Bitcoin Forum

What's really going on with FruitBasket (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=487792) and CryptoSparks (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1705958)?  At first blush I was suspicious that the two are alts of one user, but I am unable to find any evidence to support this suspicion.  But I did find that FruitBasket does have an alt (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2544574.msg52540862#msg52540862) that was busted for being a paid shill...  Things that make you go HMMMM...

Not long ago CryptoSparks started a topic offering to pay (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5173867.msg52105206#msg52105206) for shilling his trading bot service.  The same service that any rational person would scrutinize with a healthy dose of skepticism.  Lo and behold, here's FruitBasket, defending and promoting (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5184519.msg52454045#msg52454045) CryptoSparks scambot.

So, @FruitBasket are you a paid shill for CryptoSparks?

Its sad watching you devolve into such a pathetic muckraker DirewolfM14. Just remember when the standard is mob justice, inevitably you become the target of the mob instead of part of it.

Based on the evidence you are citing, I would say it is more likely they are in some kind of business relationship than the two being alts.

Technically speaking, BestWebCreator didn't offer shilling services (he solicited a TG handle in response to a solicitation for these services), but if his name pops up in a case of likely paid shilling, one can make a reasonable conclusion.

I don't want to get involved in forum drama, but I also don't support the flag against CryptoSparks. I would describe what he is offering as similar to GunBot (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1715214), who has many vouches from reputable forum members, the main difference being that CryptoSparks has settings 'pre-filled' for his customers. GunBot also appears to have what I assume to be paid salesmen, and although I don't know the specifics of the commission/payment structure, I think it would be fair to say it would be similar to what CryptoSparks is offering in the thread you describe as "offering to pay for shilling".

CryptoSparks loan request was a little scammy, but a lender could negotiate better terms that would better protect the lender, such as asking CryptoSparks to put up some of his own money that would be used to cover the first trading losses, if any.

I would not personally trade with a bot I didn't code myself, but I cannot deny this does not commonly happen. 

From, the evidence until, there is no solid proof of FruitsBasket being and alt of CryptoSpark other than FruitsBasket defending him. They rather could be some known users to each other obviously.

I don't support the flag against CryptoSparks, because there is no real victim until who lost funds and reported. Of course, I don't trust trading bot's and don't recommend anyone to use the same without any prior knowledge about the code behind it. But, this doesn't make CryptoSpark a scammer either due to no documented fraud against him.


To understand this you need to be a target of the mob first. It's not that easy to interpret but is true.

The type of flag involved actually does not requite any actual victims. It only requires the perso nto be engaging in high risk activity.

CryptoSparks made a number of critical errors that completely undermined his credibility as a prospective asset manager:

Apart from the very childish and atrocious attitude which has already been discussed at length, here are a few breaches of trust that would justify the flag and disqualify him from any serious business proposition:

1) He claimed his bot returned 480% in 20 months, it turns out these were just pro forma backtests, ie: NOT LIVE RESULTS (presenting a backtest as real trading performance would lead to the revoking of your license as a CTA or asset manager in many jurisdictions, including the United States, where legally you can't even publish live results unless they are audited by a certified 3rd party...)

2) He was visiting the forums at the beginning of every month and publishing some Bitmex trades, claiming that he already had a very profitable bot working very well for his investors going as far back as 3 months ago (as AdolfinWolf quotes here  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182103.msg52539933#msg52539933)). Later it turns out that project got scrapped, and now he has a new bot called Arakne, which begs the question: what happened to Phoenix and your earlier investors bro, and why you are down to trading with nominal lots of 10 USD in a massively leveraged exchange, where you used to do round trips of 10k USD or greater just a couple of months ago...  ;)

How many people got rekt already because of your immoral marketing tactics and shamelessly deceptive presentation of your experimental bots?..

As it stands, unless CryptoSparks tremendously improves his honesty and ethics, a warning flag against him is very appropriate.

The interesting questions are..

1) If you have a really profitable trading bot (i.e. any trading bot with good strategies which generate profit in the long term), why would you share it ? Why not simply put all the money you have into it and profit yourself. That would be a money-making machine.
Sharing it with others just decreases your profit.

2) How can you claim that more people applying the same strategy will result in more profit for everyone ? There is no logical explanation for that.
This was one of the reasons he mentioned why he shares his bot. More people applying his strategy -> everyone's profit increases.




Exactly. Multiple red flags -> people are at high-risk when dealing with him.
The flag is not about any victim or proven scam. It is just to warn others (especially newbies).



Regarding the FruitBasket <-> CryptoSparks topic.. might be possible that he got paid for shilling.
But it also might be possible that he tried out the bot and it indeed generated some profit.

And before somone claims that this proves that it is not a scam.. let me remind you of bitconnect. Bitconnect also generated profit for a lot of people. These people also advertised and defended it. That's neither an argument pro nor contra being a scam.

I've been watching the development of trading bots/quants for a long time and seen them come and go with varying results, not just in crypto.
CryptoSparks has had to field some pretty dumb assertions and has reacted strongly, I don't blame him for that.
Obviously we're all on Scam Alert on a daily basis, usually triggered by high ROI's, and I'm making no judgement on CS and his scheme at the moment.
The central question is "How will he scam you?"
If you invest your money directly into your own Bitmex account and IF the API key is set up so that no third party has direct access to those deposited funds, where is the scam?
You may well lose your money if/when the trading system incurs trading losses, but how will CS profit from that if his only income comes from sharing in your profit?
Until that can be answered, everything else is just peripheral noise.

He wants to participate in the upside of his investors without disclosing the full range of risks involved in his proposition, that typically counts as the equivalent of fraud in the world of hedge funds & asset management.

He will not profit when his trading system incurs losses, he will have simply offloaded the losses onto his naive investors who trusted his 100% false marketing propaganda like "ROI 490%" and similar (what RoI :), it was a hypothetical backtest, which is one of the first standard basic steps in creating any trading strategy, nothing was invested, just to give you one example)...

Of course you're right.  Stooping to the level of mudslinging by CryptoSparks is beneath me and I should do better to avoid it.



He did ask for a 5 bitcoin loan (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5184519.msg52451028#msg52451028) offering nothing of value as collateral.  I'd call that fairly high risk.



There's nothing wrong with that strategy, other than the fact that he was promising impossible returns.  And I will take issue with your claim that he responded strongly to his detractors; all he's done is respond with insults and attacks.  Nobody really paid any attention to him until he offered to pay for promoting his service and requesting a $50k loan.  He might have actually made something of his service if he didn't start lying and insulting those who asked legitimate questions.  His responses also seem to contain a lack of knowledge of how bitcoin works, making it clear to me that he's no programmer.  He is an altcoin spammer who some how came across a trading bot that I doubt he developed, and threw in some buzz words to make it sound legit.

If he really does have a quantitative trading algorithm why would he share it with the two million members of bitcointalk?  That would effectively defeat the purpose of having such a tool.  The more people who employ a trading strategy the less profitable that strategy becomes.  Institutional trading giants pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in salary to their quant programmers.  Their code is a top-secret tool, not something they show off or boast about.  The algorithms they use are constantly in flux, what worked yesterday is certain to not work today.

You can show me code of his bot, and I wouldn't be able tell you if it's real or not, because I'm not a coder.  But I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday, either.

I never said the flag is wrong at it place, I think you miss read it. I just said I don't support it as I don't see any solid evidence about him scamming someone's money.

And yaa, as @tmpf said earlier, until proven everything is just guessing. I can trust his judgement blindly lol.

For example he can buy some horrible low volume shitcoin and then sell it to his customers, i.e. buy it from himself at an inflated price using customer funds.

Simple.

If you profit, he'll ask for a share.
If you don't, he didn't risk anything.

---

It's basically equivalent to having 100% lossback on a gambling site.

Aside from FruitBasket there is really no one defending CryptoSharks on the services he is offering so I wouldn't give too much weight on him since he is only one person which can't be proven reliable. It's obvious that only one person is saving his ass that it can only mean they are either working together or FruitBasket is paid to save him, I don't see how only one person is giving him a good feedback when he claims that he has a good trading both that provides "guaranteed returns" to its users.

So now some ones innocence or guilt is determined by how many people defend them? This is the popularity contest I was speaking of previously in addition to the burden of being judged guilty until proven innocent. Not only do people have to prove themselves innocent to the mob, but if they don't grovel sufficiently it doesn't matter how much they prove  their innocence. Plenty of people have no one defend them even when they did nothing wrong simply based on the fact that they don't want to be the next target of the mob for daring to contradict them, exactly like is being done to FruitBasket.

There are many people who create trading bots for their employer. Hedge funds and HFT firms need bots to trade, and I would assume their principals are not the only ones creating their trading bots (the HFT firms, and hedge funds hire people to create their bots).

He is selling his bot for 20% of the profits. If he can get people to cumulatively use a 'bankroll' 501% of what he can afford to risk in a bankroll, he will have higher profits than if he was using his own money.

I also am not sure that he is claiming it is 'guaranteed' his bot will produce positive returns. In a heavily regulated world, he would give a disclaimer that previous performance does not guarantee future results, but the crypto economy is still the wild west with virtually no regulation.

I am not sure I agree with this conclusion. He may argue that buying during a sharp, sudden decline may slow or reverse the decline and create bounces off lows we often see in trading action. See bitcoin going from ~7800 to ~8400 in well under an hour today. If he did make this argument, I am not sure I would agree with his logic without first studying the specifics.


Do you have a link to this? If this is true, and there are no extenuating circumstances, my opinion on him would change.

This should be transparent to anyone considering using his services. You may have a good reason to think this is a raw deal for any possible investor, but any possible investor is free to negotiate terms acceptable to him or her.  

---

I am not vouching for CryptoSparks, and he may turn out to be a scammer. My position is that him offering his bot services does not automatically make him a scammer.

I agree... but this is similar to when the whole "bitcoin accelerator" spam took off where they are basically hoping that the users using the method (or believing that they're using the method) are profiting.

The difference here is that with an API key a malicious entity can do much, much, more than a 'bitcoin accelerator'. They can enact trades to dump their coins and manipulate the market by wash-trading to inflate volume, creating buy/sell walls, chunking off buy/sell orders, etc.

---

If the bot is transparent and OS then CryptoSparks will only get a temporary customer. If it is not then you are relying on the trustworthiness and reliability of CryptoSparks.

::)

Sure someone with API keys can do all sorts of things, but I don’t believe there is evidence to suggest the bot is doing any of these things. More importantly, CryptoSparks appears to have a target market of those using a few thousand dollars to trade with, and even the altcoin markets on bitmex are liquid enough so that these amounts are not going to move the market very much.

More importantly, I think CryptoSparks probably stands to profit more from the long term trading profits off of his customers verses having advance knowledge of a few percentage points move caused by his bot.

Regarding your "transaction accelerator" comment, I have seen these threads and thought about approaching one or more mining pools with a proposal to 'pre-pay' for block space well in advance, with the hopes of setting up a platform where I would resell block space to people whose transactions are 'stuck' at a premium rate, and a profit.

Edit/spelling 

As part of the Gunbot Family, there are a lot of differences with regards to the function of the bot. Generally, what CryptoSpark is offering is that the bot has limitations and "requires" a certain amount of balance to start. With Gunbot it's not like that. A big difference as well is that it's a subscription and you have to pay 20% of the earned profits from your main account while Gunbot is a one-time payment fee and it includes future updates.

Features and functions don't compare to Gunbot, it's lightyears away to be near to the functionality Gunbot. Gunbot is for real traders/users, not "pre-filled" settings.

That's what's great with Gunbot, we don't need the API Secret just the API Key. When sellers ask for your SECRET key, it's already a warning sign, it should stay secret and with Gunbot we don't need that to activate your license.

My concern also is that with the "pre-filled" settings. What if they decided to trade against the trend or something that would lead to your balance liquidation? I don't think I would be interested in testing this kind of bot.

If some of you guys are interested to try Gunbot, let me know, there are ongoing promos.

 Thanks for the advertisement. I am curious, how many of the people supporting these accusations and this flag are affiliated with Gunbot? It seems to me there could very well be some conflict of interest here in an attempt to stifle competition.

There's no need to do with anything with the competition, I'm just stating facts that are already out there. I was just reading some of the posts and come across this thread and saw that something that mattered to me, it's better to rightly out say that there is a big difference when it comes to functionality and usability of the two. One is claiming to have 480% returns and the other is a tool that could improve a traders strategy and automate it. What would you choose?

And I am just stating the fact that he is in direct competition with Gunbot, and some of the people here making accusations against him are affiliated with the project raising questions of conflict of interest and potential ulterior motives for this reputation burn fest. It has nothing to do with which is better. Honestly though I think taking this opportunity to pitch Gunbot is kind of tacky though.

I understand. I thought it would be useful to have another set of perspective when it comes to someone using a trading tool. I will just continue reading and see what will happen in the next few days with regards to this topic. Thanks for your honest opinion.

I try my best to be blunt and to the point. Some people react better than other to this approach. Thanks for not taking it personally, it is refreshing for a change.

Which bot you think is superior aside, reviewing Cryptosparks statements, do you see anything unrealistic or out of the ordinary for this specific business model?

You might want to chime in here as well: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=752

Nice advertisement....

Really though, there are not many differences between what CryptoSparks claims to be selling, and Gunbot.

Assuming this is not already the case, to get from what CryptoSparks is claiming to offer to Gunbot in terms of a trader being able to customize their settings, someone would need to set fixed values to variables whose values are determined from a second file that can be changed by the trader.

It may also be somewhat of a headache to get the bot to interact with a specific exchange's API, but this would not be a major project.

Creating something that works very similar to how Gunbot works is not terribly difficult, what is difficult is figuring out the best settings to use to maximize profitability. You can backtest specific settings, but correlation does not always mean causation, and to try to rule out correlation but not causation, you can run A/B tests for when the output is not close to the expected output based on the input, but you may not have enough data.

The whole hubbub about the API secret in your post is advertising hogwash. If you create the API so it can only trade, that is all it can do.

Your post is not unlike the type of advertising referenced in the OP.

I understand where you're coming from, and I have read some of the replies that you have on the associated flag you are talking about. I'm not decided whether to support it or oppose it, I know that CryptoSparks said a lot of things in his thread and mostly, it's pretty transparent on what you can do as a possible user.

1. You could choose to use his service and get possibly scammed (no actual evidence of someone getting scammed)
2. Trust the service and try it for yourself

For number 2, the most worst-case scenario is that you lose all the balance in your own trading account because of a wrong trade. Without enabling the withdraw part in your API Key, the balance can never be acquired. Just a wrong bet on the wrong trend (Betting a lot of money in LONG but it dumped) Losing everything.

The monthly fee is what concerns me too if you have profits, 20% goes to them but if you don't have and you lost a lot, they are not going to give anything back (no responsibility in losses). It's like meh, you lost the trade, it's your account. Better luck next time.

In a way they are saying it's a guarantee that you would earn BTC if you use this service. There is no guarantee in trading, ever. Unless you have the power to sway the market into your favor (thousands and thousands of BTC)

---

It's called secret for a reason. Anyway, if it's not intended for that (withdrawal) it cannot be. I just don't like the idea of having someone getting my API Secret too. It's like a security thing.

You can't actually do anything without the API secret, including trade...

If you would, please directly answer my question.

Uhm, I know. It's a pair. What I've said is that I don't want anyone having my API Secret. Only me. . For personal security as well.

---

Sorry for being explaining too much. The only unrealistic that CryptoSparks statements are the guaranteed profit. . The business type where it gets monthly profit percentage is somewhat used all around.

Thank you. Now would you estimate that this is an active attempt at deception, or simply a technically hyperbolic statement? As you mentioned before, there are no guarantees in trading by its nature, however is it not possible to design an algorithm that only makes trades when they are profitable, technically making that a "guaranteed" profitable trading strategy? For clarification of your expertise in this field, what is your relationship to the Gunbot project?  My intent is not to scrutinize you but to clarify with some one with knowledge of these systems in order to make it evident that there is nothing more suspicious about this users offerings that couldn't also be applied to any other similar business model. I very much appreciate you taking the time to give straight forward and direct answers without a bunch of meaningless bickering.

It all starts that way, the idea. The idea is concrete when it's all theoretical but promising something wouldn't be good for anyone. So in theory, it's going to work, yes, but in reality, it could be different. Being exaggerated on an idea would be either good or bad in a marketing standpoint. Hence that statement could be viewed differently by anyone.

I'm a user of Gunbot and a Reseller. The way that they are going about is being used by other business models, I look at it as a subscription model-based with "profits" as the main source of the income. As for the suspiciousness on the offerings, it's suspicious in a way but it could change if someone tried it. The risk there is that "trying" the service, you could lose money in that stage. As for their strategy, Market Maker is a great asset and could make you money with those rebates.

I don't really know what you want me to say here. I've laid out everything that I think could be useful.

Bear in mind, this is under the assumption that CryptoSparks has something that would eventually be profitable. If people are willing to scam for a few hundred dollars, there is no reason to assume they would not do the same for a few thousand. Do realize, however, that if the bot algorithm is static among the users, then you will have a lower profit margin when it comes to each individual user, so stating something as trite as guaranteeing an N% profit is not so guaranteed.

A few percentage points at high leverage is quite significant.

---

What I will say, however, is that the API secret only has an opt-in withdrawal feature, meaning that if CryptoSparks wanted to use it maliciously, he could not directly take the funds out of users' accounts.

I'm skeptical but I can't call it an outright scam.

---

P.S. Not affiliated with Gunbot.

I just wanted you to answer my questions honestly and directly, and you seem to be doing so, so thank you for that. I am specifically taking this step by step approach because I am establishing the fact that these accusations are based merely on suspicion alone, and nothing Cryptosparks has stated is either unrealistic or fraudulent as testified by a respected independent 3rd party with knowledge of the specific field in question. I am just trying to demonstrate the point that the accusations raised against him are completely arbitrary and could literally be applied to anyone offering a similar service, including Gunbot if the default trust cartel was so inclined to burn its creators reputation. I am not trying to impugn your character, in fact I think you have been very forthright and honest and I appreciate that. I would appreciate it if you chimed in on the flag thread because I think the people supporting the flag there need to hear this from you. Thanks for your time.



An honest TL;DR of this whole flag situation.

Being skeptical should not be the standard for using the trust system to destroy people's reputations. People are literally skeptical that the Earth is round, that doesn't make N.A.S.A. a scammer because people are skeptical of their model. This is my point, this entire accusation is completely subjective and largely based on ignorance of the industry in question.

After all the blatant lies, misinformation, refusal to address legitimate technical questions, and a demonstrable lack of his own technical understanding, would you send him your money?



His reputation was destroyed by his own doing and his own words, not our skepticism.  I was skeptical from the moment he posted in the lending board, bob123 was skeptical from the moment he offered to pay for promotions.   But it was days later that I tagged him, and bob123 flagged him.

I understand your concern about abuse of the flag system and the trust system in general, but cryptosparks is really a poor example of the cause for which you fight.  The guy is a shitposting twerp, without any technical knowledge, who's fishing for an opportunity.  I'll do my part to prevent him from obtaining one.

Knowing what I know about this shitbird, I'd feel like a real shitbird myself if I waited until he actually scammed someone before expressing my skepticism.  And in the end, does it really matter?  All I did was express an opinion, anyone who disagrees with it is free to ignore it.  In fact, cryptosparks has repeatedly claimed that this attention he's gotten has been beneficial, and people have flocked into his spider army as a result.

I don't have to trust him to know this is a counterproductive use of the trust system. Just as I would defend a Nazi's right to free speech, not because I agree with them, but because I understand protecting the institutional standard of free speech is more important than silencing a few loons who will discredit themselves by speaking anyway, I don't have to endorse users I am defending from trust system abuse. Guilty until proven innocent is not an acceptable standard.

As I just got done saying which you promptly ignored...


Well you and Bob123 are skeptical, I am very proud of you. Unfortunately that literally means nothing. See you say there are all kinds of lies and misinformation, but it simply is once again just your subjective interpretation at best, and disingenuous exaggeration to justify your overreach at worst. I simply haven't seen these claims substantiated regardless of how much skepticism you collectively have and how many times you insist he was lying. I am sorry, but your beliefs are not an appropriate standard to trash some ones reputation here. Neither is you not liking the way he talked to you. After all, why would anyone react negatively to a whole team of busybodies getting all up in their shit and demanding they prove their legitimacy simply just because you demand it and have the authority to punish them if they don't? It is not like Bitcoin attracts libertarian types who would object to such an arbitrary invasive standard now is it?

You aren't put on the default trust to be a gatekeeper and judge who is fit to have that chance. The trust system is there to warn users about users with SOLID OBJECTIVE FACTS indicating fraud, not your hunch. I know you all want to think of yourselves as super BitCops protecting the forum from evil doers with your cute little capes blowing in the wind as you rank up your reputation and notch down scams busted as you rank up like it is a video game, but literally all you are doing is driving out good users. You aren't stopping shit, at best you are delaying it, and at significant externalized cost to the community. I don't care how skeptical you are, you will NEVER, EVER prevent all instances of fraud, and even if you do some times, they will simply return seconds later with a new account and a revised attack plan while the legitimate users you burn with no repercussions to yourself will leave to never return at best, or say fuck this community for robbing me of my hard earned reputation and start robbing people because the system is only imposed upon them and not used to protect them at worst.

Your feelings of guilt over such a situation is a you problem. Stop offloading your own complexes on the general user base, because all you are telling me is you would rather burn random legitimate users mistakenly as it results in no personal costs over maybe possibly temporarily stopping scammers some times based on your skepticism alone. No, you didn't just express your opinion, you invoked your exceptional authority under the default trust to preemptively punish this user for your skepticism using flags and trust ratings. If this was just a thread discussing the issue I certainly wouldn't give a flying fuck, but that's not what this is. This is a mob chanting burn the witch and setting the pyre. In the end yes it does matter, just not to you, because you pay zero costs when your little inquisition mobs burn legitimate users, and who would even call you out on it even if you did right? No one wants to risk being next on the inquisition list risking their own hard earned reputations to challenge these cases with zero benefit to themselves now do they? Clearly what is important is you don't have to take a chance of feeling bad for other peoples lack of due diligence, even if doing so is a constant source of conflict, spite, and confusion that drives out good users right?

You and your new BitCop friends need to start observing a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of local laws before evoking the trust system. Unfortunately you think mere subjective suspicion is a good enough standard in the absence of this, and not even solid observable facts. Of course you guys never get it wrong, right? Even if you do who cares? You pay no cost and have no responsibility for your mistakes by being overzealous now do you? Even if you do you have your new popular kids club to all stand around and reassure each other of how great you all are for stopping scams regardless if they were scams or not right? Everyone knows what is popular is never wrong, and you are all ready to stand around to give each other handies and make sure no one is punished for their overzealous mistakes as well as coordinate to ostracize and keep off of the default trust anyone who does call out these mistakes right? 9 out of 10 doctors agree Marlborough is great for your health after all...

Jeez, buy a fucking mirror already.

You're pissed after getting kicked out of DT (again), I get it. But you'll get in eventually due to the way the system rewards narcissistic windbags like you. No need to melt down CH-style here.

Why respond to the litany of other very valid points when you can simply resort to your usual gatekeeper status and point your finger back at me. After all, all you have to do is keep supporting each other in your pattern of abuse and you will never have any accountability of your own, and you can happily repeatedly vomit up this same stale narrative that I am motivated only by being on the default trust and not your abuse of it.

If all I wanted was to be on the default trust, I would just get down on my knees and take my turn sucking the DT cartel off like the rest of you do to keep your positions instead of calling out the systemic abusive behavior of those who happen to be keeping myself and others who call you out, off of it. Funny how the narrative you want to sell is that all I want is to be on default trust, yet I make it my mission to consistently bring attention to the abusive community corroding behavior of the exact people coordinating to keep me off of it by calling out your punitive and arbitrary gatekeeping behavior.

Of course it wouldn't matter if I did just go away quietly and mind my own business, there is no path to redemption with you people. As a result I have zero motivation to give you all even a modicum of respect or cooperation, and certainly no motivation to tread lightly. I most certainly do deserve to be on the default trust, far more than most of you do for steamrolling over a bunch of random users, scammers and innocent users alike to maintain and elevate your own personal positions. Funny how the default trust never seems to have any criticism of the other default trust members unless they have enough of a group to push them out completely... almost as if all you care about is being on the default trust.

I never should have been removed from it the first time, but I would rather have the freedom to call out the malignant behavior of those on it than keeping silent by filling my mouth with the dicks of your fellow cartel members. You all have repeatedly demonstrated you collectively use your positions on the default trust as a tool to silence your critics, and anyone who dares to support them over and over again ensuring you send a message to any other would be complainants that they better keep their mouths shut or you'll end up like Tecshare, who we will forever coordinate to keep off of the default trust because... reasons. Do you care to actually respond to any of the completely valid points I made or are you just going to try to turn this into the usual personal snipe fest circus as is SOP? Right, you can't argue the points, because your position is indefensible, so you must resort to character attacks as always. Keep on slurping, you missed a drop.

I'm sorry, I'll fix that right away. No, I don't think that lying about a no-collateral loan being "risk free" is an acceptable way of doing business regardless of how many of your imaginary "valid points" you decorate it with. No wall of text is gonna change that.


That would imply that you possess a character of some sort but all I can think of is a different c-word when I see your whiny snotty rants.

Take a break, you're gonna stroke out.


http://loyce.club/active/

No loans are risk free. This standard you are applying here could literally be applied to any loan, period. If you or anyone else doesn't know that you are retarded and are absolutely going to be robbed eventually no matter how many users you burn at the stake. You decided Cryptosparks was guilty first and then went on a hunt to justify your position parallel construction style. He saw it as a risk free loan, you don't. That doesn't make him a liar or justify all of this bullshit you have falsified around his trading platform to try to shore up your extremely flimsy accusation. This discrepancy could have all been solved with a simple suggestion to him that you feel he shouldn't be calling it a risk free loan, but what fun is that? You want people to burn to get your fix feeling like you are ranking up in a game ad gotta buff those stats.

You are right about one thing though, I absolutely am a cunt. A cunt who isn't going anywhere and is going to continue calling out the destructive overzealous BitCop wannabe gatekeeping behavior until it changes. That's just my character, just as it is your character is to find people you can punch down at with impunity.

If you hadn't been so busy playing a freedom fighter you'd have seen many attempts to get CryptoSparks to tone down some of his lies but he prefers to double down and claim that his business is doing fine anyway. It seems that the only thing you're having a problem with is your own army of straw people.

 But you didn't just modestly ask did you? You started off with accusations and demands from the start. Shocking that he didn't respond to that, I don't know why anyone would react that way to demands and accusations from a busybody digital cop wannabe with very little knowledge of his business model.

Got it. The best defence strategy after getting caught lying is a tone complaint.

I just hope CryptoSparks doesn't sue us for PTSD after all that horrible immodest questioning he had to endure tied to a chair in the digital cop HQ basement.

Here's another bro to add to the mix:


This was that accounts first non-bounty related post. Its last post before this one was Dec 2018. If its not a purchased account used to promote the bot then its probably a taker from this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5173867.msg52105206#msg52105206).

Your entire argument is a tone complaint. You made a bunch of accusations, they turned out to go too far, now all you have left to rely on is your interpretation of what you say is a lie. No victims, No damage, Just a busybody gatekeeper burning people's reputations and making notches in your rifle congratulating yourself on ranking up while you and your BitCop buddies stand around and jerk each other off over how just you think you are. Who needs to be right when you can just be popular? That way there is no one left to challenge you.

What a shocking development, TECSHARE is making shit up again.

My argument is that CryptoSparks lied and continues to lie about a 5 BTC no-collateral loan being "risk free" and an API key acting as a Bitcoin private key. I don't see how that leads to any of the made up nonsense that you come up with in your every post but I'm sure you will post another rant on that, instead of attempting to prove that CryptoSparks' statements are factual.

Facts:

1) CryptoSparks asked for 5 bitcoins, offering no collateral.
2) CryptoSparks claimed he would create an API for the 5 bitcoins through his service.
3) CryptoSparks claimed this API would give the lender as much control over the 5 bitcoins as a private key.
4) CryptoSparks repeated this lie numerous times.

Tecshare, you are really starting to sound like cryptohunter here.  You're either unable or unwilling to see the difference between real facts and CryptoSpark's "truth."  

No matter how hard you'd like to paint this issue as an example of "lynch mob" justice, it ain't working.  The facts don't support your argument.

As I've gained influence on the trust system I've been very aware of my behavior and how it may be perceived.   I've taken great pains to be thorough and fair.  I pride myself in not jumping to conclusions, not only here as a DT member, but in my life as a whole.  In general I require irrefutable, concrete facts and indisputable evidence before I take action.

Am I perfect?  Far from it.  Did I allow this cunt posing as a quant to get under my skin?  Shamefully I concede, yes.  Did I tag him because he's an incessantly annoying twerp?  Emphatically; fuck no.  I would never do that.

I tagged him because he's a ignorant fuck, posing a superior genius, phishing for an opportunity to scam.  The facts I listed above are evidence of his deceitful claims, which can only stem from malicious intentions.  They are out in the open, observable by anyone who takes the time to research them.  If those facts aren't enough for you, then I'm sorry.  You must be far less scrutinous and suspicious than I.

I saw this video today and couldn't help but think of the current people ruling over the default trust

"double binds | narcissistic ‘no-win’ mind games"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnSiJOOdo30