troubling. Not discounting that there are those that really do want to alter the forum but the issues seems to be spreading out. It either needs to be defined or it will become a joke in the end as you eventually have people going all over the place.
After a well we are just trolling each other and lets face it,some of us enjoy that aspect as well. 8)

everyone post and support a ponzi site (a scam site by definition!) well it deserve a negative trust because it's a scam support!
And we (all users) can't know if a "proof of payments" is fake, so also who post, give a "support" to a sure scam.

THe btc is shady with such problem about trust, we have a forum that need to support such activities?
No I think no, because if I talk with a "normal people" can't NEVER trust in a site create to scam from the basic!
baaa you can invest with your money but don't "share" or suggest, because it's a stupid action for all users!

>Most gambling doesn't involve deception. Ponzi scams *do*.
Ponzi *scams* do, but so do scam gambling sites. We aren't talking about those -- we're talking about Ponzis which clearly state exactly what they are.
See?

Of course the sequence of events matters!

If you log in to a Dice site, make a deposit of BTC and roll, you have no idea whether the wins/losses of the people before you will mean you will find yourself fortunate enough to be joining in at the best time in the algorithm or the worst. Your wins and losses are not knowingly dictated by the players before you, although they are a factor, the players before you have no way of knowing how their playing will affect your playing.

If you join a Ponzi and send money in, you then have to seek out other people and convince them to send money in so that you don't end up being the user who doesn't get paid. The purpose of joining the scheme is to *not* be the mug who doesn't profit, so you have to post encouraging words in their threads to rustle up some other people who, through your post, will be encouraged enough to send in their money, resulting in some of their money being shared with you.

Your profit comes, not from a provably-fair algorithm unaffected by other players but, instead, a mathematically unsustainable process of finding other people to take the fall for you.

The forum should not. Nor should it support illegal gambling (yeah, it's illegal in US, where theymos' at). And yet, here we are...

But now we're just talking about the rules of particular gambling games & best strategies to use. Some gambling games have a strong skill/social component (bluffing in poker comes to mind), others do not (dice).

Dice [in principle] is a game of pure chance, inevitably impoverishing its players (on the average) due to house edge. Some clearly like losing, see gambling addicts. No sane human being (who is not trying to launder money) would use a dice site, just like no sane human being would use a ponzi site. But we're not a mental health organization, we let people keep their kinks.

Ponzi is a more interesting game, that's all. Everyone but the operator will lose, on the average, but that's neither here nor there :)

IF I WILL DELETE MY PONZI THREAD WILL YOU DELETE YOUR FEEDBACK!!!???? ANSWER!  :-[

Yes and done.

I deleted my script threads and will not more offer something. Dear Police please delete your negative trust! I understand my offence and sorry!  :'( Selling doubler scripts it is bad.

Not all Ponzi's work like that. Only the most simplistic stuff is like that. But as soon as there are different options in "profits" and timeframes in "turnovers" there is no need to get new investors, you can easily scoop up the coins already in a project as last player scammer  ::). Pretty standard in the HYIP world. Not so common here yet as most of the projects here are just the same lame script copy. However flexibit was an example of that. And one user from here showed exactly what I just said. that is just math.

Btw the process is unstable and that can be proven by math but it is not unstable because of math.

You have a chance to step out of the norms of society and establish a new way of thinking and you want to let the governement creep back in to the discussion of what is legal and what is not? Bitcoin is seen as illegal in many parts but here we are talking about it. This argument holds no water unless you believe bitcoin needs to conform and submit to backdoor technology where the government can look at every transaction. This is fair but do not presume we all come to bitcoin for the sole reason of profit.

Hah! Lol! That is not a dice site in first place.
If you do not even click on my signature at least you can read what is written there right?

That is a SPORTS BETTING site.

So you are calling out a sports betting site a scam?

Good luck there IDIOT!
Go suck your ponzi bag!

Wow, I wonder if the other 632 posts you have made are as retarded as that one.

A) I made no mention of a dice site - I called it a gambling signature. Sports betting is gambling
B) I didn't mention scam once.
C) I implied that you were being a hypocrite calling out Ponzis while having a gambling signature.

In case you are too thick to understand even that

A) Duh
B) Dur
C) Ugh

Gambling and ponzis are not same. That is it!

I will not reply to your trolls anymore.

@OP and his shills -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAi1005K71g

Ah, a troll accusation... the ultimate internet put down.

The only debating you guys seem to be able to do is mass-debating each other in a giant 'hehehe I gave that guy a negative feedback hurhurhur' circle jerk

Gambling and Ponzi are exactly the same - you are betting on a particular outcome to try and make a profit.

Looks like a break down in semantics but I think a ponzi scheme can be seen as a gamble.

Gamble:
: to risk losing (something valuable or important) in order to do or achieve something


If I invest in a ponzi scheme I am risking that I will get money back,risk vs. reward!
But I hate breaking this down because ponzi schemes are more clear cut on the taking advantage of people.
I am not putting people through the ringer with negative ratings over this so I can choose to be passive in the relationship of the words.
Think if you are going after ponzi schemes the logic extends to gambling as well. But thats splitting hairs.

My issue stays the same. If you choose to pass the warning on the subforum,its all on you after that point. No need to waste time chasing down ghosts that are just going to reappear in a weeks time.

**Edit***
Negative ratings also keep people out of signature campaigns,so this is not just a warning to other members. It has a stigma.

Sorry for being late.

Probably not, no, but I expect it would depend on the circumstances. Regardless, this is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Noobs miss the bright red "Warning: Trade with extreme caution!" under a user's name several times, why would they read a note in a subforum?
Though assuming that everyone read everything they should, there's still a few problems. The first being language barriers; not everyone speaks English and not everyone may understand what that message means.
The second being human nature. People tend to believe things differently should it affect them positively. For some people a scheme they invest in could promise to kill a child per investment, though their own greed will have them invest for personal gain anyway.
Lastly, if people like OP were to post on threads saying how legitimate the promoted service is, do you not think this would lower/nullify the warning given by the forum?

Then there is nothing we can do against that apart from put it in obnoxious bold red lettering, which isn't going to happen. I'm sure that they would read the posts in the thread though, so once again people like OP making the service seem legitimate doesn't help.

They can, yes. However, afaik claiming that you didn't know a law existed doesn't then make that law not be applied to you. Regardless, as said above, the legality of Ponzis is not what the problem here is (and is likely an issue for another topic/board).

The problem should this happen is not how 'uncool' it would be to leave everyone a negative, more that if that were to become the norm any users with a legitimate negative trust would be overlooked and could scam further.

The topic here isn't about a noob getting a negative trust for investing in something he shouldn't. This topic is about a member who has been here for a long time trying to legitimize a service that he knows will become anything but.

That isn't the point in tagging them. The tag is to show other users that the person running the ponzi shouldn't be trusted with their money.

This isn't the point. OP didn't just invest in a ponzi, he promoted it to over 100 people. Please don't try and tell me that all of these 100 people know exactly what a ponzi is and how it works.

Child.

Yeah, Ponzis are a form of gambling. That's why they are to be posted in a subsection of the Gambling subforum.

You mean step out of society's norms & into the traffic to gamble online & invest in Ponzis? Err... How about no?
I'm not letting the government "creep back in" anywhere. Mainly because it never asks for my permission, oddly enough. But it *will* step in, without knocking. And ban the shit out of Bitcoin for everybody.
Because you just *had to* gamble away all your money to make a political statement.

Again I see that messing up between gambling and ponzi.
Ponzi is not at all similar to gambling.

In ponzi there is no fairness or trust that could get back your invested money.
When you participate in a ponzi your success or failure is entirely dependent on the whims of known scumbags.

In gambling everything can be verified and the website stays for very long time. Have you ever heard of the term probably fair?

If you judge what some one does with there bitcoin you are allowed to in a free world. What you should not be allowed to do is restrict what some one does with their funds because you see it do be stupid or ill advised. Any form of expression that is connected to a account is a restriction because it allows people to judge those that partake. If I have to walk around with a label on my head that says I am into granny porn,it would be a rough go. Negative rep works in same way.

Again: Dice, Ponzis, and poker are all forms of gambling, but the rules are different. Though you could insist that poker ain't gambling due to its inherent dishonesty: the guy across the table from you is allowed, within the game ruleset, to lie (bluff).

Risk/Reward in that aspect you are offered the same outcome. There is a added factor in ponzi that makes it more of a problem but you are working with the same dynamics by definition. I gamble,so its not like I am bashing it. Was a member at a few sportsbooks back in the day that went under and kept funds,so I got the same outcome as if it was a pyramid scheme and dude ran off in the end.

Dear Confused:
Outside of society's norms, you're free to jerk it to grannies, just like other freedom lovers are free to label you & tell everyone about it.
No rules for you = no rules for them. Everything not expressly forbidden is permitted :)

1. So if investing in ponzi schemes arent illegal, why are we giving negative trust for investing?

2. But the person who got the neg isnt running a ponzi, you shouold look into the matter more

3. Maybe some of them dont know, im pretty sure he didnt get those refs from bitcointalk hence why i dont see the need for the negative rep on his profile

1. Because you're supporting a ponzi, and it's operator. May I say, operating a ponzi is illegal, and by investing, you're assisting the operator, and you're basically assisting in a crime.

2. Same as above.

3. Some people deserve it. If they cant see the red italics at the top of the scamzi section, it's their fault. Oh, and the countless threads about butthurt investors telling people how bad ponzis are.

IMHO anyone participating in ponzi signature campaign should be given a benefit of doubt.A member can not be held responsible for wearing a signature of a service or website which later turned out to be ponzi.How is one supposed to know a potential ponzi? and if a member wearing a signature is expected to know,the forum staff should delete the signature campaign thread itself

Well first of all, You give a completely different response then some here in this thread and I can respect that.



First of all I am not against warnings at all, quite the opposite actually and I never lured anyone in promising great profits or anything. I made them aware of the system and the pits they can fall in but only when asked. I even think that the subforum should be renamed Ponzi's Pyramides and HYIPs just to make it even more clear. In another thread I explained why it is better to have a controlled space for that kind of things where in you can keep them small and tight and the losses of the noobs of the bitcoin community (not the bitcointalk community) can be low as the coins they put in seldom go over the 0.01BTC I mainly referred to the law because someone mentioned Ponzi's are illegal.


Well for some in here it is not about the long time member presenting it as legit service. It is about everyone that is joining a Ponzi in the subforum and according to their account everyone who is joining is proving they are a scammer hence the cute red warning:



But in my opinion that is tagging the noobs too, like you say they are not the point in this discussion. As said warning explains they will tag everyone that is joining noob or not. and by that I come to this point:


The problem they cause by this I explained here:


So by them tagging everyone, you have to agree that it will even become more obscure for a newcomer to see the legitimate negative trust on the ones organizing as everyone is wearing the same tag.

So I have no problem what so ever with a warning in every new thread, it could even be an automated message that gives an ever clearer warning than the standard warning above the sub. I have no problem with tagging every operator deep in the red and explain it in the topic itself. But I do think it will miss it's goal if you will tag everyone.

We need to get over this illegal aspect, bitcoin is illegal in some areas. Are we to believe suddenly you will dump bitcoin if it gets banned in your Country? Maybe we should ban all talk of anything that is banned in any Country to be safe.
No matter where you are morally, you either need to live and let live or find another hobby. This righteous b.s just is a divide and conquer tactic.

Because he didn't just invest in a ponzi, he promoted it and condoned it's use. He is trying to trick users that could not know how schemes such as this work into investing and possibly being scammed. As dooglus said:

My apologies, I misread your original message. Regardless, my answer is very similar to the above. He isn't just investing, he is promoting a known scam. I would say this justifies a negative trust.

That's irrelevant imo. If I were found to steal from people IRL, I shouldn't be shown as trustworthy on a forum simply because my conduct there was acceptable. Whether he is promoting it here, on another site or on a giant billboard in his city center, he is still promoting a scam openly and deserves the repercussions for doing so.

Personally, I think this is the problem. I am glad that you are open about the way that such services work, but I believe that this should be given to them along with the initial announcement of the thread. I think that it is fair that people understand what they are investing in without having to ask.

I can agree with this, though it is debatable that people should do their own research before investing in anything and understand what they are getting into therefore not needing such an obvious name.

Personally I can't say that I would persecute users for investing in a Ponzi, though it is definitely immoral if you understand how they work. However, promoting an investment similar to the way that OP did - whilst knowing exactly how the scheme works - is definitely worthy of a negative trust.

I do agree, yes. The problem comes in that without negative trust tags, a newbie has no possible way to see that such services are immoral and will eventually scam (even though trust can only be seen by logged in members, which I believe should definitely be changed). I believe that what you have described here:
Is a good way to deal with the problem of ponzi operators and negative trust, however this is again not the subject that this topic describes.
I think that the negative trust on OP is justified even if he may not be running a ponzi simply because he is giving his word as a "Hero Member" that such a service is safe to invest in and will continue to pay, which we all know it won't. Whilst his rank may not mean much to those acquainted with this forum, to a noob this rank may be misinterpreted as something trusted and take his word; possibly causing them to be scammed.

This isn't relevant to the topic. Please at least read the thread before spamming for your bit-cents.

Sounds like the "if you buy drugs, you're sponsoring terrorism" argument. If operating a ponzi is illegal (it is, in US, where theymos' at), so is facilitating such operations (running a subforum where 90% of the users are participating in/promoting ponzis). If OP is breaking the law, so is theymos. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Neg rate theymos too.


Bitcoin isn't illegal in US, theymos is a US national & is running this forum from US soil. That's what counts, legally.

Then why is poker advertised here? Same goes for the sportsbooks? That does not hold up if we are using American laws.

Theymos is a scofflaw, and laws are not always enforced. If you speed and don't get a ticket, don't assume that speeding became legal.
AFAIK, he has always cooperated when called upon to do so, so it might be smarter for "them" to look the other way on petty stuff.

If that's the case, that US law is the criterion for what can and can't be discussed, then:

1) I'm going to shit a brick
2) Someone should add that to the official rules

I'm not supporting ponzi's or supporting the people who support them.  But I do think it's a fair point that the laws of any country are sorta arbitrary and as far as I can tell, it's the rules of the forum as established by the forum dictators which govern what's discussed here and what's not.  I think the point that bitcoin itself is illegal in some places puts a fine point on that.

1. You're not going to shit a brick, because impossible.
2. Why would he add it to official rules, when
  2a. there *are no official rules* on this forum
  2b. Theymos is braking the rule himself, and getting paid for it

And yeah, you have to obey the laws of the country you reside in. That's just the way things are :-\

How's this going on for you atm OP ?

Original http://www.krone.at/Oesterreich/Tschetschenen-Quartett_pruegelt_Wiener_spitalsreif-Sittenwaechter-Story-498170 (http://www.krone.at/Oesterreich/Tschetschenen-Quartett_pruegelt_Wiener_spitalsreif-Sittenwaechter-Story-498170)

And if any of you are in any doubt, NO! Nowhere is Sharia Law in effect in the E.U.