Bitcoin Forum

Scammers Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3420

What happened:: In October 2015 Dooglus edited code for a ponzi script in order to fix some bugs with said ponzi script.

Reference Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1216193.0;all (archive (http://archive.is/GJAt4)), https://github.com/dooglus/CryptoPonzi (archive (http://archive.is/szxcl)) and https://github.com/dooglus/CryptoPonzi/branches (archive (http://archive.is/2DtID))

It seems that some people feel that "supporting" a ponzi in any way is considered to be scamming, and editing code for a ponzi certainly would fall under the category of "supporting" a ponzi.

Even more people are strongly against the sale of ponzi scripts and the advertising of a ponzi in their signature, which is very similar to the benefits that dooglus has provided.

Additional Notes: The ponzi in question claims to be "risk free" because if not enough people continue to "invest" in the ponzi that you will receive returns via POS staking, however this is simply not true because the CLAMs you send to the ponzi will be used to payout previous "investors" leaving nothing to stake. This means that not only was dooglus supporting a ponzi, but he was supporting a ponzi that was dishonest about the risks involved in "playing" such ponzi.


edit:
It seems that dooglus has admitted to knowing that the name of the operator of the ponzi in question is "Kyle" which also happens to be the name of MRKLYE (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=130731). I believe that dooglus may have known that MYKYLE was behind the ponzi in question when he was helping with the code of the script in question.

Amount Scammed: unknown/TBD/may possibly increase in the future

This completes the first part of my series of the transgressions of Dooglus
Part 1: Dooglus supporting ponzis   (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1414841.0)

Well...people have gotten Negative Feedback's for writing scripts for Ponzi's (example BSM) which is considered equally punishable under the DT's laws.CryotoDevil who's a DT under Dooglus takes the initiative of negging ponzi users which is a good thing.Not sure how to reach to the above situation .

If you agree that negative feedback is appropriate for those that write scripts for ponzis then I would suggest that you leave dooglus a negative trust rating.

Since you generally need to trust those who are in your trust network (to a certain extent), I would also suggest that you exclude dooglus from your trust network by adding the following to your trust list:

Well, First off that clam ponzi was run by a member other than dooglus. You're sort of grasping at straws..

If memory serves me correctly dooglus had helped the operator of that site with a security hole in his script.
dooglus never profited nor endorsed the ponzi from my knowledge, nor did anyone lose any money on the game.

Also looking back on that ponzi and it's design their was no way for anyone to lose money due to CLAM's high rate of POS.
And, If I recall correctly, Before the ponzi was shut down everyone got paid out what they were due out of the owners pocket.

Additional Notes: Any amount of clam no matter how trivial has a chance to stake.. SO your point on your additional note isn't valid.


P.S. Going after people on this forum that have been proven trustworthy with over 60M worth of bitcoin for giving a buddy a hand with some code is pure fucking faggotry, and you need to spend your time working on your own obvious personality flaws before witch hunting others seller.
Slandering others doesn't make you more credible, It just makes you look like an upset child.

OMG. Dooglus fixes bugs. Such a surprise. The script was already available to everyone, in use in the wild, and malfunctioning badly. I fixed a couple of bugs in it so it would malfunction less badly. It still sucks.

What do you do other than attempt to stir up trouble and lie to people?

I heard he's great at escrow services doog.  ;)

That's because there's nothing other than "straws" for him to grasp at.

He's trying to make it look like I support Ponzis because I saw a bug and fixed it. That's what I do - I see stuff that's wrong (like idiots telling lies on the forum) and try to put it right (by correcting them). Sometimes they get butthurt and "grasp at straws" for years afterwards. But nobody pays them any attention.

There's no evidence of me "supporting" your Ponzi, because I never did. It was always a bad idea.

As I told you at the time, that script is crap, and the concept of attempting to pay the required exponentially increasing returns from staking rewards is fundamentally broken. But you figured that out for yourself eventually. :)


I heard he has a history of pretending to be multiple different people so he can escrow his own deals.

And we're meant to take him seriously?  ::)

The scripts sole purpose was to run a ponzi. There are no other potential uses for the script in question. It was forked multiple times and apparently had previously been fairly widely used by ponzis in the past. By editing the code in the script, you were fixing a problem that various ponzis were (potentially) having, allowing them to potentially build a stronger sense of legitimacy and eventually end up stealing a greater amount of other people's money.

What lie have I said in this thread? Please point it out to me. If you can successfully find a lie written by me in the OP of this thread then I might even payout a bug bounty extortion to you :D

Wrong section, dooglus did not scam anyone.

It has a chance to stake, however the chance is not very high with small amounts of CLAM in a wallet/address.

Oh, so just because someone has been trusted with a lot of money in the past, they should be given a free pass in being able to do whatever they want in the future....you should vote for Hilary.
Slander? What have I said here that is incorrect? Please point it out :D

Get a life Quickseller.

The answer to all of the above:

I don't have time to hold your hand and explain to you the finer points of logic and thinking at the moment, you obviously need a new hobby other than trying to cause a commotion on the internet, because if you think we'll forget how much of a turd in the punch bowl you are if you accuse everyone else of being shit you are sadly mistaken.

What you are saying is that it is okay to support ponzies as long as you only fix their code as well as provide it for everyone to use and modify for their own intents?

People on DT constantly neg users here, especially new users, for even posting in a thread that has the word ponzi in it. They are, and have been, setting an example for folks that its not okay to even talk about them much less help them with their code. There are several threads here where every single poster in a ponzi thread has been negged by DT members.

Seems a bit two faced that this doesn't apply to everyone. As much as I think Quickseller is a shady shit I agree with him here.

By you fixing their code, and still providing it to this day, for others to use to scam people with is still you supporting ponzis regardless of your intent.

No ponzi or business online or offline contains 0 risk. I could easily download it from your github, gain a large amount of deposits, then fuck off with the funds just as easily as Billy Joe Bob Jackson down the street could without modifying a thing on it.

Each person has their own philosophy on ponzis, but this is the scam accusation section. Unless you are claiming that Dooglus is directly involved in a ponzi that has already scammed people, this is the wrong section. I'd move the thread to reputation or something similar, but I'll leave it to you for a while to either make an accusation that would support this thread being in scam accusation, or move it.

I guess if we are trying to get rid of the philosophy of ponzis, and get straight to the question, does Dooglus owe anyone money?

I think I'm missing something essential here. Where did dooglus support the ponzi? Got a link to that? The thread you linked to says quite the contrary:

https://archive.is/GJAt4#selection-5773.0-5773.105



You should do a Netflix and post it all at once for binge trolling.

Fix the url tag.

Nope, I believe that the operator of that ponzi actually paid everyone out that had remaining payouts before he closed it down.

Seller is just trying to be a shit disturber from what I can see. Just like any other day on the forums here really.  ::)

As far as i know (assuming the topic would be still a live) a PSA would be posted and everyone advertising or supporting the ponzi after that will be tagged. Thats how CD does it and its posted here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1381105.0) how it works.

So the main question for me is now: Is this topic about supporting the fight against ponzis or is this a gathering of some old fags that are butthurt for whatever reasons, throwing dirt at each other. If its the second thing then: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRBs_F74Nek

In addition: How about working on the current problems instead of dragging out personal bitchfights in public? Well, everybody is free to start where ever he wants...

Want me to post an PSA in that thread??

I think that this is a little pretentious. Don't get me wrong, it's ok to discuss people's actions and question their reputation but why is this scam accusation submitted by someone that wasn't scammed? Dooglus was very clear about what he was developing. I'd say that by being in the crypto space for so long one should have grown some tolerance for the mere existence of financial schemes and activities that would have been unacceptable in most other occasions. There are just so many and in this case it seems to me as though Quickseller is trying to dig out old and now irrelevant information to damage dooglus. I don't know why that is though, maybe it boils down to a personal conflict without anything overly serious at stake.

For QS it's more than likely a vendetta but he does bring up a good point.

With the current anti-ponzi view going on in the forum it looks really bad when someone who's voice seems to matter actively fixes and provides a ponzi script for download via their github.

It looks even worse when others who voices seem to matter as well chime in with support for doing this.

Personally I couldn't care less if people do whatever with ponzis as its a good lesson to those that get scammed to not do it again. Lessons learned are best done the hard way.

But if rules apply for some then they must apply to all.

There is obviously more to it, just quoting the most recent one:

Like posted before, if the post is addressed to CD, he would post a PSA and tag all future supporters. Thats why my question is: What is the thread really about?

Speaking so, i could post a PSA and i would tag doog if he goes on supporting it after that post. we all knew: this will not happen.

Oh right! And now that you mention it, dooglus has crossed out Quickseller from default trust.
https://anonmgur.com/up/d6b018258f8ef698ab980c4cf38acd76.png

A PSA warning users about the CryptoPonzi script would be a good thing for the community as it will make more people aware of it and they can watch out for websites that use it.

Edit- On a side note, a stickied thread with the current and past ponzis may be beneficial as well or possibly a detailed guide on how to tell when a site is operating like a ponzi as a warning to people.

Why does this issue pop up from time to time,it never goes anywhere and comes across as sour grapes.
I know little of the issue but see it posted frequently enough that I know it just turns into a flame war eventually.
Not saying either side is right and would like to see a final outcome for this sooner than latter.
Serves as a good distraction but achieves little.

Still need a popcorn emoticon :P

Do not mind me,can see its getting turbulent now.

It's the new dt brigade who've been negging users extremely liberally,  as has already been mentioned.   I would say if dooglus doesn't get negged it's sketchy as fuck.  And for the record,  I think a lot of the negs I've seen for ponzis are undeserved.

And then there's quickseller who's the last person on earth who should be running his mouth.   But that's off topic.

Still it seems, most people didnt even care to read CD's anouncment OR really looking up the feedbacks. Otherwise there wouldnt be random inaccurate statements like this. I am not saying you do it all the time, i just picked this one.

OP - he who lives in a glass house should not throw stones.

Dooglus is honest.  You are not.

Left for chuckles:   
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1179238.msg12603059#msg12603059

Which is why there is the "~" feature.

However even by those "extremely liberal" standards, and even assuming that some other newbie user had done the same thing -  it doesn't appear that a neg trust would have been posted. There was no PSA and there was no actual support for the ponzi, quite the contrary.

I'm not aware of any DT1-2 member negging coders for making changes to open source software that might be used for scamming but I'm sure someone will let me know if I'm wrong.

Just watching some of dooglus responses in other threads I would not say he is completely out in the clear on this. Just a personal observation,each his own right.
But at the same time I think QS has been beating a dead horse here for a well,the link made me recall laughing as the shit was flung around.

How can't I quote you?

@quickseller,

Dooglus doesn't support ponzis... he only fixed some bug in that code =! support ponzi.


Quickseller , really get a life ... there are a lot of good/fantastic things outside your room !


PS: take it only as a suggestion, nothing of personal.

As long as he is publicly offering ponzi scripts for download he is. Not sure why people just keep overlooking this.

It's one thing to fix some code for someone, it's another to host it on their github for everyone to download long after the fact.

"Hey, here is a ponzi source ready to go for you, use my personal link and share it with all of your friends. Remember to use the tutorial I provide at the link so you know how to properly set it up"

Come on folks, we all know the definition of support and what it means. Lets not act like we don't.

Then... what does quickseller want at the end of the story ? The removal of dooglus from the depth 1 of the trust list/system ?

I honestly don't care what QS wants as he is a liar and cannot be trusted.

I just want everyone to be held accountable for applied rules with NO exceptions.

Salty -

That depends on the jurisdiction of a court in which litigation is potentially taken against dooglus, as well as the tort laws in such jurisdiction, however I would err on the side of "yes".

The allegation in the OP is that dooglus (helped) create a product that was designed to ultimately steal from others. This means that anytime any ponzi operator had previously used his script to steal money from others, that he would likely be considered to be an accomplice to such theft. According to this (https://www.quora.com/Is-there-accomplice-liability-in-civil-law), there is no distinction between an accomplice and the person who actually commits the tort, although it is likely that the accomplice would not be liable for 100% of the damages.

A Gun Manufacturer can potentially (https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42871.pdf) (Page 2, last paragraph), be held liable if they knowingly sell a gun to someone they know will subsequently use said gun to commit a crime of violence (or a drug trafficking crime).

A bartender can be potentially held liable if s/he knowingly (or should have known) servers a drink to a drunk person, and said drunk person subsequently kills someone while driving while still drunk.

Both of the above examples are very similar to dooglus creating a product whose only potential use is to eventually scam people.

---

---

MRKLYE -

So in other words, you are unable to point out any lie I have said in this thread, and you have no response to my other points. Good to know.

---

---

whywefight -

A prerequisites of someone receiving negative trust, or the community being warned about nefarious behavior/activity is not a PSA being posted in some thread. Someone cannot say that they never saw the PSA that says stealing is not allowed and as a result they shouldn't get negative trust for not repaying a loan they took out. If you stole money, or in this case, helped people steal money, then you should be labeled a scammer, period. You either stole money (or helped people steal money), or you didn't, there is no "I didn't know this isn't allowed".

---

---

suchmoon -


Someone posting a PSA saying that others in the community should not do or post something does not make whatever the subject of the PSA a scam. There is nothing that would stop someone from writing a PSA that says that anyone who thinks the sky is blue, and if such a (ridiculous) PSA was posted, anyone who posts they think the sky is blue would not automatically be a scammer. If you are caught driving 65 MPH on a highway in which the speed limit is only 55 MPH, you cannot present a defense on the basis that you thought the speed limit was 65 MPH (if you do, it would be ignored by the judge/court). Writing a PSA might be helpful to educate people who might otherwise not know they are about to "break the law", however it is not necessary to post such a PSA prior to someone being guilty of a crime.

That is an awfully specific example you are looking for, however there was essentially the same example posted in #2 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1414841.msg14335660#msg14335660) of this thread:
BSM (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=567870) received negative trust from both Cryptodevil and Lutpin for selling a ponzi script (that he created). here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1382903.0) (archive (http://archive.is/fd4Eb) -- archive prior to the OP being deleted/edited to nothing (http://archive.is/LAI9g)), and here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1384009.0) (archive (http://archive.is/jxcuA) is where BSM admitted to creating a ponzi script that he was trying to sell.

In this case, dooglus took open source script, made some changes to it, creating a new script (that is based on the prior script), and published it for anyone to download and use. The main difference is that dooglus is offering his ponzi script for free while BSM was trying to sell it.

---

---

redsn0w -


The particular script that dooglus worked on was having problems, apparently to the point that the script would send money back to an incorrect address. Dooglus edited the script so that it would send money to the correct address (or so he claimed). In other words, before dooglus helped, any potential ponzi operator that wanted to use that script would not be able to run a ponzi, and after dooglus finished helping with the script, such ponzi operator would be able to run a ponzi.

I fixed bugs in Ponzi code. It's true. Whether the code is used to steal money or not is up to the person running the script and how they market it. The only reason I was even looking at the script was because Klye was having problems with it. As I understood it, he was marketing his Ponzi truthfully and not attempting to steal anything from anyone. From what I've heard nobody other than Klye himself ended up out of pocket from using that script.


I wasn't referring to this thread in particular, but since you asked, the very first sentence you wrote is a lie:


That is a link to my profile not a scammer's profile. I am not a scammer. I have never scammed anyone or attempted to scam anyone.


I don't want your money. We've been over your weak "extortion" claim before too. When someone tells you "we will pay you for finding bugs" and then you find a bug and they admit it's a bug but won't pay you what they promised to pay you, and you leave them feedback saying that they broke their word, that isn't extortion. That's them showing that they are not trustworthy, and me leaving feedback so others can see that they are not trustworthy. But maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. Maybe we're saving rehashing that for a separate episode of "dooglus is bad". I can hardly wait.


Absolutely not. I'm not asking for a free pass. But this "fixing bugs makes doog bad" line of argument only makes you look weak.


I do. I owe lots of people a lot of CLAMs. If they want repayment they need to log in to Just-Dice and click the 'withdraw' button.


Thanks for taking the time to find that.

This is what QS always does. It's the same with the dice sites I played on and talked about that ended up disappearing with people's money. He says I "supported" them, but in fact went to great lengths to repeatedly state that I didn't know who ran them or whether they were trustworthy.


For instance?


I am not offering Ponzi scripts for download. I forked a crappy Ponzi project on github to fix a bug in it that was costing Klye some money. Github make the script available for download, as they were making it available for download before I forked it. That's how github works.

And I am not supporting Ponzis simply by correcting an error in a Ponzi script. If I correct a spelling mistake in one of your sentences, am I supporting the point you are trying to make? I don't think so. I am simply correcting an error.


The code is open source. I made the fix in public. That's how open source works. The development is distributed and open. You think I could delete my change from the Internet now even if I wanted to?


This is a misrepresentation. I forked an existing project, which itself was a fork of an existing project. If there's a tutorial in the fork I made it's because there was a tutorial in the project I forked. All I did was fix a trivial bug in existing code.


That should be "Let's not act", you missed an apostrophe. Does that mean I am supporting you? Or am I only fixing an error in what you said?

@dooglus
Was another thread similar to this where you said everyone was a sock puppet that did not fall in with your thinking. Just found that interesting to dismiss everyone in the thread that way. Same names pretty much in this thread supporting you as in that one as well. My opinion you are shady just by watching. Nothing personal. ;)

Right, if only there was a traffic law that said something like "you shall obey the posted speed limit"... in any case, completely irrelevant. I was simply responding regarding the "extremely liberal" neg trust ratings and checking if dooglus' participation in that thread would have passed as support for the ponzi same way as aforementioned ratings.

Of course you don't need a PSA or any kind of other formal process to post a neg. The PSA is just a choice of some members to warn about their intent and is not a forum rule. Which is why I still don't understand why some posters even in this thread are not negging dooglus but for some reason are expecting others to do that. If anyone distrusts dooglus for the reasons presented in the OP or any other reasons - just go ahead and do it, how hard can it possibly be.

I also think it's disingenuous to be opposed to the way cryptodevil and whywefight and others are negging ponzis, but at the same time expect a significantly more wide-ranging criteria to be applied to someone you dislike personally. Now that would be the wrong use for the trust system but thank God theymos for the tilde.

I moved it to Reputation anyway, because reviewing it all again, it looks like a real longshot to be calling Dooglus a scammer by possible involvement with a non specific thing. It isn't unreasonable for people to question Dooglus' person or reputation for something like this I suppose. Not that moderators are here to arbitrate scam reports, but unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't really look like this is a scam report, rather a warning that in your opinion Dooglus has been involved in a moral gray area. I get what you are trying to say by association, but a lot of this is opinion. First on the topic of ponzis, some people think they are a scam, others do not. Not that my personal opinion matters here, but I'm using my opinion as an example. Ponzi's are not a scam by default, just because the people playing the game end up losing in the end, that doesn't mean that there isn't a calculated risk that players can take with the hope to make money. In my opinion, ponzis with express written rules (like all thousand ponzis I've seen pop up) are not scams in themselves, nor when they close down, as long as they do so in a way that abides by what they have stated to the public. I don't think of ponzis any differently than dice sites. That said, assuming that the ponzis that used Dooglus' source were in fact scams I'm still not really convinced that he would be liable by association. Not only was his association to fix bugs, but he's not really directly liable. If godaddy makes someone a website and they do something illicit with it, godaddy isn't at fault. To modify your gun manufacturer comparison, in this example Dooglus isn't the guy who manufactured the gun, hes the guy who fixed the crooked barrel that the manufacturer produced.

The biggest point I want to stress here, is my opinion asside, even looking from both my perspective and counter my perspective, via mine there is no scam accusation, and via counter, the scam accusation is incredibly shakey at best. From both perspectives, I'd say what is really in question here is a moral question as to how people view Dooglus' actions, which would belong in reputation rather than scam accusation. If what I've said is wrong and I've misinterpreted what you are going for, please feel free to move the thread back to scam accusations. I'm solely trying to help you put your thread in the correct board.

Frankly I don't care about the outcome for either of you, I have no stake in any of this, short of making sure the thread is in the location it belongs.

1. You are clearly offering it for download on your github, would you like me to go download a copy specifically from your personal github account that also has a lot of other stuff people view and download?

2. There's all sorts of open source scripts out there including rats to hijack users computers, you can't use that excuse to justify hosting a script that can/is used to steal peoples money.

3. Fixing an apostrophe and fixing code that steals people's money are two different things but yes, you supported me by correcting a mistake I made.

Why is it so hard for you to just take it down? You can't remove it completely but guess what? You can create one less place for them to download it.

I agree with you that they aren't a scam if they operate how they claim they will operate. But I disagree that the majority of Ponzis do what they have stated to do. Most Ponzis claim to be able to double your money indefinitely (usually accompanied by some kind of lie about how they make the money from trading or whatever) and end up NOT doubling everyone's money.

Promising mathematically impossible things is what makes them scams in my opinion.

If they are clear up-front that some people will make a loss then I don't see how that can be called a scam. Alternatively, if they promise to double everyone's money, then realize after the fact that it's not sustainable and make up the shortfall out of their own pocket, then that too can't be called a scam. The vast majority of Ponzis of course do neither of these. They promise crazy returns and end up defaulting. That's what makes them scams.

Previously Vod , Now dooglus , WTF ! , Get a Life QS.
dooglus is being Targeted because Vod is in his Trust hierarchy no wonder why shouldn't he target him.
Apart From the whole Drama done by QS , let me tell all reading this that there is no much untrustworthy than QS , because he sells Scammers account and when he is jealous of your popularity he will get you involved in that , though you are innocent.

RIP QS , You will find a way in life , either Karma or real accident in life will take care of you.
My wishes from my heart.

I agree, i didnt say it is. Its the way people currently getting tagged. First the PSA, second -ve.


I agree, but i would like to stay with the discussion on ponzis.


I agree. What i am trying to say or what i am trying to find out is: What do you expect to happen now? Just doog being removed or being tagged by "people like me"?

That doesn't sound like something I would say.


You're entitled to your opinion. It might carry more weight if you could back it up though.

I have not seen any examples of when a bitcoin related ponzi has ever operated honestly in perpetually, nor that has shut down in accordance of terms posted prior to anyone sending money to said ponzi. To say that you didn't know how your script was going to be used is a big stretch IMO. 

This is interesting. So the name of the operator of the ponzi that you helped code is Kyle? This doesn't happen to be MRKYLE (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=130731) does it? If so, did you know that this person previously scammed 25BTC worth of others money? Of course you did considering that you left him negative trust.
Wait, you didn't know who ran the ponzi in question? I am confused, I thought you said his name was Kyle in this very same post. :D

So you do not own the github account /dooglus? Again in this very same post you said that you did in fact fork the ponzi script. If the script in question is available for download by accessing your github account, that sounds an awful lot like you are offering it for download.

If an ISIS terrorist was trying to get a bomb to explode, but couldn't and you fixed their mistake by telling them to "switch the green and the red wires" which would get the bomb to work properly then you would most likely be arrested for supporting a terrorist organization (or something similar thereof), and I don't think very many people would be against your arrest if you did that. I am not saying that what you did is comparable to supporting ISIS, however the principle remains the same.

---

---

suchmoon -


dooglus has excluded anyone who has seriously questioned him and anyone who has left him negative trust who were previously anywhere near the Default Trust network (both myself and BAC). Maybe they are afraid of receiving an exclusion from dooglus if they leave him a negative rating, which could potentially undue a lot of their prior work.
I am opposed to those who are leaving negative trust for anyone who talks about participating in a ponzi as I disagree with the conclusion that anyone posting about such participation is supporting a ponzi, and in turn is a scammer. In fact, I have noticed that many people who have received negative trust have posted something along the lines that the ponzi is not sustainable in the very post they write of their participation, so if anything they are warning others of the risks involved in participating in a ponzi. If you look at my sent trust, you will see many negative ratings for operators of ponzis.

I don't think that it is a bigger stretch to say that dooglus was/is supporting a ponzi, then those who post of their participation in ponzis. Dooglus created software (a script) that would allow a potential ponzi operator to run a ponzi, when they would not otherwise be able to run said ponzi. If participants did not post about their participation in a ponzi, then the operator could still post information about funds being received on the blockchain and other various stats, and the lack of said posts would not prevent a ponzi operator from being able from running.

My having negative personal feelings towards someone does not preclude me from calling them out on a scam. Similarly, just because I am close to someone does not preclude me from calling them out on a scam or saying that I think they are wrong publicly. I am sure that many people in this thread will not believe me, however all of my trust ratings are based on fact, and my personal opinions do not influence any of them, and this thread was not made because of any personal opinions or feelings (although I may have spent a little extra time looking into this issue after receiving this tip due to personal feelings).

---

---

whywefight -
The purpose of this thread is to warn others about a small portion of dooglus's prior transgressions. I do believe that dooglus should be removed from DT, although not for reasons listed in the OP (this will come later in my series). If you believe that someone who engaged in this kind of activity should be given negative trust and/or excluded from your trust list then I would suggest doing so. I would note that you did leave a negative rating for BSM for selling a ponzi script, and dooglus has one listed for free on his github account, so I think it would probably only be logical for you to leave him a negative trust rating.

No not really. All of those examples include potential for serious injury or loss of life. I am not sure petty theft (even if it were true) qualifies as being the same. Way to be a drama queen. Since you mentioned it though, you know what would also fall under this category of aiding and abetting crimes? You selling accounts you know damned well will be used in scamming. If this is the case, you should also by your own logic be tagged as a scammer. Of course you already have been, so not that it matters. You just want to take an opponent or two down with you.




ISIS? REALLY? Could you possibly make yourself look any more like a clown? One thing is certain, you sure as fuck will try.

Look familiar? I would reference it if you where honestly going to read the whole thread this time. ;)

I do not want to go down the road exchanging barbs so will just back up my statement and let you read what QS has to say to you.

Yes, I wrote that. I'm not saying that anyone not agreeing with me is a sockpuppet at all. I am saying that either quite a few people, or at least quite a few sockpuppets think CD is "out of control". Maybe you don't have good reading comprehension, but what I wrote is quite different than what you claim I wrote.


QS keeps saying that same things over and over while adding further misunderstandings and lies. It's tiring to keep replying to his bullshit.

I skimmed one of his recent posts where he appears unable to grasp the basics of what I am saying then makes some kind of weird point about fixing bombs for ISIS. Maybe tomorrow I'll have the energy to try to make sense of it.

Completely Seconded.

But why is doo going insane levels to tag people who make a post in the ponzi section ? to increase the flow in those ponzi which he is working for ? or making the code right so that people lose money ?

Why he and his list members harass & force users to not to take part into it ? or else tag people (destroy their accounts, who are making a couple dollars while posting) & name it consequences ?

whatever be the reason but both the actions contradict each other.

It might be a little off topic but only a retarded motherfucker or a dishonest businessman can say that people who wear a signature or post in a ponzi thread are the scammers or are liable in any sense.

QS trying way too hard now

By now I'm pretty sure you're trolling us but I highlighted the relevant bits for you anyway.


As far as I can see dooglus posted a neutral for BAC and nothing for you. Exclusions don't matter, BAC is still in DT2 and you're not in DT2 at all, not because of exclusions. What are you talking about?

Is that how you really think? A risk to a position in DT would be more important than exposing a potential scammer of this caliber? Seriously flawed logic. Luckily most members didn't think that way when e.g. Master-P or escrow.ms needed to be tagged.


Well, I've seen you quite a few times dragging dooglus into topics that have nothing to do with him so I'd say there is more to it than that. Between Vod and this there is a good reason to believe that you can't be impartial in this debate. That's just my opinion.

Oh QS, you *really* need to have your meds reviewed. Either that or start actually taking them as you're supposed to.


Apart from the fact Dooglus wasn't shilling for either the ponzi or the script, it hardly sounds anything like the sort of promotional sales pitch that ponzi-script sellers post

"Hey everyone, I gotta ponzi script for sale. It is full of bugs and I would not recommend using it on a live site as it is an accident waiting to happen!"

Tagging people with negative ratings is about communicating to members whether somebody has behaved in a way which proves them to be dishonest. The evidence you have presented so far suggests quite the opposite about Dooglus. But don't let that stop you obsessing about it some more, which you will.

No, not trolling. The above snip that you quoted was my pointing out the discrepancy of Dooglus claiming that he didn't know who the operator of the ponzi is, however he says that his name is Kyke which would imply that one of these statements is not true.


BAC left Dooglus a negative rating and Dooglus excluded BAC from his trust list, which puts him close to being out of the DT network. Dooglus excluded me around the time I was questioning him about his reputation loan to tspacepilot, and while I was still on BadBear's and Tomatocage's trust list.

I am only speculating, and I cannot speak for those who have left negatives for those that promoted ponzis and those that have sold ponzi scripts but have not left negative trust for Dooglus yet. I do know that Vod once offered to give up his account when BadBear was threatening to exclude Vod from his trust list in order to avoid being removed from DT. I would also point out that those that are leaving most of the negative trust for those accosiated and participating in ponzis appear to be trying to make a name for themselves, or at least that is how they come across to me -- this is getting a little off topic though.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Dooglus has made his (fixed) ponzi script available for download for anyone who wishes on his GitHub account. Didn't you leave negative trust for someone for selling a ponzi script? What is the difference here?

This is how github works... however as someone said, he doesn't owe money to nobody.

It is not how GitHub works. If I were to create a github account then the script in question would not show up on my account. The script is on dooglus's GitHub account because he worked on it to make it better. Do you seriously think that someone who is improving ponzi scripts as someone who is trustworthy?

I don't think you missed that post but let's quote it another time :




Now you will start to think, I'm supporting dooglus = I support ponzis, bla bla bla... c'mon Quickseller http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/nonciclopedia/images/1/13/Asd.gif/revision/latest?cb=20071018154810



I don't support dooglus.

I did not miss that quote. The improved version of the script was not available prior to Dooglus making said improvements. Furthermore Dooglus helping code the ponzi enabled more ponzi scammers to be able to steal from others because they now have a better working script.

Most importantly, I believe that Dooglus knew the person behind the ponzi that he was helping is a known scammer, and in effect was providing a way for said known scammer to be able to be in possession of other people's money.

The highlighted bits clearly show that dooglus was talking about dice sites (as an example of another issue he's been blamed for), not Kyle's ponzi. How could you possibly read that differently?


I'm still not seeing a problem. If someone values their position in DT more than exposing a scammer that's really not the right example to bring up here. Not to mention that neither one of you was harmed in any way by the exclusion, the trust system worked as it was supposed to.


At least some of "those who have left negatives for those that promoted ponzis" seem to not think that dooglus did anything wrong (I think we had cryptodevil and whywefight in this thread already). Not sure what Vod has to do with anything but let me remind you what I stated originally:


Especially now that the thread is back in Scam Accusations it would feel really bizarre if negs wouldn't start pouring in. Could it have something to do with the lack of an actual scam, attempt to scam, intent to scam, support for a scam, etc?


I'm happy to have something to agree on.

This looks more like some kind of personal attack to smear Dooglus's reputation, especially with the last part of your comment.  I understand your overall point, but I don't believe that Dooglus's intent was to A) be part of a ponzi or B) make a profit from it.  I think you're mistaken and you need to consider the weight of the argument you're making with respect to the justification of it all.  I think you've made your point, nuff said.

Of course it is a smear campaign against dooglus, Quickseller wants to be on DT again while Doog who's currently in DT has crossed out QS... If Quickseller is known for one thing it's his smear campaigns.

People posting in those sections might also not have those intentions but he tags them ? all such things fall under "helping the operator"

Though ,I don't have anything personal with doo but i will never support the "abusive behavior".

Doo(a developer) helping an operator fix his script and let his site profit =  an MBA(marketing) expert helping an operator fix his business and let his site profit.

But he and his list members will tag the latter one which is simple manipulation and abuse.although ,I dont think he should be negged for this etc..but that is the shitty logic of some DT trolls on here ,so i am saying considering that.Everyone should do their due diligence before investing anything in anything is my opinion.

No matter who says it.Observe what is being said.

Exactly, a lot of times QS was right but other times completely wrong... Nothing of personal @QS ;).

Noted.


Is this in your personal interest(for whatever reason) or in the communitys interest, or maybe both?


I would like to see the full picture before giving a statement about it, anyways this is above my level of influence.


Yes i do. But as stated before, it doesnt work for things way back in the past. I made that timeframe limit after doing the coin-gnt feedbacks. It works like this: Posting a warining (PSA) that all future support will result in a negative feedback. Tag people who go on. The definition of support is: Promoting and advertising, this includes posting about investments, taking part in promotions. (Thats just how i personally handle it)

I am not sure if having code on your own repo is support. I also have forks of code in my repo that i dont support. I do so to be sure there is a copy of the code for future reference.


BSM was advertising it and his intention was to sell it, it was not public available. In addition he told people first he would stop doing so but started to sell it again short after feedbacks were removed.

I understand the argument but i dont see doogs personal benefit of having the source in his repo. Yes, i am aware he did changes to it.

Want to touch on a issue brought up here about people active in threads like this not negatively commenting on the people they feel should have it.
Since I am not in DT my trust comments would do nothing and appear as trolling from a unknown account,so thats most people not in DT.
The people in DT usually tend to follow/support those that brought them into the tree and the tree works more like a gang than a actual trust system. So you risk retaliation from people you have never interacted with.
This is my observation on a lot of the trust squabbles we see here and those that actually do not care are quickly dismissed in one form or another as a troll,sock puppet or mental health. Its kind of sad that a good idea seems to have been corrupted for the better interests of those in it,as opposed to the whole forum working together.

The more you write the more people nit pick the words or ask for references to distract from the situation.

This is not unique to just this forum,seems a natural cycle for any power set up.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Back to the show...

***Will stay out from now on,I promise. Please hit me on p.m if you want me to address anything else.

Why is it so hard to just delete the repo from github and end this all together?

As Dooglus stated he only fixed it for a person. Well you fixed it so you no longer need it so why is it still there?

Saving it for 'reference' isn't a viable answer as you have stated it can be found elsewhere.

And aside from anything dooglus did or his status on DT or future status---QS should absolutely not be back on DT.  I was chagrined to see his red trust score come down when escrow.ms got booted.  But I've removed DT from my trust list anyway.  This whole drama, the dooglus thing included, is fucking high school bullshit.

I'm not. I didn't post much feedback at all recently.

You may be thinking of cryptodevil?


I'm not working for a Ponzi. I was looking at the Ponzi script that Klye was using many months ago and saw an obvious bug in it. There was an exclamation mark where there shouldn't be. So I forked the repository and removed the exclamation mark. I also deleted 5 lines of code that weren't needed. That is the sum total of my "contribution" to the script - I deleted 5 lines and an exclamation mark.

Here's the first line I deleted: https://github.com/dooglus/CryptoPonzi/commit/e71472

Here's the next 4 lines and the exclamation mark I deleted: https://github.com/dooglus/CryptoPonzi/commit/6b26cd

Pretty far fetched to call that "working for a Ponzi"!


My list members? What list? I don't harass anyone or force anyone to do or not to do anything. If you're referring again to cryptodevil, I think he is only tagging people who are promoting Ponzi schemes. It seems he and I disagree about the scaminess of "honest Ponzis" but overall I think he's doing a good thing in tagging Ponzi promoters.



I think you might be offtopic. This thread is for QS to make weird allegations about how I support Ponzis.


Again, you're mixing me up with someone else.


So don't. Stand up against abuse whenever you see it. I personally don't find it abuse when people who advertize Ponzi scams get negative feedback saying that they advertize Ponzi scams, but if you disagree you are welcome to stand up for the rights of the Ponzi scammers.


Klye was running an honest Ponzi, but using a crappy script to do so. He couldn't figure out what was going wrong with it, so I took a look. I fixed the first bug I found with it, then realised how crappy the script was and recommended that he should stop using it.


I agree completely.


What is being said here is that I am untrustworthy for fixing a bug in some open source code that I saw.

For me, fixing bugs in open source software is like picking up trash you see on the sidewalk. If everyone did it, we'd have better code and cleaner sidewalks for all. If I see some trash on the sidewalk outside of a known gangster's house I don't refuse to pick it up because someone might accuse me of "supporting" the gangster. I pick it up because it shouldn't be there no matter what. Dumb analogy. Whatever. Check my github account - I've forked lots of projects to make a one-off fix. That's how you make changes to github projects. Fork, edit, merge.


It isn't hard to delete the repo. The only reason I didn't delete it already is that QS would spin that into proof that I have something to hide.

Note that deleting the repo wouldn't "end this all together". No matter what I do QS will continue making a big deal out of this and other assorted imagined wrongdoings forever.

My only two changes:

https://github.com/dooglus/CryptoPonzi/commit/e71472 - Remove unused variable.


https://github.com/dooglus/CryptoPonzi/commit/6b26cd - Fix getAddress() so it correctly finds the address to which the first input was sent.


Hardly worth 'preserving'. Note how every line but one starts with a '-'? That means I deleted lines. The only line without a '-' at the start is where I removed a '!' character.

You don't think it is a problem when someone excludes someone else when they are questioned or receive negative trust? Someone in dooglus's position can effectively since those criticizing them, and can create an environment in which people may be intimidated about questioning him, or agreeing with those that question him. You can also say that negative trust does not harm a person because it does not prevent them from trading with others. 

You don't think that coding a script for a ponzi is not support for a ponzi? That sounds like the definition of supporting a ponzi to me. Without the help of dooglus, any ponzi that was using the script in question would not have been able to steal money from others.

---

---

cloverme --

dooglus has a very long history of profiting from when other people have been scammed to the point of tens of thousands of dollars, and the amount of money stolen as a result of these scams is to the tune of millions of dollars. He also has a long history of hacking sites, and other transgressions that I intend on exposing, and preventing others from getting scammed similarly in the future.

---

---

MRKYLE --

responding to this in the correct thread

::) Right, "never" lol

So do you admit that you were behind this ponzi? Or are you just speculating that no one lost any money via the clambaker ponzi?


Hmmm, it doesn't look like you have admitted very much.

---

---

Anyone that has lost money as a result of the clambaker ponzi or any other ponzi that used the same script as listed/referenced in the OP can post here with the amount they lost.

Occasionally a sliver of light slides into the darkness, in this case it just happened to be the github repo of the ponzi script. Everything else he says is mostly full of shit.

Personally I couldn't care about ponzis as I stated earlier but due to the recent mass ruin of dozens of accounts that just happened to post in a ponzi thread I feel that everyone should be held accountable not just the new people.

The eggs don't add up that those who host ponzis and those who just make a simple post asking about a particular ponzi in a thread get negged by DT members but actually giving public access to a ponzi source code is ok. That just doesn't sound right to me.

Hell, I wouldn't even be posting here if I didn't catch the word Ponzi in the thread title, wouldn't even have read the thread.

Either that policy needs to change or it needs to be applied to everything related to ponzis with no exceptions to it. It is either ok, or it's not ok, there can't be any loopholes or 'overlooked' things.

Going back to QS, it most likely wont end for his part but any validity that he may have had with this thread would be gone if the github repo was just removed. He was full of shit while on DT and is still full of shit to this day.

No,doo if you dont stop the person in your list and say you completely agree with him then you both are one appeal on this context but with different bodies or color's.


It's not what you think doo.The rule should be the same for one & all.Either you change your insanity on Ponzi or resign from the position you hold as you contradicted your own believes and principles. Doesn't matters if that was your interest or what but your action supported a Ponzi.

No you don't.You would have removed CD if you did.


Exactly.It's not bout the OP saying but doo supported a Ponzi.No loopholes  ;)

Riggggght, so anybody on DT who adds somebody else is required to agree with absolutely everything they say? I must have missed that rule, can you point it out for me?

I was under the impression that adding someone to your trust list was because you generally trusted their ratings to be correct. But you're saying that isn't true, that there is a hidden rule somewhere which actually declares some kind of symbiotic morality requirement?

Dooglus and I have a different opinion on 'Honest' Ponzi schemes, that is all. Seeing as not many people bother trying to fly that particular approach to running their scam, asides from QS as 'Honestbit' who as a US resident is actually prohibited by law from operating and promoting his "Hey we're a Ponzi" Ponzi, it isn't something that comes up that often. So we generally do agree on most issues concerning ponzis, just not that one.

For a minor difference of opinion about this to draw the spittle-flecked rage of ponzi-whores is absurd.

QS, why don't you and your sock-puppets take a break from the internet for an hour or two. Take a shower, clean yourself up, go for a walk in the sunshine for a little while. It'll do you the power of good.

Posting about it is worthy of a negative rating but hosting the source code is ok to do.

Curious, if I went and posted a thread with this same exact ponzi script linking to his github for download how long would it take before you would give me a negative rating?

Look what I found, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1345741.0

Someone already has been negged by 2 default trust users here for using Dooglus's repod github of this script to scam people...


Seeing as you posted your little warning on that thread I take it you already knew this but chose to ignore it.

There is a very good possibility that this site, https://cryptospout.com/blowout/clam_blowout.html , is using the same script to operate their ponzi with as well.

He is an obvious alt account which is solely made to troll or distract people from the point.It is also not a co-incidence that he is under doo.

I bet if someone else would have done such a thing then people would have made that person red in a matter of seconds.

Logic fail.

He did not 'post about it' in the thread, he merely confirmed he had fixed some bugs and stated that the code was shit and shouldn't be used on a live system. That is not 'posting of your participation' in the ponzi.

I don't know, depends on whether I'm about at my desk when you do.

If you posted a link encouraging people to download it so they could run their own ponzi schemes, it would warrant tagging you. If you posted a link discussing the shonky code inside it, that is something else.

Next.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=658125.msg13858034#msg13858034

Using my nifty Googling skills there is all sorts of info pertaining to the code that Dooglus fixed being used massively to scam people.

You are just showing how two faced you are. It isn't ok for new people to have anything to do with ponzis but its ok for DT users to host it as a repo on their github while it is actively being used to scam people with.

It's ok though, blocking you from my trust list as you can no longer be trusted to do what is right.
Next.

No, I don't think it's a problem. For example I'm excluding people who I think are using the trust system to arbitrate their personal squabbles (so I can't rely on their trust ratings) and I don't think there is any problem with that even if they happen to leave me negative feedback or question me. It's an essential feature of the trust system and two DT1 exclusions are needed for a DT2 member so I'm still failing to see how that could prevent anyone from speaking out against a scammer.


Apples and cabbages, as we have already established that dooglus didn't neg BAC or yourself. I will say however that you still failed to address the major underlying flaw in your argument, which is:

One should not value their position in DT more than exposing a scammer. Would you disagree?


I think that's the part that's missing from your scam accusation. How much did dooglus steal?

Basically QS is gripping at straws to try and justify his petty arguments with other people.

What point? I don't see CD trying to distract from anything. If anything, by tagging those who take part in Ponzis he is bringing it closer to light.

Nice conspiracy. have you got any evidence towards that, or are you just trying to push the anti-CD circle-jerk more?

Fixing a bug in a script != coding a script. I've fixed bugs in scripts previously, I cannot then put that on my portfolio and imply that I made it.

You're over exaggerating again. Do you really think that the 5 lines doog fixed were so detrimental to the script that it would have rendered the script unusable? I can almost guarantee that the script was used prior to dooglus' involvement, and had been used to steal money from others. Trying to argue that he had such a large effect on the script is stupid, as it is plainly obvious he didn't.

I would ask for evidence, though I can already tell you're just going to bring up the dicebitco.in signature campaign again.

Hey, remember when you worked directly with TF to try and get a lawsuit against Vod (where he sent you money towards it)? TF, someone who single-handedly stole over $1,500,000 (at current prices) from people using his services, sent money he stole from others directly to you?
Yeah me neither. What am I talking about, burn dooglus for advertising a site that scammed!

Really QS, this is starting to get a bit sad. Do you really have nothing better to do with your time than follow internet vendettas against people who don't trust you?

Again, I didn't code a script. I removed some code from a pre-existing script.

Any Ponzi actually using the script would have quicky realised they were paying the wrong people. It takes very little effort by anyone with familiarity of coding and Bitcoin to locate and remove the error in the script. To say that without my help no Ponzi using the script would have been able to use it to steal money is simply wrong.


Maybe you should clear this up. The way write it appears to imply that the people being scammed was somehow related to me profiting. I suspect that what you are referring to is when I played and invested at a couple of dice sites run by scammers. I was lucky not to be scammed myself by those scammers, yet you twist the reality to try to make it look as if I was somehow to blame.


More weasel words. You know how the word "hacking" has both ethical and blackhat meanings. I have never "hacked" a site in the way you are implying. I have found vulnerabilities in sites and reported them to the site owners.

Maybe you should get to exposing these "transgressions" rather than hinting at them. Let the people see that what you have amounts to a big pile of nothing.


This is the Klye that first showed me the Ponzi script he was using, yes. Are there multiple Klye's in this space?


I have pushed a commit to my fork of the CryptoPonzi repository removing all the code and editing the README to say not to use the code.

    https://github.com/dooglus/CryptoPonzi

Great, thanks. One less way for folks to abuse that script.

Capitulating to these stalkers and trust dictators only feeds their behavior. This was a bad move IMO. Almost no one was buying this bullshit, and the ones that were seemingly were simply opposed to the people within your trust list who are trying to dictate to everyone else what they can and can not do here based on their own personal preferences, not the forum rules. This is totally antithetical to what Bitcoin was created for.

This is why this forum is shit, because all that one needs to do is gangstalk the more reputable members and they capitulate out of fear of losing their position in the trust system. In effect anyone within the trust system is either corrupt or spineless and stands for nothing. If you stand for nothing, you fall for everything. You in effect just paid the ransom to the people who are trying to kidnap your reputation, and now they will want more, and more, and more, and when there is nothing more left to take they will just kill your rep anyway.

The only one who was asking for the script to be removed was me so I'm not sure who you think you are referring to here. As for stalking, show me one other thread, any thread, outside of this one where I have even said anything negative about DT members.

Not once did I mention anything about anyone being removed from DT or that someone should get negged for something. All I want is that everyone be held accountable for implied rules on this forum.

His removal of the source means that there is one less place for scammers to get that script. It is a win-win for everyone, not sure why you would even bitch about it.

Boy it sure stinks like butthurt in here. You all know who I'm talking about. Be a little more transparent, why don't ya?

::)

I know, it makes no sense to remove the code given that it all already exists and existed before I forked it, but if this makes people happy then so be it.

I have no interest in a crappy PHP Ponzi script anyway. I only looked at it because Klye asked for my help debugging the script he was using, and we both ended up concluding that the script is beyond help.

If it was a project I actually cared about then it would be different.


I have no fear of losing my position in the trust system. If theymos wants to remove me from DT I won't miss it. It would be a shame if he takes it away based on QS' trouble making, rather than because I actually did anything wrong, but I doubt that would happen. QS has been making trouble for me for a year or so now. If theymos was going to fall for his lies and manipulations I'm thinking he would have already done so.

I am sure Theymos could give a flying fuck about any of this, I was more referring to the trust ranger dictator squad. I understand that you don't really care about the code, but that is besides the point, you are teaching these loons that they can get what they want with this stalking obsessive behavior. IMO this could be better addressed by removing a few people from your trust list and giving users here some peace from the bored OCD stalkers on your down trust list rather than giving in to this nonsense. That seems to be more of the issue this is resulting from anyway. I think people care less about the fact that you modified this code and more about the fact that you have people in your trust list negging everyone left and right while the same rules don't apply to you personally. That is my impression of the complaints here other than those of Quickstalker.

If you only exclude someone from your trust list after they start questioning you (and nearly immediately thereof, and reasonably was aware of such prior squabbles prior to being questioned), then even if such personal squabbles are being arbitrated via the trust system, that is not the reason for the exclusion, the reason for the exclusion is to silence your critics and to warn others against speaking out against you.

I do agree that one should not value their position in the DT network more then exposing a scammer, but that does not mean that is how others value their own position in the DT network. I was speaking about how I believe other people are thinking, not how I am thinking myself.
It is very difficult to put a dollar figure on the amount of money that was stolen as a result of dooglus's help (only in relation to his coding of a ponzi script) because it is not public information when someone uses his script.

One known instance of when a ponzi was using the script that dooglus fixed is here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1345741.msg13718352#msg13718352) (archive (http://archive.is/awmDp#selection-2267.0-2285.40)). The amount stolen via this ponzi is unclear looking at the blockchain, especially considering there was never a deposit address posted. There were a couple of different addresses that people were posting that they had sent to. There were claims that the ponzi in question had run away with .5 BTC (which would mean that it had unmet obligations of 1 BTC since it promised to double the amount deposited), and at one point there was a post claiming there was a queue of ~.69 BTC (which would equal unmet obligations totaling 1.38 BTC).

---

---

minifrij-

Maybe I could have used different terminology, however the effect remains the same. The fixed better script that dooglus created edited, made it easier for ponzis to operate, and eventually steal from others.

No, you cannot fix a bug and then imply that you made the entire script, however you can (accurately) say that you contributed to said script.

I don't know if the script would have been unusable without the help of dooglus, however according to dooglus himself, prior to him editing the script, anyone using the script would have paid out the incorrect players, which would cause the ponzi to quickly fail, and would have prevented ponzi operators from stealing more money from players then they otherwise might be able to.

You could argue that the bug in question was trivial, however it was non-trivial enough to have remained in the code for >a year. Also The number of people that have the ability to code on here is very limited.

I do not dispute the fact that the script was used to scam people prior to dooglus's involvement, however I believe that dooglus's involvement has allowed ponzi operators (or could potentially allow ponzi operators) to steal larger amounts of others' money. See my explanation below:


Even if I were to give dooglus a maximum benefit of the doubt and say that his involvement had very little impact on the ability of ponzi operators to steal from others, as a result of dooglus's help, people were able to steal a small amount of additional money. The question of how much dooglus helped other people steal really is a moot point because someone is a scammer if they steal $1, $1,000 or if they steal $1,000,000.

1 - People have been labeled as scammers in the past for wearing signatures of scam/ponzi sites.
2 - I don't think that receiving the .4BTC (or whatever few hundred dollar equivalent amount) in exchange for wearing the signature of a website that eventually turns out to be a scam would make you a scammer
3 - IIRC, dooglus had made roughly 100BTC in profit between gambling at dicebitco.in and investing in their bankroll. This is when they were cheating their high rollers and stealing from their bankroll investors.
4 - Dooglus was downplaying the possibility of the operators of dicebitco.in being scammers up until very shortly before it was revealed they were scamming
5 - Much more information on this topic will come in Chapter 3

archive (http://archive.is/tFsUz#selection-6583.0-6583.31)

---

---

dooglus -


Lucky enough so that you were always able to withdraw just before the operators decided to run away with every one's money.

Or had advance knowledge of the scam, yet pushed (and advertised) the sites anyway. But this is off topic in this thread, it can be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3

There is no distinction between "whitehat" and "blackhat" hacking in the eyes of the law if the owner of the site has not expressly permitted you to attempt to find vulnerabilities.

Let me see if I am understanding this correctly.

• You knew that Kyle (the operator of the CLAM based ponzi) had stolen 25BTC from investors of his ICO/IPO
• Your own negative trust rating against Kyle says that he should not be trusted with other people's money/coins
• You knew that Kyle was the person running the CLAM based ponzi
• The CLAM based ponzi would need to be trusted with player's CLAMs in order to operate
• When you became aware that the operator of this CLAM based ponzi was Kyle, you actively chose not to warn others not to trust this person
• Instead of warning others not to trust Kyle, you instead helped him potentially become trusted with more of other people's money via helping edit the code of the ponzi script he was using
• This sounds vaguely familiar to me for some strange reason

I excluded BAC from my trust network shortly after he started leaving unwarranted negative feedback against all the CLAM developers. His feedback was no longer correct or useful and so I excluded it. That is what exclusion is for.


I keep telling you. I don't and didn't code a Ponzi script. I removed some broken code from an existing Ponzi script.

The correct answer to the question "How much did dooglus steal?" is "nothing at all". But don't let that get in the way of your story telling.


I have never knowingly worn the signature of a scam or Ponzi site. I did were signatures for 2 dice sites that ended up being scams, but I had no idea they were scams while I was wearing the signatures, and stopped wearing them as soon as I became concerned about the possibility of foul play.


That's my point. If you advertise an obvious Ponzi scam then you cannot reasonably claim you don't know you're advertising a scam. If you advertise what appears to be a regular dice site that eventually scams people I think that is quite different.


IIRC it was much less than that. I had a couple of good runs using Martingale betting but hit the inevitable losing streaks that put an end to it. Whether I won or lost doesn't seem to be relevant to whether I'm a scammer however, so what's your point? And I didn't play on their site once it came out that they were cheating their players. Why would I?


This is completely false. I always said that I didn't know who they were and so had no way of knowing whether they were scammers or not. I was active in outing their scamming when Finile (was that his name?) first spotted the evidence.


I can hardly wait.


Is that your evidence of me downloading the risk of them scamming?

I am saying that worrying about them turning out like a site that didn't scam isn't something to worry about. That is not the same as saying there is nothing else to worry about. Of course there is always a risk when trusting third parties with your money.


In both cases there were warning signs. dicebitco.in were caught skipping bets, and dice.ninja stopped showing proof of solvency via their cold wallet. I posted about both of these things and withdrew my coins.


I had no advance knowledge. You have no evidence that I had any advance knowledge, and yet keep insinuating that I did.

For a brief time I advertised a couple of sites that appeared to be running an honest service. Later, there were warning signs that they might not be honest. I withdrew my coins and warned people about the sites.

How does any of that mesh with your theory that I was somehow complicit in the scams? It would make no sense for me to post anything negative about the sites if I was "in on" the scams.


The vulnerabilities were visible to anyone with a brain. You do not need permission to notice things. It's not like I went looking for them. I noticed that the sites were open to abuse by unethical people and responsibly disclosed the vulnerabilities to the sites. You somehow want to turn that into evidence against me? Go ahead!


As I understand it he has paid the majority of his debt back and is working to pay back the rest. He strikes me as a good guy with some problems, trying to make things right.


I don't think it's a good idea for him to hold other people's money. He has shown in the past that he can't be trusted with it, and I'm not convinced that he wouldn't make the same mistake again in the future. Maybe he learned his lesson but I wouldn't be sure of it.

But despite that, the fact remains that he was indeed running a Ponzi scheme, and he was using a crappy open source PHP script to do it. The script had paid the first few players out twice each by mistake, and he had no idea why. He asked for my help in fixing the script and I gave it. I posted that I didn't think it was a good idea to be running the scheme, and that the staking rewards wouldn't pay for the returns. Having the script continue paying out incorrectly would be more likely to lead to the scheme defaulting than having it work right and so I decided to take a look at the script. After seeing how poorly coded it was I gave up and recommended he just stop using it.


Because you have somehow got it into your head that I'm doing bad things, and so you see everything I do in the same light.

Sounds like a long-winded equivalent of "I made it up". Would you consider now the possibility that the lack of support for your accusations is being caused not by this "fear" but perhaps by the tenuous nature of said accusations?


I was hanging out around dicebitco.in at that time and I know this to be the opposite of truth, to put it mildly. Dooglus was one of the few consistently warning about the dangers of these anonymous dice sites. Save me a lot of aggravation and some coins too.

Judging by the factual tone of your statements it shouldn't be hard to provide extensive proof/links. Why are you not doing that?


"Why would you worry about [this being like the other site that refunded everyone]?"

Where do you see a problem with that statement?

He doesn't. He wants others to see the problem that he is hinting at but which doesn't really exist. It's how he operates. He has no evidence so he has to rely on this kind of half-truth.

See also the constant "but that's nothing compared to what is coming in part 3" bullshit.

He would have led with his best foot forward - his first argument would have been his most damming.

Sooner or later the ones receiving negative trust will try and make their point over that.

Question for those who neg ponzi script sellers:
I buy a ponzi script
Script's code is fucked so I fix it or pay someone to fix it
I decide to make the code available for FREE and upload to github so there is no excuse from ponzi owners not to pay because of bad coding, script was hacked and etc

Would I receive negative trust? Yes or no but please include why?

This is something I probably wouldn't do but I'm still interested in hearing what you all think.

I don't think I ever left feedback for anyone for selling a script, but I'll answer your question anyway.

If you buy any code on the understanding that you wouldn't publish it, but you do publish it, then I would see that as evidence that you aren't very trustworthy. You don't have the right to open-source somebody else's closed source code against their will.

I don't understand what you're saying about "no excuse not to pay".

What would be more interesting: what do you say to the comparison of dooglus supposedly helping others scam by fixing a script vs. you offering forum accounts for sale, which are 90% of times being used to scam in any way?

I think this kind of comparison is way more appropriate than the ISIS bomb nonsense you came up with, to be honest.


A little off topic: in 2013-14, I lost quite a fuckton of money on just-dice.com. At first, I was mad at the website, its creator and everything. Now who's to blame, just-dice.com (or any other website I would have used if just-dice wasn't there) or me?
I realized that it was solely my mistake. Learned an expensive lesson, which is still very present in my mind, and I consider it valuable, because that former mistake protects me from making that very same mistake again.

Your logic is seriously flawed, dude.
Contributing to Open Source is a good thing, and if I were to partake in a ponzi scheme, I'd definitely prefer one which is open source, so I can see what the code does. And when I see experienced coders contributing / fixing errors, I'd feel even better using it, because it increases chances that eventual payouts go to the address they're supposed to.

Not the script itself makes it a scam. The script is just a transcripted form of the logic which already exists in the heads of many, many people. It's the intentions of those using the scripts. And if someone is clear about running a ponzi, warns about the risks and doesn't bullshit others with some "we generate money by trading" nonsense, I'm completely okay with it.
But if they do bullshit others and eventually scam them, who's to blame? The one who used the gun and shot, the manufacturer, the shop which sold it, the government which created laws about possession of guns, or V/God* who created mankind in the first place?


QS, you're really making yourself look ridiculous here. What are we talking about, aren't there any real problems to be solved? And where is the facepalm smiley, ffs.

---

* Disclaimer: it is not my belief that mankind was created by god.

You're right! We should be going after the authors of the PHP programming language itself. If they hadn't made their language available this evil script could never have existed. Surely they must have known their programming language was able to be used to implement scammy scripts and should therefore be held accountable for all the bad programs that exist due to their negligence.

Note for the hard of thinking: this is a joke; I am following the flawed QS logic to its natural conclusion.

Others have though. I'm pretty sure anyone else selling or releasing code that would benefit ponzi owners or their members would receive negative trust.

If I were to buy full rights to the code, fixed it up and released it.

I've seen ponzi owners blame bad code for not being able pay out, exploited code and etc.

What you are saying you did and what I am saying you did are one and the same. You took a ponzi code, made one or more changes to it and after said changes the ponzi script was better.

You don't need to be the one who received the money in order for you to have helped third parties steal from others.

It looks like (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=774828.msg8734224#msg8734224) the amount was actually closer to 35BTC, however the fact remains that you won over $15,000 on a site that was cheating highrollers. The size of bets that you were making would reasonably qualify you to be a high roller. The reason why they were able to steal so much money from others was because you were promoting it so heavily and gave them positive trust. You were also actively telling people that you think they should gamble at dicebitco.in (by your own description) which gave them an additional air of legitimacy.
I disagree. Someone posted in the dicebitco.in thread a concern that you were promoting a dice site that popped out of nowhere and whose owners were unknown, to which dicebitco.in responded to but you did not despite responding to several other posts around that same time.

You were also not active in outing dicebitco.in as being scammers as you were initially (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=716312.msg8718807#msg8718807) (url=http://archive.is/NWf4V]archive[/url] defending them.

archive (http://archive.is/Eu7Al)


And you were promoting the fact that you had withdrew your coins the same way that you were promoting the fact that you had a significant amount of bitcoin deposited with them previously, yes? When dicebitco.in announced in their changelog that they were going to require 2fa in order to divest, you pointed out that this might be undesirable to bankroll investors along with you many other bug reports, yes? (<-- many of the people that dicebitco.in was able to steal from had their 2fa codes/devices locked away in places that were inaccessible during the weekend -- eg. bank safe deposit box -- and considering that the owners of dicebitco.in were all but certainly gambling with an alt account knowing the server seed at a time when roughly zero banks were open, Sunday evening/very early Monday morning -- the first report (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=716312.msg8721437#msg8721437) of mateo winning big was at ~12:30 AM GMT September 8 2014 -- anyone who stored their f2a code off site more or less was unable to divest from their bankroll, yes?

Are you sure about this? I am not so sure


You were defending dicebitco.in after it was revealed that they were skipping rolls. Once both of the sites had sufficient amounts of others' BTC it really did not matter what you posted one way or another.



I am not sure why you believe that. Even if this was true, you were helping him get into the exact same situation that resulted in him stealing 25BTC of other people's money.

So you admit that he should not be holding other people's money, yet you helped him hold more of other people's money, and when you were aware that he was trying to hold other people's money under an alternate account/identity you did not warn anyone.


At the end of the day you still helped improve a script designed to run a ponzi. This is a script that is designed to help someone hold other people's money. And at the end of the day, it is a script that is going to be used to help people steal other people's money.

---

---

No. I was told specifically that I should consider removing my negative rating against dooglus in order to be added back into the DT network by one of the people who are very liberal of the negative ratings they give. There is also the reputation that CITM got for being the essential cause of negative trust whenever anyone talked about him.



I don't think you have any examples of this. Dooglus posted exactly two times about potential risks with trusting coins with a anon dice site operator, the first one was him posting an email asking to hold the private keys to their cold storage along with their server seeds, however he was simultaneously posting at the time that he was trusting them with 50BTC+ in their bankroll. The second time was something along the lines of "oops I accidentally sent these guys whose identities I don't know 100BTC of my money, so I tried to withdraw it all, but they sent it to me immediately after I attempted to withdraw it so I will send 50BTC back to their site".

Maybe I was unclear when I posted that quote. That person replied to dooglus clarifying his concern that anon people are being trusted with $3+ million dollars as a result of dooglus's promotions, however dooglus did not respond to this concern in any way despite being very active in that thread and posting in the same page (multiple times) after that post was written.

---

---

Unless you are saying that dooglus/Just-Dice was cheating you when you lost your money then the comparison is not the same. If you were not cheated when you had your gambling losses then the results of each of your rolls were predetermined and your loosing bets would have been winning bets had you chosen "high" instead of "low" (or visa versa, whichever would have applied). What is the case with a ponzi on the other hand, is that there are certain circumstances in which a player should win, however the operator decides to run away with players' money, in other words the player looses when they "should have" won. The reason why this is so prevalent in happening is because of the fact that ponzi operators almost always have nearly zero prior reputation and ponzis are designed to hold an exponentially larger amount of others' money over a very short period of time.

The players do not see the code in any way. It is only the operators that have anything to do with the code. The code is run entirely behind the scenes.

Except when the operators decide to simply send money to their own btc address stealing all the money that the players trusted the operator with

No, it just helps scammers get more of other people's money.
Like I said above, this is not what happens.

When a gun manufacturer creates/produces a gun, there are several legitimate uses for said gun (eg self defense, hunting, ect.), and the vast majority of people who use such guns will use them for said legitimate uses, and a very small number of gun users/owners use guns for illegal/nefarious purposes. On the other hand, operators of ponzis almost always (when they are entrusted with other's money) will end up stealing from their players. There is a legitimate use for a ponzi script, however such use is almost never used.

Quickseller, give it up.

Dooglus is respected.  You are not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMTAUr3Nm6I

That does not give him a free pass to do whatever he wants to do. If anything that should subject him to a higher standard as if it is true that he is respected then others will look at what he does and will mirror such behavior.

At the end of the day Dooglus took a tool that ponzi operators use and improved by using his abilities to read and edit code to remove a few lines of code and making it easier for ponzi operators to scam. By being made aware of this behavior and withholding a negative rating you are defacto endorsing that it is okay to support, help and work for ponzis.

Vod do you think it is okay to help ponzis become more popular?

Respected by whom  ::) and what for  ::) bullshitting?? side-stepping??  As with soooooooooo many on this board, he is just another fraud.  It may be possible he was legit?? I am new and do not know, nor do I care.  As far as this newbie is concerned........he is a participant in SCAMS.  It is obvious to this newbie, the scam ponzi's that keep creeping up are the SAME GROUP of people, setting up scams in ponzi's, loans, sales, etc. 

My stance is the same as Dooglus and Theymos - if a Ponzi scheme is presented in an honest fashion then it's not fraudulent.

The issue I have is most ponzis are not honest - they do not state that you will lose your money when the program collapses.

Even if a ponzi is obviously a ponzi, newbies may not know the risks.  The risks need to be posted clearly on the ponzi.  If they are, I consider it gambling, and have no problem with it.

If pirateat40 came on this forum after getting out of jail and started dissecting arguments of people he suspected of scamming--and all the while denying that he himself is a scammer--my guess is that he would get a collective STFU from the community.   That's how I feel about quickseller.  No credibility whatsoever, and the difference between the two is a matter of degree of course, but it's a similar scenario.

In any case, this is just fighting that shouldn't be happening.   If we're so concerned about ponzis then the obvious solution is to ban them.  What's the excuse why we don't do this again?  And if they're not banned then everyone should back the F off.  And I agree with vod that there should be disclosure but that's not happening.  Just nuke ponzis.  They will die off.  I see so many of the older members defending the status quo around here,  and it's nauseating.  Not just about this, either but 'nuff said.

Exactly this^^^.  And, in case anyone wasn't aware, he's also using his army of alts to try to amply the effect of his smear campaign.  See, here for example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1389916.0  newtons1 is an alt of QS, he created that thread at the same time as this one.  Who knows how many other people in these threads are actually just QS doing his smear-army thing?

Here is a snippet from the OP of the specific ponzi that dooglus was trying to help:
If necessary I can explain to you in detail as to why this is not true, as I know that you know as well as I do that this is impossible.

To put it another way, dooglus was helping a ponzi that is deceitful collect additional money from gamblers/"investors"

Although this is not the case, even if the ponzi that dooglus was helping was being 100% honest and transparent, there was nothing to stop another dishonest ponzi from using the script that dooglus improved to scam others.

So Vod, what do you think of dooglus helping a ponzi that was not being honest?

If you get scammed by a ponzi then you probably deserve to be, the forum should go around patrolling where we spend our Bitcoins

Noone deserves to get scammed, however you are correct to say that the forum (as in the administration and moderators) should not tell "us" how to spend our own money. However that does not mean that as a community we should openly accept it when a member of our community is engaging in behavior that is actively helping scammers steal additional money from people that might not fully understand what they are investing in.

The forum has a soft spot for dooglus, i dont know why

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic here.  I don't know if you know the history of dooglus, how he has been trusted with ginormous sums of money in bitcoin and has proven himself responsible with it time and again, even under extreme pressures.

I also don't know if you know the history of quickseller and his army-of-alts smear campaigns.  This very thread was started by his alt.  This is usually what he does, he creates a new account or uses one of his many farmed accounts to start smear threads, then, halfway through the thread, Quickseller pops in and basically takes over the argumentation from his alt.  I don't know if it's because he just gets tired of logging into so many accounts or what.  Anyway, a bit of history search will show you that QS has been on the attack against dooglus for approximately 1 year.  I don't know if it's just a coincidence, but this is around the same time that dooglus stuck up for me against quickseller and his alts when QS was actively smearing me with his army.  QS ended up going down in flames when it was shown the kinds of scams he was doing with his alts.  I think ever since then QS has made it his mission in life to try to destroy dooglus reputation.

In any case, consider the argumentation he's presenting, the same argument could be made against him.  He knows that the many many many accounts he sells and farms are used to perpetrate scams, therefore by selling them and farming them, he's perpetrating scamming himself.  If he doesn't accept that argument, then he really ought to leave dooglus alone.  If dooglus were actually, actively supporting ponzis, don't you think that someone other than QS would have something to say about it?

He doesnt sell accounts again, the code that dooglus fixed will always be used

Are you sure that all sold accounts stopped being used?

no, but they can only be used for 1 scam, the code can be used alot of times on alot of sites

And QS only ever sold one account who only ever logged in once and committed one single scam? Your analogy is invalid.

Luckily it's beer o'clock so I'll assume you posted this just to amuse me.

The number of accounts QS sold is limited, the amount of times the code can be used is unlimited, am I wrong?

He's been saying that for 2 years now, however, I've caught him selling accounts in this time.  We know that he's not an honest person because of his lying, what makes you think we can believe him when he says he doesn't sell accounts now.


Technically both numbers would have a finite upper bound, therefore limited.  In any case, the idea that because dooglus looked a broken line of code and fixed it means that he's supporting everything that anyone might ever use that code for is about as valid as the idea that QS supports everything that might ever be done with his sold accounts.  What's more, when you look at the context here, a butthurt scammer who's out for revenge against a person who's been trusted time and again with huge sums of money and proven himself responsible, that's when it becomes outlandish.  When another thread pops up with the same topic using a new username in about a month, let's all do the responsible thing and ignore it.  QS will keep beating this drum with new accounts as long as we keep responding to it.

You clearly said "1 scam". I don't know or care if you're right or wrong, just that your argument doesn't make sense even after you altered it twice.

Each account can only be used for 1 scam

Not true. But if you're saying that QS should take responsibility for up to 1 scam per sold account - I'm all for it. Let's start with Master-P.

Mmmmmm... pretty sure he had like... 2 or 3 scams going on... or a dozen. :).

Anywho, I don't really see an issue with fixing code. If he fixed code for a website that sold guns/drugs/live girls on Webcam some people would find find that immoral too. That's all this is (worst case scenario) is immoral. Not a scam lol.

The accounts he sold may not be used to scam, the code dooglus fixed will be used for the sole purpose of scamming, an I wrong?

It doesn't matter, your point is invalid. QS lost his or her rep, even with me, long ago. I consider whoever it is (You? lol) an untrustworthy character.

I don't care what you think about it to be honest. I have dealt with QS directly so I'm not trolling... Like you are. QS?  ::)

LOL, suchmoon always wins the internet... Like... Daily. :D

I really dont care what you think,
As a matter of fact, I wasnt even addressing you
I really dont care about your history with quickseller

Moving goalposts, I like it  ;D

Master-P WAS a scam, no "may" there. Is QS responsible or not?

He is not, did he know that the account would be used for scam?

When dooglus fixed the code, he knew that the sole purpose of the code would be to scam, am I wrong?

Yes. And as I see it, considering the strange circumstances regarding the BTC from TradeFucktress to QS must have been a scam, I for one exclude any and all QS accounts and/or alts from my trust list. I don't care about being on DT, in fact, I feel bad for the massive amounts of PMs' you all receive about it based on basic smarts. Sad. Bitcoin could be so much better.  :'(


Again, your logic is invalid. LMFAO.  ;D

Saying my logic is invalid without giving reason makes you look stupid, especially when you end all your sentences with a smiley face

Yes, you are. Have you read the thread? Klye's site didn't scam anyone.

What reason is to be pointed at but the obvious? Dooglus fixed some code, and is still a very trusted member here.  QS pulled escrow and account scams, so .. he is not..

What the fuck don't you get about that again? 

Anyhow. have fun there cuz your point will probably always be invalid since you are either QS or someone with no fucking brain. LOL.

PS ....

 ;D

Was QS supposed to look into the future to see what the account would be used for?

I don't know. You keep bringing up these new rationalizations so you tell me.

Kyle's site was actively deceiving people because it was trying to get people to believe that there was no risk to send money to his ponzi.

The script that dooglus designed is something that is primarily used to scam and is designed to scam. There are "legitimate" non-illegal uses for cocaine, however that does not mean that a cocaine producer (or maybe someone who designs a way to more efficiently produce cocaine) is not breaking the law.

And on the topic of Kyle's ponzi not scamming anyone, maybe you should look a little closer.

The address that players were to send their CLAM to was xWSg3afDSs7gRr5uDBWiUcpS7rJpmv8nra

On the first transaction the above received 1f1717abceb479a5948a3a5e8ee87731f3ff2543c586157d40d653fb108176c0, the following addresses used inputs to fund this transaction:
xH3Kh6WDTgdAnY3rAnMdonShezHLJgitt7
xHLd7SgohBXzqR271L3vZSr8Ha9dg8wE5K
xETZYYYZumiZLFxj2fqfzuftKaXLufYpsv
xDkh9AeqJBPxo1e3v12GZunJDbyXi7CL4C
xNogJskant1BznVFKvJEpSFGqmKVRLtaJg
x8XPofV7sUxACPPBvob6UPBxL6k8fCmmJ7
xWnYCzLWWfhkdqFp4hpAJWqyrbQd7J9jnV

The amount sent to the ponzi was 0.000337 CLAM

The amount the ponzi promised to return to the players was 125% of the amount sent, which works out to 0.00042125 CLAM.

None of the above addresses have received a transaction in this amount. (there is nothing in the thread that says that tx fees will be deducted from the amount sent). Therefore it is reasonable to say that Kyle scammed the first person who played at his ponzi out of 0.0004225 CLAM. Just because no one in the thread (or anywhere else) was complaining about getting scammed does not mean that no one was scammed.


@Your Point Is Invalid -- the dooglus supporters/fanboys are simply trying to derail this thread with off-topic ad hominem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attacks. Any discussion about me belongs in a different thread and these people know this, however these people choose to post them here to distract from the fact that dooglus did work on a script that was designed to steal from people.....in other word they are trying to distract from the fact that dooglus helped other scammers steal from others.

QS, get out, you ruining my game with moving goalposts ;D

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. Thanks Your Point Is Invalid. I still think your point is invalid. If you want to hold people responsible for providing tools for potential scammers, or even merely touching such tools that may or may not be used by scammers, then I don't see how you could excuse account sales on such flimsy criteria like "can only be used for 1 scam".

bought accounts can be used to do a number of things, code built for scamming can only be used for scamming

Since we're apparently enjoying the world of baseless wild speculation, we might just as easily speculate that the first transaction was KLYE himself, testing things out.  And that the reason none of those addresses received their returns of a 10s of satoshis is that the script was broken and needed fixed.  We can also speculate that if these were legitimate players who needed paid back, that KLYE did so later to their satisfaction.  We can also speculate that QS's mom has a beautiful moustache, but then again, since wild speculation not based on facts isn't really that useful, maybe we should leave all of this aside.


Or, it might be that some people in here are merely drawing attention to the fact that you've been spamming lies using multiple accounts in an attempt to damage dooglus' reputation for nearly a year now.  I dunno, I think it's kinda relevant that the OP of this thread is your alt and that you opened a thread with the same thing under your main account right around the same time.


Not true, code "built for scamming", as you say, can be used to educate people about how to code.  If you show me some broken code and I show you how to fix it then I think it's pretty easy to argue that I just used that code to show you something about how to program---irrespective of your intended use for the now-fixed code.  What's more, ponzi code specifically can be used to illustrate how to calculate percentages, how to automate transactions, .... seems to me there's a myriad of educational uses at a minimum.

I don't think there's anyone on this forum who thinks that dooglus supports ponzis.  The idea that you guys are gonna allow QS to maintain multiple threads of such lies using so many accounts is pretty shameful.  Alas.

I am not speculating. The first person to send CLAMs to that ponzi really did get scammed. There are also exactly zero transactions spent from the ponzi CLAM address that paid out the amount promised as outlined in the OP of the ponzi thread.

I would suggest that you take 30 seconds to read the OP and see who posted it ::)

Kindly refrain from posting ad hominem attacks while trying to distract from the fact that dooglus has a long history of helping scammers steal additional money from others.

Not true. The script was specifically designed to steal money from others via ponzi scams. The code on GitHub by dooglus even contained HTML regarding ponzis.

Furthermore, no reputable educational institution will provide direction to work on something whose only non-educational use is to scam/steal/is illegal. I would think that is something that would be taught at the University of Washington....

Anyone who does not believe that dooglus supports ponzis should read the OP and should review this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1208053.0) thread which gives an example as to when dooglus gave positive trust to a ponzi who shortly thereafter scammed.

You are free to create a thread to discuss whatever else you wish to discuss, however this thread is about how dooglus has helped people scam via improving ponzi codes/scripts. If you have anything to add in relation to this topic you are more then welcome to post :)

This might be a leeeeetle convincing, if say, you had someone claiming that they got scammed, and that that person wasn't just one of your alts.
Okay, whoops, forgive me for confusing this thread with the other one you started on the same topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1389916.0  I guess at least you're only bumping one of them now so that's nice of you.


Kindly refain from non-sequitor in attempting to distract from the fact that your many threads on this topic are all bascially ad-hominem sour grapes.

I haven't reviewed the script, I have reviewed your long history of false accusations and nonsense.  I am also familiar with dooglus' kind attitude towards those who are trying to educate themselves about technical matters---anyone who looks through his post history can see that for themself.  That's kinda where I'm coming from here.

I wonder what you have against the University of Washington.  Is the University of North Carolina better in some way?

@Hippie Tech - I am not sure I am understanding the context of your quotes in relation to dooglus supporting ponzis.

These and the posts that followed depict how he manipulates people and/or their coins/ponzi.

The easymine/stakes, the fork and "the digger" are examples as to how he goes about his business.

I don't know if I understand either.  Are you saying that dooglus caused or was "the digger".  As I recall, that digging whale, as he was known, caused clam price to drop by an order of magnitude.  What would dooglus stand to gain by devaluing his own money by 90%?

The insiders almost never lose.

They ALWAYS know when it is time to jump on or off that proverbial rocket "to da muun". ::)

Go back on your meds. LOL. :D

So, that's a nice, cynical comment without much context.  As far as anyone knows, Dooglus, being the biggest holder of CLAM, took the biggest loss when the price dropped due to the whale digging.  If you're saying that he was the digger, then you're saying that he was crashing his own investment by selling so rapidly.  If you're saying he's some insider who knew about the digger, then you're saying that he took a huge loss while the digger sold.  I really think you're going to have to provide some further content to your cynicism if you want anyone else to understand whatever schemes you're imagining.

Whether or not you're playing dumb or are honestly ignorant of the historical precidents/facts may one day be determined. lol eg. the insider bankers and traders have been buying back peoples' investments for pennies on the dollar for centuries.

The following screenie shows 12.5 months of CLAM's market activity on Poloniex. It begins with the first dug wallet, DOGE, and ends with "the digger" (or should I say "the CreativeDooger" ;D ) going public.

After 9+ months of climbing steadily, the price crashed 5-10 days BEFORE the notso CreativeDooger appeared. Not after.
http://img.techpowerup.org/160517/doogdigscreatively.jpg
http://img.techpowerup.org/160517/doogdigscreatively2.jpg

You seem to be an expert in all things dooglus

So someone with 500k CLAMs started dumping after he saw that the price was starting to fall? That seems reasonable to me. He held as the price was going up, and decided to cash out when it started to fall.

You never actually make any claims, so it's impossible to argue with you, but are we to suppose that you think I am the same person as CreativeCuriosity (one of the original creators of CLAM), and that we're both the same person as the whale digger? "CreativeCuriosity + dooglus + digger = CreativeDooger" - very clever!

I know I'm neither of them, and I would put money of the other two also being different people.

I'm sure people would be interested to see any evidence you have of any of the three of us being the same person. Just stringing our names together doesn't count, sorry.

Well this is just a tad melodramatic. If I helped someone with a script that would help robots enslave newborn babies I would have terrible morals but it doesn't mean I would enslave babies myself.

Until you can come up with proof that I am building a slave army of newborn babies I suggest you shut up about it.

Also (in an unrelated note) do you know where I can get good ear protection and bulk diaper supplies?

OK well I've seen quite enough here. This is Dooglus' (partial) dox. He's the one in the red hat.

http://i64.tinypic.com/zmdz14.jpg

Do what you want with this (partial) dox everyone!

Ha ha, some angsty geek flinging shit cause Dooglus fixed bugs? How do you have time for so much BS.

I will just put this up for anyone to look at:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030

Ok, I'm gonna be the dumb donkey and ask - how is this relevant to anything? Is Dooglus now a hacker-extortionist?

Dooglus is the root of all evil, have you not heard? He finds vulnerabilities in hacks competitors sites to help them destroy them for his personal gain.

QS, when is the sequel of this thread being posted? Surely it doesn't take 2 months to compile all of the 'proof' that you already have into another thread.

That is what I believe yes. I have spent some time compiling information, however it is now late. I will post information/proof tomorrow evening after spending a little more time on it.

If a site does not have any kind of bug bounty program that invites people to find vulnerabilities in their site then finding such vulnerabilities would be accessing their computers without authorization. The question of personal gain is irrelevant to the question of accessing a computer system without authorization, although I do believe that dooglus does attempt to extort sites that he finds vulnerabilities to (that do not have bug bounty programs), and it often will make sense to pay the extortion due to his influence within the bitcoin gambling scene as well as the fact that it would probably not be smart to report him to law enforcement if you are a victim of his extortion because hosting a casino would probably be frowned upon by law enforcement.

   
The consensus in this thread seems to be that it does not matter what dooglus has done and/or does, so I have not bothered to put in the effort into gathering evidence and writing up a new thread if my warnings are only going to be ignored and cause people to call me a troll which I do not appreciate. Many people who are strongly against ponzis and any kind of support of ponzis have turned a blind eye to this situation, and I do not think others will react any differently to dooglus's other less-then-honest actions.

IANAL, but, I heard that Dooglus lives in Canada. ;)


Now that is a question that has been defying answer for several years now.



Is basically that your mudslinging tactics have failed.  No matter how many threads you start with your army of alts, you actually have to have some sort of content for your accusations to actually stick.

QS is like an experiment in echo-chamber crowd manipulation.  He makes a huge fuss and builds a hype machine with his alts, and people get riled up, but when you actually look for something concrete in what he's saying ...

member with high rated reputation is in advantage, he "can afford" a couple of shady activities and no one is going to say a bad word about him. This is a good example of trust rating abuse going on here. Sorry QS but you have a really little chance to convince people to give negative to dooglus, that's how it goes even if you are right and have proof.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you accusing me of abusing the trust system in some way? I barely use the trust system other than for marking scammer and promoters of scams as being untrustworthy. I don't see how you can call that abusive.

This whole thread is complaining about how I fixed some publicly available code which was incorrectly determining the sending address of Bitcoin (or CLAM, as it happened to be in this particular instance) transactions. In balance I think such a change is a good think. People copy an paste open source code snippets for use in their own projects. It's better to fix bugs in open source code when you see them because you never know what project the code will find itself in next. Correcting errors I find online is habitual for me. If that constitutes "shade activity" then so be it. I'm not going to stop fixing errors wherever I see them.

1 - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=887220.0;all

2. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1106133.msg11780050


3. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=663326.msg9565937#msg9565937 http://archive.is/aggeL

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=663326.msg9566912#msg9566912 http://archive.is/YEvjv


notes
1 - I was not able to locate any kind of bug bounty program for this site, which means that using the exploit (even if a W/D was not attempted) was unauthorized. The way that dooglus described his interaction with this person sounds a lot like extortion to me.

2 - dooglus was not directly extorting the owners of crypto-games, however I believe he at the very least was acting as an accomplice, and appears to have been extorting them via proxy as it was announced that dooglus would receive a percentage of the proceeds

3 - This is not a hacking attempt as there was an invitation to find the bug, however it is a clear extortion attempt (not sure if "attempt is the correct word as it was successful), as no agreement for payment was ever made in any way, however dooglus left negative trust with the intention of strong-arming the owner of that site into paying dooglus money that he was not due.

---

---

This was high on the list of what to possibly make "chapter 2", however as mentioned above, I had not put very much effort into gathering evidence/information as it appears that people generally do not care about dooglus' past indiscretions. I may create a thread about dooglus' history of extortion this weekend (IIRC there are more examples of this....I just need to spend more time into [re]gathering information).   

Omf'ngee the casino had a bug just like everything else this noob gets his hands on ! lol

The mudderFUDder is strong in you Doogie..

Coincidences ? ::)

I see no coincidences here. Lots of Bitcoin gambling sites were buggy, and I helped to fix lots of them. I saw "were" because I no longer waste my time trying to help new sites. Experience shows that it almost never ends well.

As much as I hate feeding the troll, I guess I should respond to the 3 cases he mentioned:

1. The balloon site offered me a bounty when I reported their bug, but never paid it. I didn't do anything other than play their game to discover the bug. I published my interaction with the site owner. I wasn't extorting him. He offered a bounty freely, and later retracted the offer. The whole way he was running the site was scammy, offering payouts he wasn't bankrolled to be able to offer, etc.

2. The crypto-games site had a bug which someone else found. I never attempted to get a bounty for finding it, since I never found it. I remember the guy who did find it offering to share any bounty with me, but I don't remember ever asking for that, or ever receiving anything.

3. PRC had a bug bounty in place. I found a serious bug that was actively being exploited by an attacker and they took the longest time to pay the bounty. Note the winky face after the joke about "paying him off". That means it's a joke.

Speaking of faces:

QS:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1414841.msg15064730#msg15064730

https://meem.link/i/a/YhIH5m.jpg
Edited 2020-11-29 to fix a broken image

Original:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=663326.msg9568469#msg9568469

https://meem.link/i/a/nDFXc5.jpg
Edited 2020-11-29 to fix a broken image

Stripping smiley faces off quotes is a crime against intertubes punishable by 60 days of confinement to the Digital Goods board.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-x9jkr-e4hSg/UV41mV3NRsI/AAAAAAAADEk/OiRXCunV2W8/s1600/Grasping+at+Straws.jpg