Bitcoin Forum

I m asking hilariousandco , michel, VOD,Ognasty , have a look at this website and is it clear everything looks like a scam.no team behind this project, no legal entity.


Possible scammer https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1601988

ANN  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2697915.40

https://bitblisscoin.com

whitepaper https://bitblisscoin.com/files/whitepaper-bitblisscoin.pdf

You can say this guy from Nigeria going to scamm everyone on this forum,

50% trafic from this site IS FROM NIGERIA

NO TEAM  behind this project
and they going to offer debit card to everyone .
when we asking them about the team . here their answer

Quote from: Kardon on January 06, 2018, 01:07:00 PM
I did not find information about the team in white paper.
where it can be found?
the project looks very interesting and promising, but I would like more information

White paper gives generalised information about the Dev team, there's no specific information about the team for protection and obvious reasons.

Thank you.

If you plan to do something legally why you cant publish the name and pic of your team members.



Whois , they hide behind a domain Privacy
Date: 2017-11-07T13:24:04.0Z
https://www.namecheap.com/domains/whois/results.aspx?domain=BITBLISSCOIN.COM


and the saddest thing , they find ALU services to promote their project, sometimes in the life you have to say no, even if they offer you $1M to do a job.

Hi, thank you for bringing this up. As one of the dev. team members I'd be responding on the above accusations.


1. If you read our white paper, you'd see that we are an eCommerce, Lending platform and Cryptobookstore.

Like our predecessors like Bitconnect, Davor, Goldreward, Polynetwork, they deliberately don't state
their dev. Team, they were also called scams but you see them doing well and loved by many.
So you are not the first to make such an accusation but I emphatically state that BitBlissCoin is NOT a scam.


2. 50% of the traffic is from Nigeria? That's laughable.
What does that tell you?

It means we advertised on facebook to some African countries.
Precisely, South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya and finally to the United Kingdom, USA etc

Please where is it a crime to advertise to these undeveloped African countries?


3. Again if you read our white paper, precisely page 8, the 2nd and 3rd problems we are
addressing with our cryptocurrency BitBliss Coin and our CryptoBookstore are:

- The Problem of the Unbanked
- The Need for Financial Literacy in Cryptocurrency

Millions of people with the above problems are domiciled in African countries.

If you search google trends for bitcoin, you'd see that African countries
make the top 10 list of countries searching for information
on bitcoin and cryptocurrency.

See: https://trends.google.co.uk/trends/explore?q=bitcoin

So does it make business sense to target them for our adverts and also target other countries?


4. Our domain name being private, please check our predecessors again.
If its good for them, then its good for us. We can open it up and put a purchase a virtual address but we keep our address private rather than that deception. If this makes us a scam, then the other lending platforms doing well must be scams as well. But then again, not everyone agrees that lending platforms are not scams.


5. At the moment, our programmers are working on a new UI but our website is not disrupted hundreds of new registrations are still ongoing for our ICO launch on January 29th, 2018 at 4pm GMT


6. ALU is running a business and there's no crime in that and we did not offer him a $1M to scam people. Several steps of the way, even when we had some challenges we communicated for months and he was helpful even down to recommending the graphics designer for our ANN here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2697915.0


Hell no, is BitBlissCoin a scam. But then again you are entitled to your own opinions.


Bitcoin, Bitconnect were also called scams but now "J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon Now Says He Regrets Calling Bitcoin a 'Fraud'":

http://fortune.com/2018/01/09/jpmorgan-jamie-dimon-regrets-calling-bitcoin-fraud/


Thanks for reading and this massive publicity.

BitBlissCoin Team

Are you saying these people are involved in this scam, or are you addressing this thread to these people?

I have nothing to do with this at all. Not sure why I’m being mentioned. I’m not a mod here.

I wouldn't use Bitconnect in an argument where you're trying to defend yourself. That shit is a true scam and many will get burned from it.

Looks like it. Newbies often confuse these things; sometimes they even include me in PMs addressed to forum staff.

---

I don't see a strong case here.

While I personally try to avoid working with such projects (in any way), that does not necessarily have to mean that it is (or will be) a scam.

Yes Laura. You are absolutely right

january 14th i opened a scam acusation againt this project because the project did not have any team behind it .Now noone can withdraw their btc.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2697915.msg33782063#msg33782063


The last time the potential scammer was online March 03, 2018, 01:57:21 AM

its been over 2 months and i can not withdraw my btc!!!!
i don't want to hear you are working on the feature .. I want to know EXACTLY when you will be making the withdrawal feature function

I have asked repeatedly and been told over and over to hold tight, the feature is coming... that is on the few times i have gotten a reply, mostly i am totally ignored

if not a scam, why is there no withdrawal????

Looks like aTriz started the ANN thread.  Maybe start asking questions there.

Ico wasn't a scam, was a fail. They spent more than 1 BTC in marketing and basically had 2 investors and barely anything invested.

I've refunded you via PM.

I would like to confirm I have been refunded TYVM

I'm confused. 2 investors?





3,111,374 * $.85  = $2,644,667.90 invested ???


EDIT:
Additionally, there was apparently a pre-ICO sale for 3 days (really *hot* ICO here ::)), which of course sold out. 660,000 BIBC ("$510,000 raised") here (https://archive.is/7q1lS#selection-25087.0-25091.20) ?   
Nope, no scammers here. /s

 No.


https://imgur.com/a/pFd3v

It was a marketing strategy and they tried to say they raised so much in just a day or 2.

I doubt they raised anymore then 1 BTC.

You are ok with ICOs stating false information about how much they have raised to other potential investors... and you would call this a marketing strategy?

No, but when I'm 2 weeks into a bounty program I'm basically forced to go along with it.

This is nothing but deceitful nonsense. What you call a "marketing strategy", I would call fraud.

Scammer: a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme, especially for making a quick profit; swindle.
Swindle: to obtain money or property by fraud or deceit
Fraud: a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.


No, you are not forced to do anything you do not want to do here, especially when someone is being fraudulent.

I want to say a couple of things about this comment.

These types of ICOs will generally only benefit the investors of said ICOs if they raise a lot of money. It doesn't necessarily need to be oversubscribed, sell out, or have any specific percentage of coins sold, however there is a reason why these companies are trying to raise the amount of money they are. If you are claiming a lot of money is being raised via an ICO when in fact (nearly) no money is being raised, you are substantially misrepresenting the risks associated with with investing because if you are the 1st investor, not only does the underlying business model need to be solid, and upon execution, profitable, but also many others need to believe in the business plan sufficiently to invest their own substantial money, otherwise the management will likely not even have the opportunity to try to execute (and be profitable), and your investment will likely be worthless.


Another cold, hard fact about most ICO investors (IMO) is that most of them lack the capability to truly understand the risks and potential benefits of investing in a particular ICO. I suspect that many ICO investors use investor interest of others of a particular offering to gauge risk/benefit of a particular ICO. I believe the thought process is that if many others are investing, then surely the ICO is a good investment. Again, misrepresenting investor interest specifically harms investors because it makes them believe said investment is less risky than it is in reality.

In both of the above examples, there is very specific consumer harm.

I would note that ibminer's above examples are not the only fraudulent statements made regarding that ICO. There are other fraudulent statement in the OP that aTriz himself posted, such as "all monetary transactions with BIBC are processed through secured servers, so users have no need to worry about any risks..."

I would point out this is not the 1st (maybe only is a better word, I'm not sure) time that aTriz has been a part of this kind of fraudlent misrepresentation. He previously vouched for alia's gambling script that was very clearly worthless, and did not work as advertised. I think this is fairly clear evidence that aTriz's word is for sale to anyone willing to pay the right price, and as such is worthless.

That is absolute, pathetic nonsense. The people who post these threads for others are not vouching for their content, the same way that they are not vouching for the success of the project. Neither one is up to them, and never was. Anyone claiming otherwise has no idea what they're talking about/is showing a clear lack of knowledge and experience.

This is only fairly clear evidence that you are a baboon.

Here's yet another nice example of your lies. This is most certainly not the case (at least not for me), and I know that you've attempted to bribe me with at least one shill. :-*

---

No comment on the case as I await for the bandwagon. ::) The rational and solely objective input is welcome/being further awaited.

Maybe "vouch" is not be the best word, but without disclaimers disassociating a campaign manager from the ICO, it is misleading, certainly to new members who probably don't even know campaign managers exist. This may be more of a global issue with managers/ICOs though. I'm not sure why campaign managers need to post the announcement themselves? is it to bring more credibility to the ICO because of their higher rank??  As a suggestion, prepare the post and send it to the ICO owner to post it from their [newbie] account/Copper. They can then announce whoever as the campaign manager and define his/her actual role with the ICO and that they do not endorse the validity of the ICO. This would be a little more transparent.

Regardless of that, the fact that aTriz was aware of this "marketing strategy" and was ok with it, to say the least, is disappointing - and alarming.

(FTFY - I'm not sure what this image posted was supposed to be showing, it's an empty album for me)

aTriz has obviously known this ICO was fabricating numbers since the pre-ICO in order to trick investors into eventually thinking there was over 3 MILLION dollars raised when there was apparently only 1BTC ($9,000-$10,000) raised ???

If we want to call this a "marketing strategy", it should be identified as a "scammers marketing strategy". Is this how other managers run their campaigns?  I've been giving aTriz a very large benefit of doubt with his alia encounter and the unusual behavior and apparent naiveness displayed multiple times, but this seems inexcusable.

No campaign manager should be seeing this as a marketing strategy and letting it go unhindered, especially from a group like ALU whom centers themselves around being "Trusted. Experienced." The sole purpose of this strategy is to deceive investors into thinking an ICO has more financial support than it actually does and is a classic way for scam ICOs to bait investors. Both smart & dumb investors look at the financial support of an ICO, with good reason, and when you combine the speed at which these supposed investors were fake investing, and the seemingly fake hype in the thread about all of their investors... it's just deceitful and untrustworthy behavior, a campaign manager that sees this, accepts it as marketing, and does nothing - also not trustworthy.

Actions speak louder than words, and a handful of aTriz's recent actions are concerning to me. I can understand the reluctancy Lauda, but you must have similar disdain here. I really can't believe you would have knowledge of this type of behavior from a campaign manager and be ok with it, especially given your support for my feedback when looking into Deja (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=305661) who was conducting similar shady behavior and lying about invested funds.

I'm eager to hear other opinions.

It is a global issue, thus we can't blame anyone individually for it.

Maybe. I've seen projects hire members solely to post the threads (i.e. not campaign managers), thus I'd say that this more likely (than some other reasons?).

I think he just stated the way that they called it (although I can't be sure).

This one is not on ALU, but solely on aTriz. People seem to make *unusual* assumptions as to how ALU works, although some of those aren't because of malevolent intent (unlike QS's).

I can't really objectively comment on the whole matter, despite my awareness of the inherent bias (welcome to evolutionary flaws). However, I have scolded the youngling for his naivety and errors in judgement (regardless whether the reader believes that they were malevolent in nature or not) as soon as I've read that post.
For the reference: I had no information about any kind of "marketing strategy" (prior to this thread/post), nor did I ever really look into that project as I haven't managed any aspect of it.

---

Update: Many edits. Slumber.

Please explain what the point of ALU is, if a member's actions don't reflect upon the group?  I don't want to make any assumptions.

Looks like Atriz is a baby, also is that the standard procedure for dealing with them, cause I see members negging for far more inconspicuous issues; waiting for @ibminer to decided whether it's neg-worthy or not ???



I guess, to have plausible deniability if something goes caput and to claim universal success if any project performs.  ::)

Senseless question. It is not my job to babysit others, the same way it is not your job to babysit NastyFans members; the same way that a member's actions don't reflect on the whole NastyFans group (/charity/whatever it is).

You came here out of spite? Pathetic.

I think an economic or fiduciary relationship is more close-knit than a fan group, so in my opinion, it does reflect on other associates, unless they categorically disown and disassociate themselves.


For what? Sorry, I don't remember. Was just strolling by.

Don't compare ALU to NastyFans.  NastyFans is a public organization anyone can be a part of that is largely funded by my personal donations.  ALU is a private organization run by you and it's members are hand selected by you to represent your for profit services.  ALU is funded by apparently lying to investors to scam them out of their funds.  So, now that it is a documented fact that an ALU member worked with an ICO team to lie to potential investors in an attempt to fraudulently separate them from their funds, you feel it doesn't come back on you at all?  You think it is ok that you still "trust" this member who fraudulently acted to destroy the name of ALU and arise questions about whether or not you are in charge of an organization that's purpose appears to be to help scam users out of their money with fraudulent claims?  You think it is ok that a member who has been caught trying to scam investors with an ICO is a part of ALU?

Comparing Nastyfans to ALU is disingenuous. Deny it all you want, but this is on ALU.

Atriz is 1/3 or so of ALU and I assume you all get a share from campaign proceeds? If this is the case you are all culpable. Throwing atriz under the bus means nothing.

It seems to be company policy to promote scams, and Atriz just admitted it.

So you are telling me that when, e.g., someone is caught doing something wrong in a company, it reflects on the other employees? Yes, that makes perfect sense. ::)

Go shitpost somewhere else.

No.

There are no ALU funds nor is there ever a case of funding of this "private organization", thus this statement is false.

No.

Wrong. It is not that he acted, it is that he did not act on it. The latter part of the statement just shows how biased and full of nonsense you are. Fits your record. Time to get back to the badgering, eh? ::)

It is none of your business who is and who isn't a member[1], nor what my opinion on that is.

See, another shameless assumption as previously stated. There are no "ALU funds" and there are no split proceeds.

There is no company.

---

You need to make up better FUD, this is just child's play. Try using something that is commonly used by liberals.
[1] The relevant party can be switched out with someone else if need be. The letters don't even need to be changed. Lucky I guess. ::)

Yes.



So what is ALU then?  Just a forum thread with no organization whatsoever?



Must be nice to think you can advertise services for scammers, and then have no liability whatsoever.



Wrong, he did act on it.  He continued with his charade knowing full well it was a lie.  I don't care what he didn't do, I care what he did do.  In this case, he did go along with a lie in order to scam users out of their funds with the excuse that the scam was a marketing strategy.



Then why make the information public?  I would think ALU exists to give it's members a united front that the organization is backed by more than one person, giving it the illusion of having more accountability if one of them goes rogue, yet you have now openly stated that ALU is in no way responsible for the actions of it's members, which in my opinion makes it worthless and you should be open about this.  You seem to state that nobody needs to know who it's members are and if some of them are scammers it's nobody's business.  I disagree, a lot.

aTriz seems to be either extremely naive or outright malicious, neither of which is good for trust. And calling fraudulent misrepresentation a "marketing strategy" is really stretching the "naive" part.

I'm biased though. I'm not fond of ICOs in general.

No. It is not run by me.

Why would I want to disclose our inner workings to you exactly? You need an actually profitable endeavor to copy?

Managers don't advertise, and this is not related to me.

No, it is not his charade. In order for it to be his charade, he'd either have to: a) Make the statement himself. b) Back it up. c) Be part of the team who made it. None of these apply. What he did wrong was not stopping both threads as soon as that statement was made. Any exaggeration beyond this is just malicious on anyone's end. 

There you have your answer. You would think. ALU can never be responsible for the actions of individuals.

Former, correct. Latter, incorrect. Quite the number of *managers* don't disclose any members (some notable names have people working with them, but these people are usually just in the background), yet you don't seem to take interest in who is working with who unless it revolves around me. ::)

Lets keep making excuses for him. He is a naive lovable chap. Where is your negative trust for Atriz and ALU? i guess it is reserved for account farmers.

Coward.

Ofc it does, why would you think organizations disassociate themselves from wrongdoers or agencies scrutinize entire companies even if an individual is found engaged in malicious activity, it does cast more than a shadow of doubt.
I expect better of individuals who go around telling others to uphold high morality in terms of Fraud on this forum.

Caeser's wife must be above suspicion.


Are you the OP? Is this thread sanctioned by your SMAS-list? How come this post is a shit-post, just cause it doesn't agree with you?

Quoting for ridiculousness.  You've heard it from Lauda.  ALU is nothing.  Has no accountability.  Has no funds.  Shares nothing between it's members.  It's members can post announcements for scams and that is not considered their action or responsibility nor does it reflect upon the other members.  Basically, if ALU is pushing an ICO it means that it could be a scam and Lauda is perfectly fine with that so long as it doesn't effect him negatively in any way.  This evidenced from the fact that a fellow ALU member has now openly admitted to taking part in a scam to steal investor funds through fraud and still maintains a positive trust rating from Lauda.  



Ya, you know me.  Broke as a joke barely getting by in my shanty.  Clearly my motivations must be financial and not trying to make this place better by getting rid of the trash that is flooding this forum with ICOs and turning away newbies from Bitcoin by giving them an awful first experience investing in scams.

Quoting and debunking for ridiculousness.

Labels are unnecessary.

Lacking context.

It does not, and never did nor did anyone state otherwise.

Lacking context.

ALU is not pushing anything, and:


It looks like your maliciousness and stupidity got to you. Where exactly is the rating (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=135920) from Lauda? Bonus: Nobody was taking part in any scam. You aren't participating in a crime that you don't report.

Yes, the former is true. Just don't go back to your old habits, I don't need people visiting the hospital. :)

---

Very easy, then again you aren't known for your intellect and neither is Quickscammer.

Says the guy who has tried to label more people on this forum than any other user.  I can smell the desperation as your arguments turn to ash.  No Phoenix coming out of this one buddy.  



Is this some sort of threat?  Pathetic.



I called it months ago and it has been playing out before our very eyes.  Getting sloppier and more desperate by the day.  I won't even bring up the messaging users urging them to add me to their trust exclusion settings.  I feel like I'm watching someone drown in slow motion.

That has nothing to do with the putting a label/definition on ALU, literally nothing.

Nope. Next time use words.

---

I destroyed all your nonsense almost trivially. Move along and go back to supporting Quicksie the scammer. FTFM.

How do I support Quicksie?  You aren't helping yourself by posting more lies, although I guess your goal is to bury the recent posts as quickly as you can.  Seems to be your MO.

I updated the post after it has been made (the writing was unclear); updated the quote as well. You support him with your recent rating and jumping on any nonsensical bandwagon of his.

---

Let me not forget this part, leftover.

I won't even bring up messaging FJ urging them to remove/deny users. Both sad and pathetic, some of the reasons for which she left you. :-*

---

https://i.imgur.com/vdZvlXN.png

/me goes back to the non-ALU residence funded by non-ALU funds as I await a non-malicious response (no Quickseller, OgNasty or alts of the former).

So anyone who rates you as the extortionist you are is now supporting QS?  Desperate, desperate, desperate.  I'm grabbing the popcorn to see how you try to weasel yourself out of this one.  Hope you've got something other than deflection in that bag of tricks.

The facts are that an ALU member publicly and with full knowledge was pushing lies on behalf of a fraudulent ICO for personal gain.  You are a member of ALU, and thus affiliated with the scammer through your own choice.  So what is your move?  Leave ALU?  Mark aTriz the admitted scammer with negative trust?  or...  Lash out at anyone who brings this up and try to deflect to bury the evidence against you?

I don't need anything other than this:

Indulge me. While I need not get out of anything as I am not related to this case, I do know someone who had to get themselves out of a nice *organizational relationship* though. ::)

---

I made it a bit more clear. Excuse the small font size. Maybe it is time to get over it?

I asked why FJ was seemingly paying someone like TMAN to represent them.  I was then told that TMAN was wearing their signature without their consent and not being paid and will not be a member of their campaign due to his reputation.  As far as the "she left you" comment...  I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about but have seen you and TMAN repeat this many times now.  Although at times I do wish the "she" in my life would give me a little more free time to follow my passions.  Girls take up a lot of time, well, real girls, not Aria.

Now how about indulging me and telling me why you feel a forum member who admitted to attempting to scam users on this forum with a fraudulent ICO announcement doesn't deserve your negative trust, but anyone without perfect English does?  It's obvious abuse of conflicts of interest like this why your opinion is worthless and you don't deserve to be in any sort of position to evaluate trust or anything else.

Hmm. Who should I let respond to this?

The real question is, who is Aria?

Desperate and pathetic, you are. Looks like you picked up the book of cheap smear tactics from Quicksie; well, at least you've started to actually read something. :)

Oopsie.

Not surprised, more deflective nonsense from the ALU chief.

Yes, but at least it is now crystal clear that ALU promotes scams and will deny responsibility when users are fraudulently mislead by them.

In other words, Lauda/aTriz have no accountability for their actions and will do anything for BTC while hiding behind labels, which are "unnecessary" except to deflect any personal accountability.

You mean, stuff like this:

Which claims "This guy named Atriz from bitcointalk with other member Lauda endorsed the project called chrysos coin and after investment they freezed the account with money in it. &k usd of mine is now lost.", although it being yet another thing I have nothing to do with. Yes, very deflective nonsense indeed. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed is king. ::)

The day that you stop rehashing lies and trying to blame me for things that I am not even remotely at fault, is the day that I will stop posting this:

---

Grow up already.

A more perfect quote of Lauda's immature behavior, projecting, grasping at straws, deflecting, and hypocrisy I could not make up.  This is gold.  Especially him telling himself to grow up.   :D

I don't think you understand what a line break does. Just don't go badgering again. Was this how it was spelled again? I must have mixed up something :)

---

Quickscammer, your dear friend, opened a can of worms attempting to DOX owlcatz[1]. Nevermind, you find it acceptable since he disagrees with you (nor is an actual issue that you should be concerned with, of any concern to you). The more you continue with your desperate games, the less you matter (something doesn't sound right here).
[1] I'd consider this an attempt at direct-harm.

Did the FJ account here on the forum say that to you?

I appreciate you joining in the deflect for Lauda party.  It says a lot about you that ALU is caught trying to scam forum users and you're worried about me questioning your effectiveness as a signature campaign manager in this thread.  Odd that you were also saying "that's why she left you" in a private chat yesterday.  It seems you guys have been given some bad information and are trying to harass me on a daily basis with this incorrect insult.  It's hard to believe that any reasonable or honest person would behave this way.

Can we get back to talking about how aTriz tried to help scam users for a 5 figure sum?  You know, something of relevance to the thread.

If you are having trouble reading, I'll help you out a bit:

Did the FJ account here on the forum say that to you?

OgNasty in 1 picture:

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/mobile/000/023/397/C-658VsXoAo3ovC.jpg

---

I tried to avoid you and threads relating to you, yet here we are (again, because of you). ::)

I'm not going to comment on personal messages I receive on this forum.  Stop deflecting.

aTriz under the ALU name tried to assist in fraudulently raising funds from investors/victims.



No, you are here because an organization you are a large part of just got caught trying to fraudulently scam investors.  Realize that.

No. I have nothing to do with this, neither does Untold nor does ALU have any part in the action of the people behind Bitblisscoin. Desperate lies again.

So if a member of ALU promotes an ICO and it turns out to be a 100% scam where they had advanced knowledge, you as a member of ALU have no accountability, will not negatively rate the member who helped pull the scam, and will simply wash your hands with the scam and move on to the next money maker?  Is that correct?

I want to make sure I have a clear understanding.

My question is, who in their right mind hire someone that is even remotely connected to an extortion scheme when they are trying to raise money via an ICO (or otherwise) from investors? These types of investments are already super high risk for investors, and competition for money is fierce, and I cannot imagine a potential investor having any interest in a company doing business with someone who is a tenth as shady as lauda/aTriz/ALU.

I'm trying to follow along with my popcorn in hand. What did you mean by this, Lauda??

I have not stated nor implied such a thing.

As I've clearly told ibminer, before you derailed the thread with lies and blame shifting, it is too early and next-to-impossible to make an objective statement/move on this. I'd rather take my time before I do something, this time.

FTFY.

It has a secret meaning; have fun with your imagination though. No, it is not a threat of any kind as insinuated before by mr. Nasty, and to which I have responded here:

---

I see the angle that you tried to make there ("Lauda the witch threatening to put OgNasty in a hospital"). Sorry, won't work. I don't resort to physical violence, unlike *some*. ::)

I suspect that's why aTriz was the one who announced the topic and has been handling a majority of the ICOs from what I can tell.  His reputation hadn't yet been trashed, although vouching for a gambling script that claimed to defraud online casinos, hiring a user to advertise for you that attempted to use someone else's identity before refusing to pay them (demanding payback), and pushing a scam ICO while having advanced knowledge of the lies being told should resolve that issue unless people are scared to go against Lauda's crew for fear of retaliation, which is a whole other issue involving some members in DT1 using very poor judgement.



Answer the question dude.  It is exactly what I've observed from your actions.



Your guess is as good as mine what the "secret meaning" is.  I took it as a threat to disguise an act of desperation.

There is no such thing and there was never any retaliation on anyone. Ironically, the latter is why you don't have negative trust ratings from DT2 (not related to me/my position anyhow, as I already received preemptive retaliation).

I have not made a decision yet, thus can't answer the question "dude".

I took all your statements on this thread as harassment and threats. Baseless victimization like that won't work. Try something new. And clarifying for the second time, even though you know very well that it isn't a threat, it's not a threat.

---

The can of worms has been opened. I'll leave the two lovebirds and their alt to their lies and their cheap smear tactics (misrepresentation, exaggeration, name calling, victimization and whatnot) be for now.

Even though he clearly states he went along with the scam here?

If you took my statements as a threat, that says everything right there.  The only threat is to the income of the scammers involved.  I'm trying to protect users here from taking part in one of these scam ICOs.  You consistently say how evil certain community organizations are despite being 100% transparent and not needing funds from anyone, yet refuse to say a bad word about these companies using your organization to lie and defraud users out of their BTC.  I don't understand this hypocrisy and think the community is owed an explanation.  Why haven't you left negative trust for the users involved in this scam?  Why are you defending aTriz but would certainly spend years of your life harassing someone else who did something like this?



I am also curious what you meant by, "I don't need people visiting the hospital."  Who is aware of this secret meaning?

I don't see how any reasonable person could see this to be anything but a threat of physical harm.

Maybe, maybe not.

I would say that you guys calling zeroaxl's family (particularly if a listed number) carried an implicit threat of physical violence. Especially after you used a supposedly neutral third party to goad him into doxxing himself with his passport. "Pay us, otherwise we know who you are, who your family is, and where you live." That's violent mobster level shit. That's the most disgusting part of that story.


I saw you retaliate against someone for criticizing you very recently.

On 2018-02-04, user VirosaGITS (previously 40: -0 / +4) opened a thread titled "The forum would probably be a slightly better place without Lauda's nonsense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2879838)."

On 2018-02-06, Lauda left negative feedback for VirosaGITS [??: -1 / +4]. Lauda claims (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=265048) that VirosaGITS was pulling a "self-escrow" scam. But if you look at the context and chat logs, he said that he was willing to use an IRL escrow (as opposed to paying high forum escrow fees) if payment up front on the basis of his positive trust and trading history was unacceptable. Neither of these things is untrustworthy. Neither of them are a "self-escrow" scam. If you read the chat logs, there is literally nothing indicative of a scam or intent to scam. There was literally no agreement made and no shadiness to speak of on VirosaGITS's part. The rest of Lauda's feedback is meaningless unverifiable blathering about "false claims" and "slander."

As it turns out, the user VirosaGITS supposedly "scammed" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1159769) was trying to pull an escrow scam himself.

Yet, Lauda's negative trust rating of VirosaGITS still remains. It seems like a very clear cut case of trust abuse triggered by VirosaGITS's thread about Lauda.

Unsurprisingly, no one else tagged VirosaGITS because the notion of doing so was ridiculous. Yet no one on Default Trust was willing to speak against Lauda for this retaliation, either. No one wants to bring that kind of wrath on themselves for obvious reasons.

I commend OG for having the balls to stand up to Lauda.

As with most threads, this one too is turning into a mud sling fest between two famous members.

We should avoid this, also the main question is why DT members are ignoring these shady dealings of a certain individual but tag others for much inconspicuous things.

It brings to fore the Urdu adage Hammam main sab nange hain or its English equivalent, All cats are grey in the dark.


P.S. Waiting for a few self righteous racist individuals to call me Pajeet, Paki and a 3rd world monkey.  ::)

Follow this thread and you'll see more drama about this.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3038096.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3197685.0

I find it more interesting following these threads on meta, reputation, and scam accusation than seeing the complains of the bloody market in bitcoin discussion board.  :D

"Every bad situation is a blues song waiting to happen."
Shrl. necesse est. ;)

Pathetic attempt at spinning it as something that it isn't. Keep trying Quickscammer.

That is not retaliation but a delayed, and well-deserved rating.

He is not and there is nothing to stand up for. We are only here because of his dispute with TMAN which he can't get over.

---

Nothing really worth addressing anymore as we enter the 4th month of continual harassment, lies and attacks by the cartel. The thread was derailed to the point that it has next to nothing to do with the user in question. ::)

Theymos needs to clean house and get rid of all the corrupt DT members. Evident abuse of power and double standards promoting selfish monetary gain for a selected few. This feedback system is flawed and rotten to the core. Theymos are you reading this? Your forum needs a major overhaul!

This is not the first time that aTriz has done this either. Not sure why he is dodging the bullets while accusing other campaign managers of promoting scams.

Ice Rock Bounty and signature  : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2211200.0   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2196095.0

Ice rock mining promises you 300% returns per year FOR LIFETIME. Either aTriz is mentally retarded and does not know that this is not possible nor logical for a company to offer, he failed to do any research on the company he was helping to promote, or he knowingly promoted a scam.

Nah, he is just a naive youngling but a lovable rouge that is never responsible for any of his actions. It is always someone elses fault. Shaggy must be proud - "it wasnt me"

Time is ticking for the empire....

I dislike appeasing those that want negative feedback for the wrong reasons, but I've done what I felt was right, and tried to be as objective as I could in the process.

I appreciate your objectivity. You could have answered to my response, but the thread got quickly derailed as soon as people joined for the wrong reasons. Nevertheless, I might have some private questions (not that case specific anyways).

So what do we have here?

• aTriz starts up an organization named ALU alongside Lauda and Untold. Now Loyce V, and a couple more mangers are added as co-managers.
• aTriz is contacted by bitblisscoin "team" (or vice-versa?) and he agrees to create their ANN thread and run their campaigns and then he stops the signature campaign after a week or so due to issues with the ICO.
• 2 weeks later of running their bounty campaign of bitblisscoin, aTriz is informed that bitblisscoin "team" has raised nothing and he is forced to lie that bitblisscoin has raised so and so in the name of a marketing strategy. Wow. Not cool dude. :-\
• aTriz never decides to tell his co-partners let alone the whole community. All for a few bucks?

Here are a few questions that I am intrested in knowing :
Is this the only time that aTriz has lied about something? Has this happened before also and users weren't aware about it?

What is the purpose of ALU if the partners don't know what the other partners are up to?

Lauda, do you ever consult or work with aTriz for the campaigns and ANN threads he sets up? Do you give them a recheck or something?

ALU's thread says they are trusted but this is actually a huge question in mind, why should anyone trust any campaign or ICO ya'll manage because you have already lied about the information in the past.

What exactly is ALU if it's not an organization and has no capital? Just a random group of people who just manage campaigns and design web pages and signatures?

I personally didn't expect this to ever be true because I did participated in multiple campaigns ran by aTriz because I blindfoldedly trusted him (I know I am stupid but not anymore). I don't mean to be offensive but things are getting out of hand.

---

Similar questions have been asked but the thread has already been derailed too much to get any info from it.
Edit :- aTriz, you don't have to refund any user if you don't manage the scammy icos in the first place. This is the second time this is happening. Also why would any user invest in such icos just like that? It's just basic stupidity. Trust no one, one of the best policies IMO. (i know I'm an hypocrite)

If You missed this??

Read below

Scammed by project endorsed by ALU [ATRIZ]  (Read 170 times) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3253973.0)

Upon Reading i found the Legendary member crying like a hell, as from his accent he seems African or at-least a nigger.

https://vimeo.com/263096822 ( Clearly he is mentioning the name of lauda )

Upon even more digging up i found 3 videos in one of videos of telegram chat with Chrysos  (https://www.chrysoscoin.com/)coin ( scam ) Dev , The dev was saying that he has paid heavily to ALU for promotion and there is no way that one should think that it is a scam.

See video here: https://vimeo.com/263105204

Basically what i observe from the video chat.

the investor( snakey ) asked the scam dev that how they can assure him that his 7k usd will not be wasted and how they will ensure his roi?
The developer replied some bullshit on investment strategy and later added that they have paid more than enough to the Promotion team of bitcointalk ( ALU and ATRIZ ) so there should be no room of questioning that they will run away with his 7 k usd.

Full video playlist:

1. https://vimeo.com/263096822
2. https://vimeo.com/263104426
3. https://vimeo.com/263105204

In my belief that anyone who is associated with atriz and ALU or at-least the part of core team should be neg rated and excluded from DT.

Would like to hear more from other Trusted member.

As a 'one-in-all' kind of service it works (or worked); the latter part should be intuitive given the setup. There are no ALU funds, and there are no split commissions. If you are working on something, you get paid for your part. Put some thought into it, is it easier for 4 individual managers to advertise their services or for the 4 managers to advertise under 1 name?

I don't think I've ever really commented on any ANN that isn't related to me (i.e. those that are solely managed by him and/or others). The answer to the 2nd question is no. As I've previously said, I'm not here to babysit others.

The members are (or were..) 'trusted'. However, this doesn't imply (and never has) that the project being managed is trusted. Do your due diligence when participating and investing.

We never put a (existing) label on it; I'm wondering what the appropriate definition should be myself (less important right now given the situation). It does not have capital as a singular entity, and it never did.

---

Update to this: aTriz has been suspended until further notice by a 2-0 vote. More time is needed, and less distraction before a proper decision can be made.
@ibminer: To the previous stuff, we've started working on a disclaimer. I hope that more manager follow us in that regard (once it is live).

You love leaving negative feedback to random newbies for almost anything. Now that your partner is a confirmed scammer you don’t want to babysit? It’s inconsistent hypocrisy like this that makes it so nobody honest could possibly take you seriously.

When you leave a negative rating to Quickscammer then you can talk about consistency and hypocrisy. Provoking rash decision again, no surprises. ::)

Cheerio.

I don’t think there has been a single instance in which lauda has accepted responsibility for anything.

The fact remains that he was strongly pushing back against holding his business partner responsible for his involvement in his businesses scam activity and promptly disavowed him once it was shown his reputation is a lost cause, not once the underlying scam activity was made public.

Of course there is; this is just not a case for which I can even remotely be held responsible.


You can't have it both ways predictable snowflake. ::)

Your statement speaks volumes about you and is another reason why you should not be in any position of power.

I have not criticized you for being too fast with your actions so using that to deflect is well nothing more than a deflection. Regardless, the fact remains that you only took action until you were unable to continue to protect his reputation and continued pushing back against calling what he did to even be wrong until his reputation was lost. This is not taking a long time to take action, it is actively protecting a scammer and keeping a business relationship based on reputation with said scammer.

FTFY again. Once you start stop posting unbiased lies, then we can move on. Nothing that you've said in this thread about me is even remotely true. Well, maybe in your delusional fantasy land.

---

Obvious error is obvious.

Hey cunicula!
What is your problem mate?
Till now atriz has been so nice to me..he has refunded me 1200$ yesterday and promises to deliver more by tomorrow.
Personally i feel that you are just jelous of him.
I understands that he has been childish previously but he is no rip off scammer. Please atleast try to talk to people in private before you start to judge them in public.

Dear ognasty, i remember that you was vouching earlier for people to invest in bfl ponzi , right! I understand that at that time things were not mature enough so you were played by the scammers to vouch for them.
In this paritcularly atriz scenario i believe the same, he has been tricked by those ico rip offs. I believe that atriz will learn from this mistake and will not make new next time.
Man or leader you must give secobd chance to this guy, i am believe he is not a fraud but was tricked in words as you were in earlier days.

At this stage, maintaining objectivity, I can't hold Lauda accountable for BitBlissCoin & aTriz's actions. In a somewhat similar way, why I do not hold OgNasty accountable for Pirateat40's scam. Keep in mind, I have no knowledge of how ALU operates behind-the-scenes. (nor do I know what was discussed directly between OgNasty & Pirateat40)

I've always assumed ALU was an organization formed between aTriz, Lauda, and Untold. It appeared that aTriz & Lauda were the main points of contact on the initial announcement, eventually becoming just aTriz. aTriz seemed to be handling main agreements with clients and [I assume] passing any needed tasks down to approved vendors (so to speak), whom I believe was just aTriz, Lauda, Untold, and the CET team (Blazed, minerjones, Mitchell, Lauda) handling potential services at the time of BitBlissCoin. It appears BitBlissCoin only used campaign management services. That's just my interpretation on what I've seen publicly. It appears now like there is a voting system and other structures of ALU that I am not familiar with, so I'm not sure if agreements were voted on or how that works.

A campaign manager should want to do this for transparency & protection. Would be great to see that transparency globally but nobody is required to do it.

You want me to post unbiased lies[\b] ::)

ibminer...
aTriz knew it was a lie and a scam and continued taking part. Don’t compare this to me being scammed by BFL or pirateat40. If I knew BFL or pirateat40 was going to scam, I would have tagged them immediately and not joined in the scam for a paycheck. Also worth noting that BFL and pirateat40 in fact scammed me for hundreds of BTC each making me the victim, yet the lies being spread by this clique has the uninformed thinking I may have done something wrong. This is not even remotely close to the same situation as aTriz lying to investors with full knowledge in order to scam them out of their funds. Going a step further, I was making a ton of BTC from early BFL deliveries so I had no reason to think they wouldn’t be able to deliver on their next hardware upgrade. As for pirateat40, I was insuring deposits so if he did scam, people would have some protection. Not the same at all as trying to dupe people out of their money by going along with lies. I can only assume you aren’t familiar with the situations to try and compare me trying to help users with aTriz trying to scam them. The two scenarios literally couldn’t be more opposite.

I was actually comparing you & Pirateat40 to Lauda's involvement with BitBlissCoin & aTriz. aTriz is a completely different scenario, and certainly not the same comparison.

Makes sense.  Nobody has left Lauda any negative trust for his role in this.  I can understand him not being responsible for aTriz' actions.  What I can't understand is why Lauda wouldn't leave ALU or tag aTriz for being a scammer, but those observations are more in support of him being a hypocrite with bad judgement and why I have excluded him from my trust network as well as why others should, not necessarily a reason to label him a scammer until a final decision has been made.  Although his signing an extortion attempt pretty much sealed his fate there.

I actually checked as a result of your comment and was surprised to see I hadn't left pirateat40 negative trust yet.  I have resolved that oversight.  I think back then I was trying to only be positive with my ratings, but that was before I was educated on how the system works and aware of the abuses occurring.

STOCKHOLM SYNDROME
  ??? ???
I lack the correct phrase/condition, please find me something better.



P.S. Just found this :



Shouldn't this be posted on the ALU thread, so that others/potential clients are aware of the status quo ?

You shouldn't blame him for saying things he hopes will help him recover lost funds, ALU helped scam, but their suspended co-founder has promised to return.


Done.

I NEVER blamed him, you don't blame patients, but you do diagnose them.  :)




I was expecting an ALU member to do so, obviously their word matters more than your or mine.

Well so far I have only seen aTriz handling almost all the campaigns except for one or two being run by you. What I see is just that four managers have come up together as a team and doing their own work individually, but just having the same name. It'd be make much more sense if all the managers split up work equally, share up the profits, do your background check so that you'd never ever put your reputation on the line because of another partner of your own making his own decisions by using your own brand name.
It's not babysitting if you're doing your own work for your own business and protecting your brand name from going into the mud. I really don't see the point of ALU if no one is willing to supervise the work or even know what the other partners are up to except for the advertising part you earlier mentioned. All the managers are managing their own campaigns under a name. No sharing of work or the revenue earned.
Though I agree with this, some users tend to have this mindset that since aTriz(as a part of ALU) had mentioned that there's no risk or anything involved in investing in that particular ICO. Most people don't even know what due diligence is, let alone them figuring out if it's a scam or not.
What do you intend to do after this? Let the things go the way they have been going, will there be any change? Any supervision or something?

---

Suspension won't change anything. Remember High school, when kids deliberately did some shit to get suspended or have some fun. People are who they are. They most likely never change. aTriz has known to be naive. Other than suspension I'd be interested in knowing what else you're going to do /change.

The problem is that aTriz clearly knew what was going on with the faked ICO figures which were intended to make more people invest, and he was completely fine with it and went along with it. Just as ibminer said, this should be regarded as fraud. Anyone else who does this would clearly but categorized as a scammer, but not aTriz. It's not about endorsement at all.

---

With the Ice rock mining campaign, aTriz was also promoting a ponzi project promoting 300% roi a year.
With chrysoscoin, it was the most obvious ponzi  you can come across. Go onto their site chrysoscoin.com and click 'lending' on the top. You will be presented with hyip like tiered investment plans with guaranteed profits.

with the way aTriz called out adblurb (http://"https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3015124.msg31000633#msg31000633"), he clearly does research on the projects he manages. Quite in depth too. Therefore I do not believe that he did not know anything about these two aforementioned ICOs where their business model was entirely based of high guaranteed returns.


That's my question too. He most likely knew that ice rock mining was a scam, and chrysoscoin too.
He is clearly untrustworthy and hid the fact that the ICO was clearly a scam and used scammers tactics to fake information from both the ALU team, investors, and the public. That is unacceptable and deserves more than a temp. suspension, he is a fraud.

In the workplace, it is the norm to hold a manager and partner accountable for the performance of his team, including to an extent any actions a team member does that might violate company policy, be illegal or unethical, the only exception might be if a manager followed company established procedures to prevent said negative activity that was insufficient.

I would also point out that lauda pushed back strongly against calling what aTriz did as being “wrong” (let alone being ‘scammy’ etc) and continues to do so. This means that someone who might not understand this is wrong, might look at laudas statements about the various aTriz scams and act similarly being under the impression that what they are doing is okay. Lauda went as far as to say that everyone engages in this type of behavior (allowing fraudulent statements to be made in a bounty campaign being run by him) by saying that this is a global issue. I don’t think it would be very fair to label someone as a scammer in the future when someone shown as somewhat trustworthy is arguing that said behavior is acceptable. There is little dispute as to the ethics of the underlying behavior, so I would say the question of if the behavior is acceptable is *not* a difference of opinion, nor is a political dispute. My impression as to the reason for the delay in calling aTriz a scammer is that he was given the benefit of the doubt in that it was assumed he was naive. The same cannot be said about lauda because it was explained why this is wrong prior to lauda defending the behavior in question.

Although I cannot affirmatively say what the relationship between the ALU partners is, however I can say that at the very least, lauda indirectly benefited from aTriz scams because it would have drawn additional business to ALU, some of which would have been handled by lauda. I would note that various contact methods point users to contact specific members of ALU and their ANN thread implies campaigns will be handled by both lauda and aTriz jointly. 

aTriz is the one who usually posts the ANN threads, which doesn't necessarily imply that he manages the whole campaign or any aspect of it.

What makes sense in your view is not of importance to me. It works (this being an exception) the way that it currently is set up, and that won't change. Nobody is on the line because of this as they aren't remotely responsible for his actions.

There is no business and yes it is babysitting.

Again, did I hire you as a business consultant? No.

When we start putting disclaimers in threads (and I do hope that others follow), the same is going to happen. Are you going to blame the managers when users do not read it? ::)

Read the full statement before commenting next time.

Both points are wrong. You are trying too hard.

They've always shown themselves as co/founders. Founder's Syndrome comes to mind. Regardless, the consequences a manager would face as compared to the person on his team causing the problem is usually different and far less extreme, assuming no evidence of collusion exists.

I didn't feel a strong pushback after aTriz made his comments. It felt more like how Lauda would handle embarrassment or some sort of effort to avoid personal embarrassment. For me, it is a somewhat understandable behavior in the situation.

Not sure what you are referring to here, Lauda's comment about the "global issue" I believe was about an idea of campaign managers putting a disclaimer on ICOs to provide more transparency, see below:


I never saw anything that said they would be handling campaigns "jointly" in either announcement threads I've seen, multiple contact points doesn't mean much. Also, indirectly benefiting from a scammer doesn't make someone guilty of scamming or even supporting the scammer if they did not know the person was a scammer. Again, I'd refer to other situations like Og/Pirate, but there are better examples where people have gotten tangled up with scammers and could be seen as indirectly benefiting, because this forum is filled with scammers, and I'd argue it's because of account sellers (like you) who have sold so many damn accounts to whoever would offer you money, but I digress.

However, why am I responding to you, when you haven't responded to me (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3095008.msg32224711#msg32224711)?

There is no such "contact method". It is possible that a single project is "split-managed", i.e. that the work is divided (e.g. 1 person does the signature campaign, the other does the bounty campaign). You only get paid for the work that gets passed down to you (as mentioned). This was not the case with Bitblisscoin, as to my knowledge, he was working alone on it[1].

Should that surprise you anymore?

---

[1] I'm not sure if the new people joined before or after this.

We have a member from ALU being exposed by scam attempt with proof (Lauda) and now another member being exposed by managing a fraudulent ICO (Atriz). Make your bets, who is the next?

Edit: Extortion attempt (Lauda)

I can only imagine the convo prior to this, was it the price of being forced along? I do hope @snakey gets his investment back.  ::)

This makes things a little clearer(not entirely) for the purpose of ALU.
Seems like aTriz was all on his own representing bitblisscoin as I don't see the ALU banner there,I might be wrong though. You're a part of a team,where one has to help the other during the times of crisis. Call it as you may but its actually helping out your partner when he is known to be naive in the past.
I didn't mean any offense,I am just merely curious on how things went the other way around. If you find me being nitpicky or something ,fine. But that doesn't change the truth.
Of course not,people are stupid. Its not the manager that is to be blamed here. But that's not my point. aTriz lied about the details of the ICO,people trusted him(good lord,people trust that green shit too much) and turned to be even more naive than aTriz.
My bad,but I haven't heard from aTriz after he said that he was "forced" to mispresent the information in the name of a marketing strategy.

---

Again,I am not trying to be offensive or trying to attack someone here,but this was like I said an unexpected course of event from aTriz. I still want to believe this whole dilemma to be false but it isn't. So don't mistaken my curiousness with something else.

No, it seems, that it was an ALU-project, as it is still shown at the reference section of the ALU website
https://aluservices.io/#projectModal5
(project 5)

LOL..

Lauda Tagged my team members just because they are working with me (they were not even part of that project which has accused(falsely), infact they were not even in my team when I managed that project) but still she tagged them just to damage our services.

and now when it came to her. I can see how she's depending herself on an almost same case. and trying to prove herself innocent... Everyone else is wrong but lauda is always correct..

Artiz should realize Lauda can never be loyal to anyone (except grand paychecks). (I worked with her (at Ascendancy) and I know her)

I would Request Theymos to remove DT status for all the involved in this Scam   (Lauda) , until and unless they can proof themselves they are wrong.

Many people have even more details about the scams they do, but since these Members have DT powers, many do not even say anything against them otherwise they will tag them Red.

Lauda is loyal to Atriz because untill now she never tagged this serial scammer 'ATRIZ' .

                                             

And I am sure he's going to consider the recommendation of an account farmer. Tell me are you planning to whitelist some of your accounts tagged by Lauda after that? ::)
Lauda is not even connected to bitbliss as it was solely managed by Atriz and when it comes to Atriz I believe he was tricked by them. No way he's going to risk his reputation here for just a few thousand $.

"Bitbliss Coin" was listed on the reference section of website of ALU-Services and ALU-Services paid the rewards of "Bitbliss Coin"-bounty.
"....The rewards will be determined by ALU and you will be paid in 3 different stages like such....."
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2709575.0
So it was most likely an ALU-project.

There is no such thing as an "ALU-project". It was solely managed by aTriz and nobody was aware of any of this. It was listed like any other project that one of us has worked on, nothing special.

The difference being, they knew. Your case is not related to a singular project, and your reference rating properly reflects on that.

You know absolutely nothing, you're just a pathetic scammer.

---

I'll let myself out given how much it burns.

Then the sentences like this one on your site may be misleading:
"Our
Recent
Projects
Here you can see a number of projects that we have recently been involved in."

They are not. They are fine as is, mind your own projects (if you have any).

aTriz promised the full reimbursement of the scam he endorsed here: http://archive.is/YLJ1G


snakey's eth address: https://etherscan.io/address/0x4cf434bbb6ac4dc0973c02605b94598eb11f753c
snakey's btc address: https://live.blockcypher.com/btc/address/33s7Rvb4qBXK3YHWNiiicLpQnKdXY51qJF/




Unless a private settlement is reached aTriz still owes snakey around 10 ETH in repayments for the record.

 i wonder if he's gonna pay for the ice rock mining scam as well ::)

They knew what? and what they suppose to know already?  and yet even a single scam haven't proved on me...  just because you took some false referrence and tagged me as a scammer (and forced your sidekicks to do the same ) doesn't make me a scammer. every sensible person who read your feedbacks if open the reference link can realize that is false.


the fact is we both are in same situation now... I am sure Atriz remember once I told him.. "if a manager call another manager scammer just because one of his bounty he've managed which turned into scam, then he should wait and see when same will happen with himself"..
I believe at an individual Atriz is not a scammer , we both did the same mistake, a bounty manager have no connection with a project's core team. if a project turn into scam the manager would be the first one who get scam from them.

and now I see you tagged Atriz also to save yourself...

What a "Wet Cat"  ;D ;D ;D

Read Atriz's comments and his trust ratings; he did risk and for many people, lost his reputation for just a few thousand $.


[1]Apparently so.

Yup Landa Tags Atriz to save herself and she also proofs this old statement wrong.  " A friend in need is a Friend Indeed"  ;D  Nops in the Cats Case Money's Matter the Most ....

Just Like bitcoin can be used for good and bad purpose, similarly Reputation has both faces.
Remember, Sometime People Use Reputation to make a big Scam Game because if Atriz was not so reputable,  this could not have been planned so well.

Absent collusion, managers will face termination if they failed to implement sufficient controls to detect activity outside of company policy, which in almost all cases is the most severe punishment a company is willing to impose.

Yes, that. There were clearly fraudulent statements in the bitblisscoin ANN thread that aTriz posted.

When you make a post from your own account, unless you give an indication you are quoting someone (or are otherwise relying on someone else), you are making the statement yourself.  This is not a complicated concept, and if you were to reject this, you could not hold anyone accountable for anything, ever....someone who failed to repay a loan could argue they did were not the one who promised to repay what was borrowed, it was really this other random guy who is wanting to raise money via an ICO.

In the above quote, lauda was saying that aTriz should not be held responsible for statements made in ANN posts he made.


Actually you are wrong. I checked up on the accounts I had sold many months after I stopped dealing in forum accounts, and the overwhelming majority of them were not involved in any kind of scam-like activity, and a fairly decent number of them reasonably played an active "positive" role in the community. If you don't believe me, you can go into the scam accusations section and see how many scams there are done by recently purchased accounts, it probably isn't very many.

Your statement also ignores basic economics. If someone pays $250 to buy an account, if they were to attempt to use that account to scam someone, they would be risking that entire $250, even if they are unsuccessful. They would need to successfully steal $250 just to break even. Someone who buys an account has a fairly strong incentive not to scam with it. Similarly, someone who is the owner of an account that could be sold for $250 would be better off selling his account rather than trying to steal money from a NPV perspective.

If this is true, then I don't think you can shift the blame for the incident on aTriz.

A very dumb little snowflake you seem to be. As nullius has told you several times already, the book of cheap smear tactics that you are using is very predictable and don't work. As much as your vengeful heart desires revenge for all the wrong reasons, you ain't getting any especially not in cases where you are undeniably wrong (this being one such case).

QED.

What exactly do you think that aTriz did that was so wrong?

you are the only active manager with 15  red trust , say welcome to Atriz to the club . ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

the way the trust system being used nowadays. red trust means nothing... 30% of forum's active users are falsely tagged.
in my case these trusts add zero impact to my work and my portfolio.. only forced some trolls and bullies.. everyone is not nonesense to believe and make decisions on one side's opinion/feedback. you always have the rights to state your points and clarifications.

If Jamal and co is guilty then ALU and co is also guilty.
If Jamal deserves red feedback then the ALU megacorpstar should also be.

Rules one and should be for all.

Seriously, what were you drinking Atriz, truth syrup or what? Self admitting your dishonesty. Feeling so bad for you. If you hadn't admitted, you would have never been tagged. And if you were really in confusion, you should have taken some advice from Lauda. She would have certainly advised you to exit, rather than drag on. You will now be remembered as the Naivest Red Painted Elite (NRPE).
Between, I think quick popularity is somewhat of a curse on Bitcointalk. Alia, Atriz became quickly popular and quickly faded. Nullius, stay safe bruh...

Stop posting nonsense about things that you fundamentally don't understand. These cases aren't even remotely comparable, which is something that you would know had you done research before post padding your account once again.

Indeed, but not admitting it would essentially be even more dishonest.

Sadly, way too late for that..

All DT1 are trusted members but DT2 are the biggest problem of the forum because it dominated by a group of scammers and beggars.

You seem to be a very educated, non-shill account, who should definitely be commenting on such matters. ::)

[1] Feeling bad for his dishonesty or the fact that he had to admit to it?

[2] Wouldn't have changed the fact that he's a scamster.

[3] Clearly he wasn't.

[4] Pure Speculation. I believe none of you would have expected this of him, till this turned up.

[5] Wrong premise; having double standards and acting like an upright self-conscious prick and being popular for calling out others is a curse and should be.

[6] Huh, really? Are they being mugged or threatened? The only thing that we need to be safe from is our greed and warped sense of reality.

You should know that anyone with April 07, 2015 with a clean account wont argue with You.  ;)

Its an UNEVEN Play Field in which few scammers abusing thier power to rule out the Argument and Competition .

He proved a lot in the past where he paid to a plagiarism content and does your Lauda is sleeping at that time?

Does it is not a part of ALU services or their is no partnership, share etc between these three people?

Just because a person makes a bad decision, does not make them intrinsically bad, or even a scammer for that matter.

Yes aTriz made a mistake by continuing to manage a campaign when he knew there was some shady business going on, but just this information, in and of itself is not necessarily evidence of a scam, at best this could simply be evidence of shady marketing tactics. To discount the dozens of other campaigns he has run successfully, and his attempts to make this right by personally refunding snakey shows that he is at least worthy of a second chance.

It's funny how quick to turn people are, yes aTriz was wrong to promote an ICO with the knowledge he had, but at that point nobody knew if the ICO was a scam. The fact is aTriz is no longer managing the campaign once it came to light indicates that he had no intention of promoting a proven scam, prior to this, it wasn't proven, so why is he being negged to death?

Wouldn't it have been more logical to tell aTriz how to make this right, rather than going this route?

[1] This applies to hundreds of others who have been negged for one single issue and will never be given a second chance.

[2] I really like to see flexible excuses.

[3] Not just was he aware of it, he actively participated in it.

[4] How many scams does qualify one to be labelled as a scammer? Ans. 1

[5] Did he make the offer upfront or after being publicly accused of it? I believe he would have done nothing had he not been called out for it. Also I think (might be wrong) @snakey was in Chrysoscoin and this is Bitblisscoin. If you consider Chrysoscoin to a scam in which Atriz was complicit, this makes his 2nd scam.

[6] Who turned on him? Are you hinting at those who changed their ratings?  ::)

[7] He definitely knew that they were lying and that he was complicit, accessory to it.

[8] WRONG AND GROSS MISREPRESENTATION; Atriz stopped managing it after he was called out for it and admitted to going along with the lies; it wasn't like he stopped the campaign the day he was asked to lie.

[9] This is a totally rational route to take, people who will deal with this account in the future should know what he has done in the past and as members have rightly pointed out that Atriz has stopped responding to these and has not even tendered an apology (not that it should change his neg), he simply wants to ignore it and move ahead, also what would you suggest to make it right?



P.S. Did @snakey get his investment back?

P.P.S. Are there other claimants as well?

This is not the first time aTriz has shown extraordinary naiveté and disregard for common sense.

"Proven scam" is a meaningless criterion. Most scams are technically unproven until the scammers run away. aTriz had information that indicated the ICO was shady at best and he brushed it off as a marketing strategy. He needs to rethink if he really wants to have his name associated with such projects, not to mention the impact on other users - I think it's inappropriate for a green-trusted member to knowingly provide undue legitimacy to potential scams.

A well reasoned answer, that's what I like to see. I was not aware of Chrysocoin so I can't comment on that matter.

Just from the general atmosphere surrounding this, it feels like most of the community has turned on him, without actually giving him a chance to rectify his mistake. I understand this is often the case around here, where people are dealt negs for sometimes trivial things, and I can see that this is not a trivial matter, but surely it makes sense to allow someone to atone for something before laying down punishment. Negging someone who has tried to succeed and make amends, versus negging a complete random are not the same, seems like execution before trial.

As for what would make it right, I suggest the following;

1. Instituting new vetting measures for ICOs to ensure this never happens again, and maintaining a better standard of transparency in his ANN/Bounties, adequately highlighting that he does not endorse the product, and is merely acting as a representative.
2. Reimbursing those that were directly afflicted by his mistake, this might not happen instantly of course, but as long as he shows
3. Listen to community feedback regarding sketchy behavior, and respond to criticism if he possesses knowledge that would shed light on the matter.

Overall, I know he made a mistake (possibly two), but execution before trial doesn't solve anything, I think most people would agree that aTriz will seek to resolve this, and is therefore worthy of reconsideration.


Let's not forget aTriz is paid for promoting the ICO, you are essentially saying aTriz should have turned down payment because the ICO was shady? 80% of ICOs have shady practices going on, where do you draw the line? Most ICOs spend exorbitant amounts of money to drive up hype, pay members to join their channels and pump the ANN thread with questions. In my opinion, this is similarly as misleading as falsifying investment levels.

this is not the first nor second time aTriz has made a “mistake” although in this case, I believe he may be a “fall guy” in order to protect others’ reputation. He is still not someone who should be trusted.

That's not... how the meme works.

---

It has to be intentional, yeah? aTriz isn't known to be unintelligent.

---

Not defending him, but the only reason I can come up with to sort of justify this is the fact that one might tunnel vision when they're working for someone.

However, it's unacceptable for such a member to allow false marketing that represents 100x the raised amount for an ICO.

Your trustworthy meter is going down. ::)

Did you not see my prior definitions of a scam?  It's quite simple. It is fraud, anyone committing fraud for financial gain is scamming. aTriz knows what fraud is, he saw it, and went along with it.

If you think aTriz is naive to what fraud is, here he is not too long ago saying how mad exchanges make him when they manipulate their numbers (fraud).

http://archive.is/sFeNG#selection-24257.0-24257.362

Not a far jump from what he allowed to go on.

Ok but the founder of the company, without a CEO or other roles, is likely the one to make policies. The general problem discussing any of this is that I, nor you, know the behind-the-scenes structure of ALU so it is hard to say what policies existed, if any. Should there have been policies that existed for a group like ALU, sure, but I don't know if there was or wasn't and what they would be.

I agree that aTriz making posts in the ANN thread with "we" and "us" as if he is a part of their group is certainly misleading, and why I mentioned a potential disclaimer. And I'd agree everyone else should be held to the same standard. I still didn't see Lauda do any of this.. defending a business partner in this way, on the heels of him being called out for fraudulent behavior, doesn't seem scandalous to me.

As for your comment:
"Lauda went as far as to say that everyone engages in this type of behavior (allowing fraudulent statements to be made in a bounty campaign being run by him) by saying that this is a global issue."
I'm still not sure how you derive that Lauda is saying this?

If anything, your comment should have read:
"Lauda went as far as to say that everyone engages in this type of behavior (posting content of an ICO without disassociating themselves from it) by saying that this is a global issue."

Your version of the comment implies Lauda knows all fraudulent information being posted by other managers and that Lauda even has the capability to make such a comment about fraudulent information being posted by others.

My response: I've looked at scam accusations and have found several purchased accounts accused of scams, several very likely to be sold by you in the past, I've linked you to these accounts through a source I have whom does not want to be identified for fear of retaliation.
Verifiable? No. My words against yours? Maybe. That's what it's all about, isn't it, word play and influencing the reader?  <- did I really have to add this last sentence explaining my fake response?  or could I have left it out to sway readers and then argued with you on the validity?  What would be your response if I had not disclosed this was a fake response?  If it is "Well I would demand proof or evidence of your claims", then, practice what you preach.



This issue is not as simple as you are trying to make it and goes well beyond basic economics. In order to explain it fully, I'd have to help [potential] scammers by revealing information I don't want to reveal on how to conduct scamming, which may very well be what you want me to do, but I will not.

Hmm, I see your point there. But when it comes to marketing, most ICOs employ tactics that could be considered shady, e.g. Artificially increasing hype in their ANN thread, incentivising positive reviews, buying telegram members and activity, all of this under the guise of guerilla marketing. It must be difficult to draw the line in what is acceptable, and what isn't when the entire ecosystem is built upon shady marketing ethics. I am not saying aTriz was right, obviously he's a complete moron for not ditching Bitblisscoin when the evidence started mounting, I'm just pointing out that it's an easy mistake to make, and one I'm sure he would rectify if given the chance.

---

It's understandable what you mean here but looking at past I don't think there were enough members:-

1. Who were frankly telling about the company and revealing the marketing strategy to the community even when it could put them in danger.
2. Who were paying back their loans when they were negged.
3. Who tried to resolve the accusation against them rather than making a nuisance out of it.


To deserve the 2nd chance.
I can give several examples but I think you are smart enough to figure out those from the way you talk.


Everyone does mistakes and after having several deals with atriz on and off forum regarding loans and a few other things I don't think he had any bad intention in his mind he just didn't paid any attention.

As we know atriz admitted that they hardly collected more than 1BTC so if Atriz can pay for the loss Caused by Bitbliss to the guy in the video and promise to be careful in future regarding managing bounties/sign campaigns for the companies like this one then he must be given a second chance.

Would like to see how many agree with me.

Sorry if this will sound rude

STOP CONFUSING BITBLISSCOIN AND CHRYSOSCOIN


[1] Against forum rules, @mprep usually thrashes those threads and has even temp banned the OP.

[2] Again a Scammy attribute, call them out.

[3] Call them out.

[4] It's quite easy unless someone you like or love gets caught in between. For me, a single lie does it, unless the circumstances change.

[5] In his own words, he was somehow forced to lie, I wonder how?

[6] That's just your opinion and not a fact.

[7] As I have already asked you, HOW ?
P.S. A number of people have been commenting without reading all the facts of the matter and have their own predisposed notions. Get rid of them and grasp the facts.

Personally I draw the line at "ICO". I think you're extremely generous with the 80% figure. I'd say it's in high 90s. The ones that are not scams should develop their product first and sell it later, not the other way around. But that's a discussion outside the scope of this thread.

I guess most people would probably draw the line at "lying", as in lying about their ICO funding progress and other basics. 80% ICOs being shady doesn't make it right. Being paid doesn't make it right.

I can't tell aTriz what he should do, I'm just saying that I can't trust him if he knowingly supports fraudulent ICOs. He can choose to continue on the same path and hope that the red tags won't affect him too much with regards to the shady 80% of ICOs. Or he can figure out a way to vet his customers.

I have already responded with how I think he could make this right;

1. Instituting new vetting measures for ICOs to ensure this never happens again, and maintaining a better standard of transparency in his ANN/Bounties, adequately highlighting that he does not endorse the product, and is merely acting as a representative.
2. Reimbursing those that were directly afflicted by his mistake, this might not happen instantly of course, but as long as he shows he is committed to do so.
3. Listen to community feedback regarding sketchy behavior, and respond to criticism if he possesses knowledge that would shed light on the matter.

As for calling out ICOs with shady tactics (most of them), few of them would ever announce they are engaged in these activities, so it is not possible to call them out.

I'm Sorry for having overlooked these. I think the point 1 will eliminate the need for points 2 and 3; also is that not what GOOD, TRUSTED and EXPERIENCED BMs are supposed to do? What separates them from any Tom, Dick and Harry who are handling Campaigns?


All the more reason for the BMs to act quick, when one ICO actually demands them to engage in Scammy attitude; so that it deters other ICOs from acting in a similar manner.

So Lauda can Tag people for a single thing or even their is no fault? aTriz and Lauda did a nice job in the past, if you just search here within 3 months you will find a lot of information on them.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2973511.0

When he did several times Lauda who tries to escape with false statements and keep aTriz Trust in good position.

Edited for changing link

I was shocked by this knowing aTriz as a good campaign manager and a green trusted forum member and now turning into a red one. Time flies though but what will be the outcome of this and what will happen to his current bounty campaigns? is ALU still on? does Lauda still working with him or their group will be broken by this issues?

you posted a phishing link.

Whatever Lauda does is irrelevant though I don't agree with her negging him, aTriz is the one under fire here. Yes DT members have the responsibility to lay out negs, but they are not executioners.

Think of this simple analogy. Presumably Lauda and aTriz were friends before this incidence, would you expect a friend to participate in the firing squad once a sentence is laid down? I certainly wouldn't.

I know they have a responsibility here, but there are dozens of DT members, nobody reasonable should expect Lauda to neg aTriz in these circumstances.

I know it's a completely different scale, but in most countries spouses are not legally required to testify against each other, nor are family members. By extension, if a friend of mine came under fire, I would not testify against them, though of course other people are welcome to do so. But that's just me.

I would gladly testify and if ordered to punish, would do so; I don't continue friendships with liars and cheats. What's the guarantee that the liar won't fuck my cat behind my back? He/She has lost my trust, I'd ask the individual to Fuck Off.

You are wasting your time arguing with butthurt scammers, account farmers and the remainder of the biased witch hunters. At the time when I still didn't neg. rate aTriz, they were complaining and calling me a hypocrite. When I did neg. rate aTriz, they still complained because.. reasons.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'd like to offer the esteemed upright Lord Lauda the post of the ArchBishop of The Church of Ponzian Mind (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3279318.0) for being non-deceitful and negging Atriz after it was quite apparent that he was colluding in a fraud.


[1] Does that include Atriz?

[2] I dunno about others, but seriously you and The Pharmacist have done the right thing, even though I assume you are great chums with Atriz.

I can't imagine you have many friends then, everybody lies, you must be the second coming of Jesus to be such a pure specimen.

Regardless what the individual has done, it is of my personal opinion that friends should not form part of the firing squad, simple as that. There is an entire community here, hundreds of thousands of people who can lay down judgement, asking Lauda to do it is wrong. I don't blame Lauda, obviously she was backed into a corner and it became her rep or his, but this situation isn't beneficial for anybody.

[1] Talk about yourself, quoting you for future reference so that people know that you believe everyone including you to be a liar. As I can't judge others, you for one are certainly a liar and not me.

[2] Therein lies your problem mate, if you believe that there was ever a Jesus or God. There might be an individual by that name, but certainly no Son of the God shit.

[3] You are more than welcome to have personal opinions.

[4] So in your opinion Lauda did a wrong thing by negging Atriz?

[5] It is; for future investors who'll deal with Atriz handled ICOs', they'll be aware of his antics and marketing morals.

• I have like-minded friends, it's not that difficult not to lie; Try it.

That's a very HARD BLANKET STATEMENT, what if your friend rapes your pop/mom/brother/sister/cat?

Almost seems like just virtue signaling if someone has to shoot out a negative feedback after a number have already been sent. Not that it's not fine but just redundant.

Moreover, they don't have to outright send a feedback but they can simply disagree with the behavior. I think the pressure to warrant a neg is fueled by indignant individuals.

This thread is still open and active because...?

[1] I will gladly admit that I lie. The fact you feel the need to quote that is comical. We're all humans, humans lie, anybody who says otherwise is exactly that... A liar. The fact you claim to never lie is laughable, even a white lie, is a lie.

[2]. The fact that you would say that is also comical, clearly you haven't seen my thread - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2506244.msg25632700#msg25632700

[3] As are you.

[4] I feel Lauda was forced into an unfortunate position where it became her rep or aTriz, and she made a difficult choice. I believe it was wrong for others to have this expectation of Lauda, despite the fact she's a DT member.

[5] That's all fine, but not allowing him a second chance is not how I would operate. I don't agree with witch hunts and persecution crusades. This community should be about building each other up, not waiting for the opportunity to knock each other down. I understand I am not the consensus, but as you said, I am free to state my opinion.

[AD] Let's not jump to extremes here. Obviously my answer was not needlessly thorough.

[1] Who has denied him anything, he can still go ahead and do what he wants? He should obviously follow the guidelines you laid down.

[2] I think this is again a very blanket statement and how is anyone knocked out, he can continue, just like Jamal does.

???

aTriz got his just deserts. Nobody compelled Lauda to tag aTriz. Lauda did what she does best, as she is concerned only with her own personal profit. aTriz was made the patsy in this sorry affair, however, the forum needs to do more in clamping down hard whenever it can on these dirty ico's.

My concern is for folks that inadvertently lose their life savings to these shitty icos promoted by the likes of ALU. These so called shady marketing practices helped Bitblisscoin.com steal @ least 1BTC - according to aTriz. That's money people have lost, where is the sympathy for them?

Life savings = 1 BTC? I mean c'mon...

For the record, I don't think that it is up to any campaign manager to decide whether or not an ICO is a good or a bad investment. Granted, you can check it out to see it's not a complete scam but when it comes to investing in ICO's each investor should do their own research. It's not like I feel sad for anyone who lost money on bitconnect.

Can you read? or are you only interested in defending your chum in crime?

Care to elaborate on who or what is my "chum in crime"?

Perhaps you should learn how to read, or better yet perhaps you should stop with your stupid fucking comments and let this thread go, how about that?

I can read just fine, thank you. Why does the thread bother you so much? oh I see, you are another arse hole manager, gun for hire?

Feel free to point me in the direction of me being a gun for hire, if you can. I've only worked with projects I'm closely assoicated with and I've never managed any campaign that is related to an ICO. So please, if you are trying to insult me at least do it right.

As for why this thread bothers me there's a few reasons, you being the obvious one.

Well, luckily for me, Its not your forum/thread and its not my job to make you happy.

May I ask about your interest in this thread, ALU and Atriz? Looking through your posts you seem like any other useless shitposter up until the 2nd of April, out of the blue you get extremely interested in this particular case and you start spreading all sorts of information around you. Personal vendetta?

Believe it or not, I am just a concerned forum member. As to my shitpostery, feel free to make of it what you like.

aTriz fucked up, and by the looks of things he is losing his way of making a living and having an army of people against him. He made a mistake which we can all see was a bad one, but I cant see any malice in any of his actions. As for the ICO's you cannot blame the managers, the forum or anyone other than the Owners of the ICO's and the greedy investors who have made this space a cesspool.

aTriz was making a living off the forum?  :o Holy shit I am mind-blown! Is he from a 3rd world country too? Well he could quit college and make another account then. Easy peasy lemon squeezy  8)

There's this saying that if you don't know what the fuck you are talking about you should probably shut it.

Are you talking to me, Sir? This is a forum and I can talk about whatever the fuck I want. So kindly get your saying with you and bugger off, mkay?

Are you making a living too?  ;D

Not everyone is like you.

[1] Yeah, big time.

[2] He can follow like Jamal did, go on OR be like the thousands of others who lost their ways too.

[3] Apparently, he has an army defending him too.

[4] At least, 4 DT members and many others see.

[5] Very True; we can only blame the BMs for their actions.




[1] https://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality/ I do believe that even 1 BTC (as life savings) is quite high for most of the people in the world.

[2] Neither me.




Or buy another one or use his alt account.




P.S.

I'm happy to see that many purported shit-posters are finally talking in argumentative paras and contributing to an ethical debate; this is a welcome change, if only due to such threads.  :D

I disagree with no malice. Mainly because of the events leading up to this and the fact that aTriz calls out others for similar shady behaviors.

Let me first say this situation is/was a tough one for me, probably the toughest I've faced on this forum. I had enough confidence in ALU to join the signature campaign several months ago (which I ended shortly after the alia debacle - personally, I just was not comfortable with aTriz's involvement there). This was the first paid signature I've ever wore (not including the NastyFans you get nothing signature, which interestingly enough, I later found out only got me put on public ignore lists, till this very day! :o). I realize others may not see their signature as them 'supporting' something but I'm not someone that would wear a signature of a project I don't support.

When I contacted aTriz about the signature campaign he was posting about, I specifically told aTriz that I did not want to be part of anything shady and only wanted to be involved in advertising for a project that was legitimate. He assured me it was legitimate and pointed out what it was - ALU. I researched ALU a bit and, believe it or not, had some comfort seeing Lauda as part of it, and honestly liked the idea of it, thinking it might be a way to make ICOs less of a cesspool and a little more honest. I believed this because aTriz & Lauda were part of it (whom had both expressed disgust towards other ICOs doing bumping and other shady activities and have called out quite a few people and ICOs), so I don't think my belief was that far fetched, as I would have expected either one of these two people to have called "SCAM" as soon as someone was saying they raised 3 million dollars and they had really only raised ~10,000.

Some examples for aTriz calling out scammers for shady behavior:
https://archive.is/VLSzo (this specifically related to an ICO falsifying invested funds - aTriz is well aware this is scam behavior.)
https://archive.is/JhHUa (calling out bumping)
http://archive.is/sFeNG#selection-24257.0-24257.362 (calling out exchanges for manipulating numbers)
Lauda needs no examples because Lauda constantly tags people for shady behavior like this.

When I see aTriz making comments like this about other ICOs but then ignoring his own clients misbehavior as a "marketing strategy", I feel like there is malice here, and why I responded the way I did on this thread.

The whole situation aggravates me and is just frustrating.

You mean before this incident or incidents?

If you need them let us know we will paste those links here. Its not a Lauda's forums and lauda need to behave like a normal member.
Let me know if you further needed proof.

Dissection of a post, seeing it for the first time! Anyways, I am not feeling bad for Atriz, I am just poking a wounded guy. The thing for which I am actually sad is that how some people choose to abuse the trust which the community invested in them. Choosing a project which is later revealed to be a scam project is another thing and dragging on with a project which is clearly cheating is totally different thing. And then, I think choosing a project which follows Bitconnect's footsteps is not a great thing either. On top of that keeping ALU in dark and giving it a bad name too.
 
The good thing is Lauda herself tagged her and maintained her consistency. Leaving a negative feedback for your business partner is the last thing you want to do as a business partner. But Lauda did it and I guess she should be applauded for that. Hopefully we will get to see the same consistency from other DT members too, who have chosen to stay neutral. :-X

[1] Zindagi main kaafi cheezein pehli baar hoti hain.  ;D

[2] Want some salt to go with that?
https://i.imgur.com/EMmGwkr.png

[3] This deserves a merit. I dunno if you are concern trolling, but it does deserve a merit. Hope someone will give you that.

[4] Commendable.

[5] As this post says, but we can hope.

Addressed to all the bounty hunters, DT members, Quickseller & co, and everyone else who lost faith in me

I've been away for the last 3 days as I needed to take a step back to re-think about aTriz, ALU and the future of me on this forum. I've finally returned and I'm ready to start over and fix some issues I've caused to everyone, and a lot of grief I caused people. I'd like to thank the users who've defended me tooth and nail. From the bottom of my heart, I'm sorry.

From this day forth, I've contacted someone who works especially in the ICO scene as a part time manager and full time ETH dev. The user will be validating all my future projects (and ALU's if I am allowed back in) with extensive validation of their smart contract, and my current community mangers and I will thoroughly study the projects whitepaper to prevent any sort of shadiness from happening. I want to be clean as a whistle from this day forth.

I understand that I have made numerous clouded and greedy judgments. Here are the 3 issues that I must solve before moving on

The Bitblisscoin scam and lies
Due to my malicious actions that allowed bitbliss to be allowed on the forum, I'll be doing the following.

Refunding any investor, no matter how large the investment their full amount that they have put in the project. I'm currently looking for a DT member to validate their accounts (so I know they actually invested) so I can refund them. I'll be making a thread for these investments in the week. If the total investments do not total the amount I've been paid from bitbliss, I'll be donating the rest of that money to the http://thewaterproject.com/. I'll do a full screen recording of me and the dev's chats and send it to any DT member (preferably Ibminer/suchmoon if they would waste their time helping me) to validate the amount that I've profited from them. From my current estimations and digging through the chat logs, I've profited a total of 0.26 BTC from them.

Chrysos Coin and Snakey
The ANN was up for approximately 4 days in which content was displayed. For any users who can prove to me that they found the project via the ANN that was up for the 4 days will also receive a full refund. We can use snakey as a precedent and he provided me 2 vimeo links that were timestamped and where during the time in which the ann was up and a video of his telegram chat with the devs at the same time. He will be receiving his full investment of 17 ETH back within this month. I'll also be making a thread in which you can apply for a refund.

Ice Rock Mining
I was purely involved in this project as a campaign manager and was not part of any dev team so I do not believe I am responsible for said project. After the ICO ended and round 2 was about to start a friend pointed out some red flags with the government and I declined their offer for managing their 2nd bounty. After this I also removed the ANN thread.

I don't think that's fair. aTriz isn't asking for any redemption. Sure, you can detect themes of that there but they're trying (at least from what I can tell) [to the best of their ability] to rectify the situation with the Scam ICO's.

---

There's no more need to throw any criticism out there—the negative trust will stick for some time. This isn't some half-assed attempt to try and garner favor, I'm sure.

If you are allowed back in?

Based on your post history, over the past three days, you have created ANN threads for two distinct bounty campaigns, both of which were posted well after Lauda announced you were "suspended" from ALU.

I am not sure I would believe your involvement in ALU has been "suspended"

aTriz, you were online for the last whatever days you claim you were away. I personally saw you online all the time. You even created new bounty campaigns, but apparently wasn't bothered with your reputation at all?

Ice rock mining was an obvious scam from the get-go. I don't buy the fact that you didn't know it was a scam. You have sent negative ratings for people who are promoting a Ponzi through their signature, yet you yourself allowed Ice Rock Mining campaign to happen. If you think you don't have any responsibility for their ICO success, then you're just finding more excuses for yourself.

He has form for apologizing. Deny, deny, deny. If the evidence is irrefutable, grovel and issue an apology. Do you see a pattern?

BANG ON!!! I was about to say the same thing. The constant barrage of lies has made it impossible to trust him, also it makes ALU look shady in its entirety. No news after a lame announcement of the so-called suspension. I don't expect much of an organization/association/team that can't spell Community correctly, but is appalled at poor English skills of others.


[1] This is in itself arrogance speaking; more like to all other red negged; rub it in your face. I might be wrong, but this looks like it.

[2] I believe you've been logging in daily. I might be wrong, but I think I'm not.

[3] Talk about yourself and bunch of friends.

[4] I would thank them too, for exposing their psych and would vary of dealing with them in future; as it is I don't deal with anonymous identities on forums.

[5] Apology declined.

[6] I suggest you better hire someone (a shrink  ::)) who keeps you in check because you were lying and no ETH Dev can vouch for that.

[7] This is how most liars, cheats, and addicts talk; hope you'll walk the talk.

[8] Meaning there are other scams as well? Sorry; if being a pajeet coming from a 3rd world country clouds my knowledge of English Grammar.

[9] I guess the max will be 1 BTC.

[10] I think most of can agree with this statement. Since you never made any claim; you aren't directly responsible, but you should check the credentials and claims and team before posting a thread; this is the least that is expected of a Trusted, Experienced team. That's why I prefer AmaZix; although I double check too.



[1] I think he is apologizing and wants to make things right, so in a way, it is seeking redemption.

[2] Only after being called out and who are they? I only see one single post from aTriz that actually tries to resolve it.

[3] How are you so confident that it will stick for some time? It should be a permanent one so that people are aware of this incident; just like in case of Jamal and others who claim to have made amends, but the neg remains.

[4] That's your opinion; for me, it is a Full-assed attempt to get back to what he was doing and had it not been for the constant questions being raised by the members and the neg, he would have conveniently ignored it; like he has in the past. Looks like he has watched the Steve Smith saga quite watchfully and is trying to emulate that here.


WOW! Wasn't aware of this.

---

By redemption I meant any possibility of removal or positive feedback. Like I said, 'you can detect themes of that there'.

I'm not defending his character. I'm just saying that further criticism is pointless and thinking that the possibility of aTriz reaching a position of being able to "scam again and admit I was wrong", passing off the apology is a little childish.

By stick for some time, I mean some long period of time, or forever.

There's no point in trying to refund people when the negatives are going to stay with a high degree of certainty. I'm willing to say that only in an extremely rare circumstance would all the members shift it to neutral at best.

Just trying to play devil's advocate. Even though I'm not defending them. I'm just responding to the snide comment.

To all the people complaining that aTriz only posts an apology 3 days after the trial begun, obviously everybody should be allowed to collate the information they have and form a professional, effective response. When you go to trial at court, they don't make you issue your plea the same day you are arrested, that would be completely stupid. aTriz made the correct decision in ruminating on this for a few days, as obviously his response carries a great deal of weight, particularly considering there are a bunch of vultures literally waiting to pick apart everything he says. Hasty words are a bad idea in this scenario.

@allahabadi, to say that aTriz intentionally scammed for a few measly ETH is deluded at best, or completely ignorant at worst. It does not make logical sense for aTriz to knowingly scam considering he is well paid for his job. You make the claim that he is trying to rectify this so he can knowingly scam again, this is a failure of logic, as it is unlikely his initial mistake was an attempted scam, but rather horrific judgement (similar to yours).

Why sometime not a permanent? I think people are greedy for his Signature campaigns for Scam ICO's.

I am not yet seen theymos or a moderator taking any actions on his threads.

The pharmacist feedback.
A Indian guy daily cries at Banana Coin telegram chat who invested 600k INR . I am not still getting how people trust Scam ICO's.

[1] Can you guarantee that he won't scam again?

[2] Please work on your grammar cause it never sounded like that when you wrote it.

[3] Okay, so according to you, he should keep his ill-gotten gains.

[4] I would leave it to the neggers to decide.

[5] It's quite apparent to me that you are.



To the many others who have jumped in defending aTriz like the Helen of Troy without having read the threads or the facts of the matter; the so-called trial dates back to January and not just 3 days, his admission is over a week old, as for his response carrying weight, I and quite a few others would now trust him as much as we would trust any other negged member. A bunch of spineless humans are also herding to defend him from the so-called vultures.


Please use quotes, it makes it easier to know if you are being addressed.

[1] Read the comments of other members like ibminer and suchmoon, given that even aTriz seems to trust them; they too believe it to be a Scammy attribute and I dunno if it was for a measly ETH, you seem to have quite intricate knowledge of his finances; are you his co-handler and hence being caught in this scam also affects your financial position?

[2] Please substantiate this claim with quotes, I try to be very careful when I speak; I have never said that he will, I've always maintained that it is a possibility that many can't rule out. I rarely make claims, I mostly give scenarios and outcomes which are very much possible.


Also, I have a pretty good sense of judgment and unlike you I avoid Liars.

Nice , your history started when you back on this forum on April 6 , 2017 with a suspicious account after been inactive more than 3 years , You bought almost all DT Members to get green trust,when you dont have a job you accused other bounty manager to steal your job.
You dont want to stop ,it seems you think all people are beggars. You going to open a thread to ask 2 or 3 beggars  to bump your thread. Well i dont think all DT members are beggars we still have some trusted and respected members .
If the forum was the only way to make you earn money  , you need to find an other alternative to earn money. i will give you this advise , take a break, go to the beach with your family if you have one .
You realy need to stop corrupt people with btc.

It is a bought account or the account exchanged hands at some point. A cursory glance at its posts before April 2017, and it is clear as night and day that the person controlling the aTriz account right now is not the original owner of the account.

The original owner was co-owner of hashcows.ws, a mining pool that "claimed" to be hacked and stole 40BTC equivalent in alts from their customers: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=293872.0

The current owner claims to have no coding knowledge:

Which seems bizarre, because cleary, the original owner has some coding knowledge/skills.

Also, the original aTriz was US based but the current reincarnation lives in Asia or Oz. This account has been involved in scamming from its inception and its ratings should reflect that.

My question to his fan club is: since the original atriz is a scammer and the current aTriz is one too, could they be the same person?

Good catch! This evidence can tell that atriz is bought account and account sales, buying/trading or anything shady involvement is a big red flag.

So this deserves another red trust for him.

aTriz is paying back money to investors from his own pocket. If that isn't worth to get clean reputation back, what else would be?

And also @Atriz don't say that your been away for 3 days while infact you open up a new thread this past days and you never gone inactive for the span of 3 days as you said, you are been here lurking and just reading the comments against you and you didn't bother to respond on any of those, You know why? Because you are guilty for your shady actions. And your shady activities are not just the bitbliss but to many of them.

And don't ask for sympathy and mercy since you might provably not deserves it. STOP LYING your wreck men.

You guys crack me up.

The more that this goes one, the less it is right to comply to any requests made here. Can someone lock this thread already?

I haven’t verified the accuracy of these statements, however the person behind aTriz at the time was clearly involved in a pool in 2013. If this post is substantially accurate then I would say that the current aTriz is almost certainly lauda. I would simply not find it credible to suggest that lauda gives as much negative trust to sold accounts as he does to happen to miss the fact that his business partner himself is a sold account.

Previously, it could be argued that lauda was defending aTriz because of the conflict of interest being his business partner, however this cannot be attributed to laudas decision to go into business with aTriz. (Not that the conflict of interest is not a very bad thing to start with).

Yes, I'm a robot that is online 24 hours per day, every day. Totally. Busted. ::)

---

Reductio ad absurdum for the warfare obsessed fools who can't invest in education.

Ignoring the fact you being aTriz would not make you post 24 hours a day, it would not be difficult to hide you are the same from theymos via similar methods you used to connect to slack in the past, and it would be fairly trivial to use a bot to delay the posting of some of your posts.

Yeah, no. You must be going through a lot of pain due to your failed revenge quest. :)

Oh dear, I missed all the fun  ;D.
You are right Bazinga442, the first Atriz is clearly a developer and our Atriz isn't. If in doubt, read backwards from post 1. This begs the question, how the hell did everyone miss something this important? There will be lots of eggs on many faces when this inquest wraps up.




PS: where is nullius btw?

Every time I encounter a new name on this forum, I read all their posts from the beginning to the end. /s  ::)

This is an eye-opener, I distinctly remember Joel_Jantsen calling him a bought account not long ago (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2313136.msg23729567#msg23729567) (need to confirm this); since this account was bought in the last one year; it deserves another definite neg, if this is true. I am looking at a forum member who has reportedly negged the maximum number of bought accounts and has served this forum without any favour or ill-will.
 
https://image.ibb.co/d1CBgc/joel.png
8)
What requests? They are suggestions, which are being ignored by those who have super-inflated egos. Don't get frustrated, this is exactly how the scammers and account farmers feel when others neg them, but it is for the better of the forum. How the mighty have fallen. :-\
https://78.media.tumblr.com/748ff363962cf0d76ce411c2b128b116/tumblr_on6es6JsRk1uguo4xo3_r1_500.gif

I couldn't agree less; the way aTriz and a few of his cronies are acting; it is hilarious.  ;D




Barring those that you are in a business relationship with?



You NEVER get your reputation back.
Will Rogers — 'It takes a lifetime to build a good reputation, but you can lose it in a minute.'

How is this relevant?  ::) Is s/he a judge of the forum?
I think he is getting himself unjinxed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2975479.0).
 ;D

I looked at the post gap several months ago but had discovered aTriz was able to sign a message from a prior address after being questioned. Even though I do realize private keys can certainly be sold (and possibly stolen), this is pretty much the standard way to confirm the account is under control of the original owner.

However, as I re-think this, the signed message was not dated and should not have been accepted as proof.. for all I know it could have been an old copy/paste signed message that the original owner could have sent to someone in 2013/14. The 2013/14 version was pretty active in trading, and a signed message like this could have easily been requested back then and may not have had a date.

I may be overthinking this, but to be safe, aTriz, will you please sign another message from the address below, with today's date.



Also, I'd like to point out this post, which was deleted at some point after 2016 (maybe whenever the new owner took over?):
https://web.archive.org/web/20160412055259/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=135920;sa=showPosts;start=520

About half way down the archived posts, you will see the old aTriz make a post in a Crypsty thread, signing it as "- Adam"

In 2017, after this aTriz account was resurrected, an apparent dox happened on current aTriz which apparently claimed his name was Ke* Ma*. (I'm omitting since this is technically not "Investigations" but those who understand will know what name I am talking about).

Another threat of this same dox happened with alia due to, according to aTriz, a paypal-to-btc transaction he did with alia (naiveness??) which he could never prove with a transaction and this is what apparently exposed his personal information (Ke* Ma*) to alia.

I'm starting to think the account actually did change hands.  :-\
 

Even if it did, what's the difference? The new aTriz would be the one who built up the reputation, and account sales were less frowned upon back then?

Keep burying your head in the sand ostrich, nothing wrong with being a loyal fanboy though.


Is this your own way of saying that you agree the aTriz account changed hands. If so, I find it hard to believe you were not aware of the possibility before now.


A lot, if he signed a message to prove he is the original owner he lied yet again. How many lies are acceptable from one individual?

After so many lies, now what shall we do? Do we need to wait for REAL aTriz?
Does Lauda is sleeping/away/not reading those scam ICO's?

 It shows they are connected to each other from their past merit exchanges. 50 points

If the account was changed, it happened most probably 2017. Email and password were changed at this time, but:
aTriz had good activities. He paid for example participants from his own pocket, who and their campaign manager were scammed by the devs. (that was arround Oct 2017), he donated for all participants.
He wants to actually pay investors from his own pocket. He is a good campaign manager (although I dislike some of his negative feedbacks for rediculous reasons). And in my opinion also ALU isn't out at whole of this matter.

It means a lot. Lauda has given negative trust to hundreds if not thousands of alleged sold accounts. If it turns out that lauda was in business with an actual sold account that would be very bad for lauda, especially if the sold account was sold not long before lauda went into business with it.

No, it literally makes no difference for me as that would be same as with the Bitbliss case. I knew nothing of it, like pretty much everyone else it seems (assuming it is true). Let me repeat myself:

QS is reaching unprecedented levels of pathetic.

---

Anyhow, there are people that have done this a few years ago and they are *fine*.

THIS!
https://media.tenor.com/images/ab3f433fcf52f0c92955352ff3c38c57/tenor.gif


I agree, but it's clear that he scams; does that not make him unreliable?


Boomerang!


What's the cutoff date for account farming; account selling and the threshold for scamming according to you?

There's no such thing, and you aren't getting anywhere with the obvious try-hard attitude.

[1] So NO parameters.

[2] If by going anywhere you mean where aTriz today is; I don't want to be there.  ;D

[3] I don't have to try hard; aTriz himself is making it easy for others to judge how scammy he is; if he is.  ::)

[4] Okay, so I have noticed that you are only replying to those whom you can jest away; please try responding to ibminer too and what do you think of the account aTriz?

Nobody likes pests in their environment.

I've read it, and there's nothing to respond to. What I think of aTriz is none of your business. If you want others who are willing to infiltrate your privacy, including your thoughts, move to the US.

I didn't miss it.  I excluded him from my trust network almost immediately when he became active in the ICO & Signature Management spaces, as it was very clear this account was nothing more than a purchased account being vouched by Lauda to serve as an apparent fall guy should ALU services be questioned.  I however had no concrete reason to label him with trust as a scammer until recently.

Hindsight 5/7. Intellect 1/3.

---

I'll need another spray can. ::)

[1] Do you own the forum? You are not the OP. So please shut up or endure the so-called pests. Also, I find it hard to digest that you call me a pest(dunno for what) and gladly get in bed with scammers, liars, and cheats. Double-Standards! Not much is expected of racists.


[1] Okay so ibminer is out of consideration.  ??? Guess you used your spray can on him.

[2] Thank God you are no longer a moderator.

[3] I don't have much privacy as it is.

When you act before something happens, it isn't hindsight.  You learn something new every day.  Glad I could be your teacher today.  As someone who claims their negative trust ratings are an asset to the community, you really screwed the pooch on this one.  I find it hard to believe that any intelligent objective person could find you at all credible after this latest pie in the face moment.  It's 100% clear now that no honest advertiser would come near ALU after this.

You absolutely had no idea whether he was purchased or not, otherwise you would have spoken out about it long ago. Furthermore, ALU has nothing to do with this. Do I need to remind you of the Pirateat40 schemes? Do what you do best. ::)

---

P.S. You were never a good teacher to anybody, especially not on anything Bitcoin-technical ("Segwit activates for the network when I upgrade my node" ::)).
P.S.S. My ratings are way superior than yours, in every conceivable way.

Ouch. :-*

Dude, are you trolling us? Of course you were here.

---

Does this mean you were part of Bitblisscoin and Chrysos Coin team?

LOL.  You were the one who said segwit wouldn't be activated.  I said it would be.  You were wrong.  I was right.  I could give hundreds more examples where you've been wrong, but lets keep this thread on topic.  It is about aTriz being a purchased account to be used for scamming and you supporting the newly purchased account right out of the gate, using the account as a fall guy for your ALU supported scams.  I recognized this right away, and was attacked for it.  Now that I've been proven correct, I find it hard to believe that anyone could think your ratings are superior to mine.  You trusted an obvious scammer and joined forces with him for profit while people like myself were warning others.  Now that the scams have been exposed, I don't even think you are delusional enough to believe anyone should ever respect your ratings again.  Maybe you should have provided investment insurance for aTriz' scams, then you might have a leg to stand on.  As it goes now...

Now we have resorted to outright lying. Are you turning into Quicksie? On a tech scale, you fall under the r/btc shill-technobabler.  

Which is yet another lie. Are you deliberately trying to damage your reputation?

Third lie.

---

You're becoming really desperate. The collusion duo is trying every possible cheap smear tactic to spin this on me. Next time make it less obvious. ::)

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hello, this is aTriz from Bitcoin talk, and I am proving my identity
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1LjT88X7Zu8BdbqJw8vfRa83NJuzYL9kqm
Hw35+F6xdwDBoAcqkC4Bj5h591kacAfr6liVsWyAhAVBHttHXgk+gNkiZ7kqGlUrw4eOIySKUgRsVX//6BXoRJQ=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Instead of Scamming from innocent investors, its better to sit with a bowl at Church or temple.

Can anyone with negative trust (especially ones tagged by lauda) just stop with their shitposting in this thread please? You are adding nothing of value and you are only making your own cases worse by looking like revenge hungry high school girls.

At this point im not even sure what is being discussed due to the amount of irrelevant information being spewed out.

Atriz had been suspended from ALU, his rep has been ruined which will lost likely mean he can't do any future work here. Lauda had tagged the atriz account as well so i believe, objevtively, they've taken all necessary steps.

Atriz has said he will refund any and all investors that got scammed which i think is great, im not sure i or a lot of other people would do the same if we knew our accounts and rep were fucked either way.

What more is it that you guys want as i really can't see any reason for further attacks on lauda. If you believe that ALU was created by lauda and lauda alone together with a purchased account intended for scamming (to gain s whopping 0.2(?)btc), i gave yo claim you are grasping at straws. Can't we just all drop this childish bullshit with the personal vendettas and looking to hurt someone we dislike the most with any means we have at our disposal?

This post got way longer than i expected and i apologize for that but imo enough is enough.

Edit; i agree with the negative trust that has been left for atriz, don't get me wrong with this post.

Can anyone with POSITIVE trust (especially ones tagged by lauda) just stop with their shitposting in this thread please?

You support to an Extortionist and ask us to keep calm?

aTriz was a bought account. Tons of proof available but people choose to ignore all of it, like how he went from USA to China back to Australia, apparently no coding knowledge, 3 year posting gap, etc. Ask Joel_Jantsen for more info.

Most likely, aTriz had obtained the private keys of the linked addresses along with the account somehow. He was always defensive when something regarding his account being bought as well. With any other bought account even with the slightest suspicion they would be considered to be a scammer and handed a negative trust. Not in aTriz's case, apparently.

But now that he's finished with aTriz he's just going to move onto the next account. Whether that be creating a new account, or buying one. ::)

There really are some dull idiots in this thread, that can't put 2 and 2 together. Maybe people should look at the supposed leak docs, and look particularly at the surname, and then try to guess which country that surname is from, and it would be completely obvious it's not a bought account.

I don't have the leaked docs and never saw them, which country are they from?

Also, are you calling @ibminer and @joel_jantsen dumb and liars? Do you think that they are anti-ALU or paid by QS or OG-supporters?

This was stated by Lauda, but the fact that aTriz has posted multiple ANN/bounty threads subsequent to lauda making this announcement removes credibility from lauda's statement that aTriz was "suspended"

I agree the account was purchased, this is fairly clear.

I don't think aTriz has the private keys to addresses associated with the account from 2013. The reason being is that some of said addresses have had fairly substantial amounts of bitcoin held in them subsequent to the account being transferred. In fact, it appears that new aTriz transferred at least 0.2BTC to old aTriz subsequent to buying the account, which implies that new aTriz may have paid an extortion payment to cover up the fact he bought the account, which although I it is very wrong to extort someone, I find very ironic, considering lauda's involvement.

[1]&[2] I'm not negged, but do you think that this is your forum or thread? You can walk out.

[3] Doesn't look like it.

[4] Good for the investors.

[5] Good on part of Lauda; that establishes the fact that even she is convinced of his scammy behavior.

[6] Possibly he's trying to salvage it and will continue using it like Jamal does.

[7] I'm not at all sure; but this is definitely larger than 0.2BTC; if we are speculating then I think it might be a long con which actually ended with alot more than he/she is letting us known (pure speculaiton on my part).

[8] Just because you are feeling uncomfortable looking at the larger questions that have been placed here, doesn't mean that this needs to be closed. I am feeling that most people who are jumping to his defence are themselves involved in such activities and want to have a safe precedent when they are caught.

[9] Please don't apologize, everyone has an opinion and they can and should air it. One should never apologize for saying something they firmly believe in.

[10] Thanks for clarifying; I believe he should be hauled by his ass to some jail and serve his sentence there. In my country lying for monetary gains when you are in a position of trust can get you a minimum of 3 years or a max of 7 years.

Why so defensive? I wasn't referring to you specifically. However, i find it very strange that you did not deem it fit when valid questions about aTriz account were raised here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2313136.0 to investigate further.
You even took part in ridiculing posters that questioned if aTriz was bought.


nulluis was adamant aTriz is a naive jock that was misled by alia, something I did not agree with. In light of new evidence, he must be eating humble pie.

i normally don't post much but this thread caught my attention. surely atriz did the wrong thing by letting these icos get the better of the community, but he was not actively involved in the scamming. what really seals the deal for me is the fact that atriz is actually willing to pay back investors from his own pocket; i find that to be very admirable. full disclosure, i too also invested in one of the projects, but since atriz promises to pay us back, i have no problem in seeing him as trustworthy.

[1] Fortunately, you are on their side or else his cronies would have started calling you a shitposter and newbie alt of QS. Also for someone "who doesn't usually post much" how old is this account?

[2] It's not that simple; he colluded with them in this scam.

[3] I believe it's the contrary, how do you know?

[4] For all we know he might be doing it out of the ill-gotten gains or he must be the one to have engineered these scammy ICOs (speculation).

[5] I don't believe you and I think you are simply out here to save him, he who lives by lying and deceiving, also I am sorry to inform you but you can go ahead and give him a positive feedback; but those who negged him might think otherwise; especially the DTs.

 

To bad for the team of jamalaezaz where all of the people who works with him got neg tag while atriz team member doesn't get any. Feel pity for atriz since he became a fall guy to be blame if bad things happen..

By the way ALU stands for Atriz,Lauda and Untold look pathetic team with all of them got shady backgrounds  :o  ::)

I wouldn't put it past ALU. They are already comfortable promoting fake icos, naturally, they would upgrade to creating the fake icos themselves. Ask yourselves why aTriz is being very generous, were are these funds coming from? Is he being paid a ton just for promoting them? How can he afford to? All speculation off-course but one wonders.

Get out of dodge LoyceV. ALU is not what it seems to be. If you wrestle associate yourself with pigs you will get dirty. Their modus operandi is to gain legitimacy by associating with trustworthy members.

False..
First of all having a feedback doesn't mean someone's reputation ruined. these are just point of view of some individual while other (more then them) can have different (positive) point of view.. the only difference is those few feedback are visible while the other are not.

Second, no one's business life can or will stop just because of some negative feedback.

Do you get as much work now as before your trust turned horrible?

I am getting double work. double recommendations from my previous clients. and higher pay rates.

Good for you, so that makes me question whether or not a thread like this or actions that are called for in this thread are necessary. You got tagged over and over again after doing shady shit and yet you claim to get more work and higher payrates now.. You are pretty much saying that what is being done here to atrizs rep and people wanting to drag lauda in to it will have no effect?

Shady shit?? lol
read the tags and try to match them with the references. and try to find some accuracy in them...
people are not blind dude.


that's exactly what I am saying.. if negative feedback had any effect I would already started a fight against Lauda and her sidekicks for these false tags.

but I am not gonna give her a shit because I am doing great.

Pretty positive attitude...

Okay ???


My mind says 99% YES and 1% NO...


For someone who is constantly questioning the need of this thread, you seem to take undue interest in it.  ::)


Still waiting for a response.

I am still waiting for the refund.. :(

You have a very strong point here and i like it.
But still i wanna ask how you convience ico owners your rep here?

You should contact the rest of ALU for your refund if it is not forthcoming from aTriz. They are also liable for your loss.

you will always have your old customer because you provided them good service.





Hilariousandco  green paint  his account after one week  Hilariousandco remove the Positive trust , i suspect its because he think this account changed hand . 100% clear its not the same owner , from usa ,asia to australia. from smart guy , idiot to serial scammer , this guy has a bizarre trajectory .

When did hilariousandco add positive trust to aTriz? Do you have a screenshot

100 % True since Lauda might already know that is a purchased acount. I suspect Lauda is playing with people since in the past a lot people mentioned aTriz is Lauda.

No i dont have a screenshot , but i never forget it thats why i started to think this account changed hand. Hilarious can even post there if he want to confirm this.

Might = 100%. I see now the basis for your proof. With this, I now state the following: Ripple will rise to $1000 with 100% certainty.

The fact that people mention aTriz = Lauda shouldn't really be a foundation for your claims. They're unsubstantiated claims regardless with little to no evidence of being true.

Moreover, this is a sort of selection bias in which you cherry pick the data from all the wild accusations that have been done. If you're willing to suspect Lauda of being aTriz on the basis of all those accusations, then you should also suspect that Lauda is The Pharmacist, DarkStar_, myself, owlcatz, satoshi, theymos.

Who are those "a lot people"? Please be specific, with quotes.

Humoring a blanket statement post? :)

When People involved in a management, then they are responsible for the theft. BTW who is the head of ALU services?

You posted in the this thread the negative will be sometime for aTriz why? Did aTriz didnot made scam?

If it is a purchased how you all trust that account? 

Have you ever seen here an account aTrizlauda ? Just search in this forums you will get answers.

Can you tell whether aTriz is a scammer or not?

Vicarious liability is an interesting thing. But don't you think in instances in which an employee does something unexpected or irrational, that it wouldn't make sense for the employer to be punished?

Every instance of vicarious liability should be case-by-case.

You read one reply but you don't read the other. The other reply states that by "some time" I mean a long period, or forever. When you read the sentence, do you think to yourself that "some time" = short duration?

Didn't know. But, here's an example of a purchased account that has done good for the forum: Avirunes (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=175302)

And all of the trusted feedback has been after the account was bought, meaning that they weren't relying on past reputation. Isn't this like with aTriz?

Their is difference between an employee and management team,
An employee gets daily wage either the business is made gains or not, but a management person get percentage in that project.  Three of them having different positions, so there should be some sort of money being adjusted.

Ok, I might missed, so it might be permanent or for a long period .
I too never knew that it was a purchased account, but from this thread learnt it. So aTriz is not sharing money with other two from those scam ICO's?

aTriz who did with alia and at that time too lauda didnt sent negative feedback to aTriz.
I never trust a purchased account and in this forums only People sell accounts.

Answer the question - who are the people claiming that aTriz is Lauda? Please provide quotes.


Nah, just giving him some rope.

No. This is basic agency law. The employer should have prevented said action.

Was Bitblisscoin.com under ALU as opposed to purely aTriz?

I am not quite clear on this one. And I would like to know which campaigns of aTriz's (which were scummy/scams) were in fact under ALU rule.

If the parties were not involved in the campaigns then they shouldn't be held responsible.

Are you now in pre-law at cal state or something? :D

https://media.giphy.com/media/26FfaNKPWDnQJdYEU/giphy.gif

It cannot be denied that lauda was aggressive in giving negative trust against sold accounts and would go as far as to refuse to discuss negative ratings when they were disputed. I don’t think there is an argument to counter this point.

I checked and lauda was giving out negative ratings for this reason for about a year before aTriz became active after being sold, so the argument that account sales weren’t untrustworthy at the time of sale doesn’t hold water.

When you go into business with someone, it is expected that you will preform due diligence before formality agreeing to go into business with the person. There was a multi year gap in posts by aTriz, so it is difficult to argue that lauda was unaware of the fact the account was sold.

There are two very distinct groups of addresses (wallets) that was used before the account was sold and after the account was sold. The wallet from before the account was sold remained active as of recently but acted very differently. The exchanges that were used by the original owner is very different from the exchanges current aTriz uses. Yes, aTriz provided a signed message however it lacked a date and fails to prove original ownership of the account.

Lauda posted upthread that aTriz making the ANN thread doesn’t mean he managed the bounty campaign, and aTriz made almost all of the ANN threads for ALU. ATriz also opened a scam accusation against the dev of one ICO when they failed/refused to provide a verifiable Dox. However ALU was managing multiple ICOs bounty campaigns whose underlying ICO was allmost certainly a scam. No one has provided any information whatsoever about who manages which campaigns.

If you refuse to accept that lauda is aTriz, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that lauda was aware of the various frauds ALU was included in, if not actively participated in.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2575887.0
Here is one thread, but there are some more posts Ive read in the past, The forum is not good for searching so I cannot offer further more.

Now its your turn whether aTriz is a scammer or not? I am waiting for your reply.

So your entire proof lies in the fact that they both used a very common mIRC expression (https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/trout_slap)? Well, that seems rock-solid and water-tight to me! (/s)

Poe's law (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law) in action here. I honestly can't tell if you are being serious or pulling our collective legs. Given your previous complete lack of insight, I suspect it is the former, which is embarrassing for you but even funnier for everyone else.

That is a satire thread. It seems very much like a joke.

endlasuresh might as well be quoting my thread for evidence: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2612664.0

I realise that of course - I am just pointing out that this very obvious fact has apparently gone over endlasuresh's head.

I vaguely remember it, if I'm not wrong (someone correct me if I am), it was something about Atriz paying hilarious for the signature campaign and that's all(not pointing fingers, just adding some info)

Isn't it funny how projects that were managed by aTriz are now being divided into ALU and ATriz projects. What is the use of a co-operative if not to benefit all of its member, or at the very least some?

a) Not yet proven to be scam project = ALU
b) Proven Scams = aTriz



Don't count on it, but expect a heartfelt apology.

As to whether aTriz is Lauda, I very much doubt it, but it wouldn't surprise me. There are a couple of other accounts that I suspect are most likely hers but I cannot say for sure.

I am asking again to you and suchmoon, whether aTriz is a scammer or not? also how many scam projects belongs to aTriz?
Did you seen those ICO's started by someone and handed over them to aTriz?

They exchanged merits for shit posts that started by Deena, is that proof not enough for everyone? You all the time supports to them and disagree with us.
So whats your problem?  This thread started long back, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3067759.0
so you all are sleeping at that time? Does Lauda is not seen that thread?

Oooh hey there Endla Suresh, are you still not done being salty over Lauda marking you what you are? A shitposter?

Anyway for real guys ignore this dude lmao, he's the one that unironically believed for weeks that's some dude clearly mentioned to be from EU/US to be an indian and wanted people to report him to the Indian tax body cause #FuckLogic

I know the same gang appears everywhere, and btw this thread is about Bitblisscoin, please post with ontopic.
Your Lauda is nothing here except marking red trust that is used for trusting people, also your Lauda adds SMAS list for posting.

Where you gone all these days? you appears a day or two and then disappears for a long time.

Oh boi, the staggering amount of irony


Just one thing to say "this thread is about Bitblisscoin, please post with ontopic."

So "a lot people" is one newbie?

Yes the on poster said its about ALU services,
I said there are some more posts but the forum is not searchable.  P.S you didnt answer my question so I wont answer again to you.

The forum is searchable just fine. Use google.

Your question has been answered a week ago if you had bothered to look at aTriz' feedback - I posted a neg for him, so yes, I think he's a scammer.

Unless you use Quicksy's definition of a scam, in which case aTriz is not a scammer. Take your pick.

Here is one more https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2828116.0
You merited 1 point here in the same thread
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2827620.msg28993053#msg28993053

here is the archive too https://archive.is/zagT6

I am not using Quickseller definition or someone's and we must should fight with scams.

Do you think Quickseller is a scammer?

Dear Endlasuresh. I have seen you posting with a lot of interest and passion whenever there is an accusation about some of the members here. A lot of accounts got negged during late 2017 when certain members decided to take things in their own hands and red tag people who were:

• Abusing bounty campaigns with multiple accounts.
• Posting one liners in 200 page threads to reach the minimum count
• Later started trading merit after merit was introduced.

They decided to hit back with what they had as moderators were unable to handle the flood themselves. A lot of accounts got purged in that time. A lot of those people retaliated against these members and a trend of new meta topic digging up small things started.
During this time, some of the old rivalries among DT members also came to light, especially in the case of Quickseller+OgNasty vs Lauda/aTriz/Pharmacist etc etc.

If you compare the work that people like Lauda have done against what a particularly consistent accuser has done, you can easily make a judgement as to who cared about the forum and spent their time trying to clean this shit up. In the two sides of this debate, people are only believing what they want to believe. This is a game of ego now as those who feel hurt by the "bad english" comments are all on one side. They all just want some of these people on a stake.

You are showing the same bias which is understandable given the rating you got. This is probably not letting you think from an unbiased viewpoint. For example, you quote here:


This thread was an example of what i said above. People trying to get even with these people by randomly connecting anything and trying to make it look suspicious.  


You are asking what is wrong with suchmoon meriting that post. Can't you see the humor in that post? This had become such a trend that it became a standing joke, if Lauda does anything, a thread would be made by some newbie trying to malign them. The people who merited it just did it because it was amusing. There was nothing wrong with it yet you are trying to project it wrongly on suchmoon.

This has been happening on the forum for a long time. This long barrage of accusations (nurtured by two very senior members themselves, though i wonder how one of them ended up supporting the other except this being an "Enemy of my Enemy is a friend" scenario) led to a condition where taking a decision on the aTriz case took too long a time. All this while, people are trying to drag as many people into it as possible.

The case is now settled with aTriz negged or given neutral feedback by several members. Though I doubt that a certain individual are going to let this go ever. This is pretty sad for the forum but hey, this too shall pass.

Did you get paid yet snakey?

No friend i have not yet received the payment :(

@DT members, what if atriz is on other account will that account too get the negative trust? What if someone from DT2 knows his new account and have told him to kick start a new from that account?? Will that other account of atriz and that DT2 member will be red painted?

Thank you.

That's usually how it goes, so yes.

Who exactly is this DT2 member and how exactly can you, objectively, prove that they know which account is it? ::) Something smells.

You've already asked half of this question. I'll let ib comment on the second part, but I'm inclined on a 'yes' but it really depends on the case. You can't force someone to share what they know (e.g. someone might know more of Quickscammer's alts, or doxx). They can be untrustworthy if they blatantly lie about it though.

---

You like to be a rational thinker, aren't you? This, like many other things that are even remotely related to me, will never be let go.