Bitcoin Forum

Vote. I'm tired of this bullshit. BCX making BS claims and can't back it up. You deserve a SCAMMER tag.

It sure was an entertaining few days

Is there a "troll" tag ?

Scammer tag? No. Those are reserved for people who make trade deals and back out of them. I don't think (s)he should be punished for failing to 51% an alt chain.

Lying Fuck tag? Maybe.

No. Trolls get banned without a tag.

WE will let him speak for himself. You've done enough talking for yourself and DannyMaddox.

We will wait for Coblee to address this himself.

Scammer tag for what????? who has been scammed????



All I have seen so far is empty threats.......





"Ouch, Fucking chair I'll kill you"

Is there a "bullshit artist" tag ?

There should be troll points. BTCX would get some, then smoothie, Maria, any Atlas clone....

I grant me 2 toll points.
https://i.imgur.com/qQOGI.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/qQOGI.png

I couldn't agree more.I'm writing this with the new Dicate feature on my MBP with OSX 10.8 (I finally upgraded and I'm glad I did) so I can just talk and it'll write for me.How cool is that? :)

Should get a 'Failed Hacker' award.

No scammer tag, just boot him the fuck off for admitting to a DDoS.

I would also settle for the administration of a Frank's Red Hot Sauce enema.

BCX is not a scammer, because she did not seek to profit for her endeavor.  Plus she spend $400 on EC2 for our benefit.

BCX is a kind of a troll, but that's nothing unique and a part of what makes this place so damn entertaining.

BCX is a TRICKSTER.  She played a prank on us, but it was for our own good.  We learned many lessons.


BCX successfully discouraged the DDOS attacks plaguing LTC pools.  She was not the cause of them, but did foment a solution.

I couldn't have done it better myself, so hats off to her!

Let's promote her to moderator, so she can better humiliate the nasty rage machines demanding "zoh meh goad DOCKS KNAU!!!1."

https://i.imgur.com/dc0xk.jpg

That makes too much sense.  Why pay attention to so-called 'logic' and supposed 'definitions' when the important thing is that MY FEELINGS HAVE BEEN HURT!!!

You need to stop being so rational and engage in my ridiculous form of emotional claptrap.

From now on the definition of SCAMMER = anyone who does something I dislike, regardless of whether an actual scam is involved or not.

It's just like my special definition of SPAM = any content I dislike, whether it has anything to do with unsolicited commercial email or not.

I already answered your question:


Agree or disagree?

You sure do spend a lot of energy, exclaiming your lack of fuck giving, for someone that spends a lot of energy exclaiming their lack of fuck giving.

I give a fuck because I'd like to use LTC pools without them being DDOSd.

I give a fuck because I'd like to use LTC transactions without them being forked with a 51% attack.

Copied from other thread...

I actually agree with this scammer idea.  Ordinarily, I would think that calling someone a scammer just because they made a threat and didn't follow through is a pretty ridiculous idea.  But, this was quite different.

I forget which moderator said it, but isn't it possible to be labeled a 'scammer' because you say things like "I traded with person x' when that didn't actually happen, especially when person y then trades with person x and loses money because they are under the impression that person x is legitimate?  The point is, a case like that has financial consequences.  BitcoinEXpress's little stunt also had financial consequences.

For example, I sold about 1300-1600 LTC at .005 BTC when I otherwise was planning on holding.  Why did I sell?  Well, just in case -- duh.  I was on vacation and I really didn't want to deal with the stress of watching over the markets the whole time.  In other words, BitcoinEXpress's little stunt had financial consequences on me personally.

There's a reason why it's illegal in some countries to do things like threaten to sue and then not follow through on it, make threats period, etc., and in this case I think that making a threat to attack an entire currency deserves punishment as it alters the nature of the way investors invest and the way that various pools and exchanges operate (e.g. BTC-e shut down LTC deposits/withdrawals for a little while). 

To make a similar analogy, let's say an announcement was made that terrorists were going to attack the NYSE and that this was made aware to the public -- except the head of the NYSE was in on it the whole time and didn't let anybody know, neither investors nor businesses.  Do you have any idea how pissed investors would be?  It would be talked about in the news for years.

I agree.  Mark BitcoinEXpress as a scammer and/or ban the fuck. 

This thread is about the question of whether or not BCX Should get a SCAMMER tag?

I didn't realize that when I voted NO, BCX Should NOT get a SCAMMER tag

I didn't realize that when I explained why I voted NO, BCX Should NOT get a SCAMMER tag.

Thanks for keeping us on topic, sometimes I tend to digress and threadjack!

The red text was especially helpful, and your amateur pedantry quite impressive.

Sold all my 5000ltc and wont be looking back to buying any.

The wasted time alone is worth a fag tag.

This has "unethical market manipulation" written all over, How is this not a scam ?

Judging how your signature indicates you were a victim of a scam IMO, you sure claim to think you know how to spot a scam huh? Good job man.

I hope you get your BTC back...I sincerely do.

Here's something else I think the moderators should consider.

Failing to take any kind of action against BitcoinEXpress suggests that his action (the threat to attack LTC) is justified and that anybody else in the community can be allowed to do the same thing.

Keep in mind, although no actual 51% attack occurred, the main problem here was communication.  The moderators do have the right to moderate the level/type of communication on these forums, and allowing this type of communication can be extremely harmful to the monetary investments of the forum's members.

Due to this, I've changed my stance -- BitcoinEXpress does not deserve a scammer tag; as he points out, he did not fail to provide a good or service promised to someone else in exchange for payment, and he also claims he did not trade any LTC during his little stunt.

BitcoinEXpress deserves to be banned, promptly.  I ask the moderators to set the example right here and now to send a message to all potential members who wish to suddenly claim that they are going to commit a 51% attack or any other action in an attempt to destroy a cryptocurrency for their own motives.

I wish.

I know, duly noted.

But actually, no.  I don't think LukeJr. should be banned too.  If you actually have the hash power, you are free to use it however you want.  That is not a scam, it's not deceitful;  yes, it's greedy, and I think LukeJr. is a dick for ruining someone else's project, but it's not a gross misuse of communication (which is what moderators are for anyway).

I'm well aware that this is a slippery slope and is even downright unfair.  For example, what if someone says "I'm going to commit a 51% attack, be ready!" and then they actually do it?  Wouldn't that be advantageous for people to know that it's coming ahead of time?  Yes, yes it would.

But it's ironic.  I'm almost more pissed (I don't really ever get pissed, but that's besides the point) that BCX said he was going to 51% attack it and didn't than if he successfully had attacked it.  If you're going to do something, then fucking do it.  But don't cry "fire!" if there's no fire.

There are going to be people who try to 51% attack things.  That's just how it is.  But moderators can't and aren't supposed to moderate that.  They're supposed to moderate forum communication.  BCX grossly abused his communication privileges on this forum and he should be banned.  That's what I think.

The thing that I dont understand is why BCX didnt just make a post warning people about the risk of a 51% attack and what to do about it. It may have averted the attack without needing to go the drama queen route. Maybe they just like the attention  :)

I vote scammer labeled.

One thing that would be worth doing is silencing BCX.

They have the power to disable BCX's ability to post and PM.

Let him be a forum member but ban him from posting anything further.

Exactly, attention is a scarce recourses these days.

Baning him without trial is the only reasonable move to solve this kind of behavior.

Ignoring him does no good since too many of his post have malicious intent.

Gentlemen. I am a firm believer in the fact that you are clearly underestimating his ability to activate one of his other personalities.

Sure, you can BAN BitcoinEXpress.....but what about DannyMaddox, Laney and Kaylee Wu ?

....Calgon, take me away.....

Unfortunately BCX is a sad amateur hacker trying to get a name for himself. His attack exploded in his face, humiliating himself.

He's got a name for himself, but not for the reasons he wanted.

I do not agree with you here, No one was scammed..... If you sold whatever LTC because of shit talk, well that's your own fault...


If some moron starts blabbing something similar about bitcoin, MOST would laugh it off....


"IMO"

Nope, didn't sell because of the threat. Obviously others might have, and the person used its advantages over that, for that should be scammer tagged anyhow as it has been explained a couple times around here.

I had put my miners at solo as a precaution and ate up the lies and lost out because this person made such threats.

Someone put it in these laymen terms as it does make sense. Not exact terms but something like it. Cannot recall exactly, but something like so.

"I put a gun to your head and threat to shoot you, but it is for your own good, but, I am gonna remove my pointed gun from being pointed at your head and not shoot you, I don't think it was wrong, but, it was for your own good, it is ok for me to point guns at ppl's head and threat to shoot them" Which in this case, IT has done so many times, making forwarding threats with attacking and causing harm. All I know of is, threats made against BTC and LTC and unproving facts that he compromised many pools, and we all know IT ddos'd the pools or had a hand in it. I know nothing of SC, so I cannot make a statement on SC's stuff. And I might add, IT ddos'd the bitcointalk.org forums, and admitted to it.

This entire situation is beyond unethical. And to allow such a thing is really, truly, really sad. To watch this person walk up in here and let IT do the things it have done and push ppl around like IT has done.

You know what this feels like, the big company's holding the govt by the balls. I think, bitcointalk.org is scarred to scammer tag this person in resulting of ddos'ing of the forums. In which, admins could bring forth criminal charges towards the individual/individuals.

being unethical is not illegal, being a big mouth is not illegal... Pointing a gun sure is.




People need to take this sort of talk with a grain of salt. ( Did I say that right?)


:D Have a great Sunday Ya'll :) (I wish I was a US southerner)

You need to type less giant red text and read more posts.

I'll sum them up for you:
It turns out that BCX is just smoke and mirrors. He is not some uberhacker. He is a marketing dude from an little startup company that owns a few video cards. You can safely ignore him.

Little late on the party? lol. I will not ignore a scammer that is roaming around bitcointalk.org.

I swear, some guy could walk in off the street and claim to attack LTC and you would dump your coins.
Then you would probably donate to his Kickstarter project to found a new cryptocurrency based on red pixels.

Alcoholics are not addicted to alcohol. They are the victims of bartenders!

Sock puppet for BCX? I can hear the sucking from here.

Omg i was right, what a coincidence.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96169.msg1061071#msg1061071

No surprise you lost money. Perhaps if you had read my posts when the "attack" was first announced, you would have acted differently. I was trying to make the case that there was no reason to get excited. People said I was nuts because I did not believe the sky was falling.

Now you think I am a BCX sockpuppet because some random person on the internet said so. I suppose that is what is to be expected when one disagrees with a herd of speculators.

Quite frankly, I said what I said, and got curious of what you have been posting, checked out your last posts and so happened to come across that link. That's why I double posted inline "omg, i was right, what a coincidence".

I didn't lose any money. I lost the chance to gain money though. And I suppose with what ever little HR i have, I did indeed, helped protect against a false attack. Not my fault that I lost the chance to gain some LTC when now known scammers/con-artists are running around ramped here at bitcointalk.org. Lesson learned, next time I will take my first instincts and ignore it.

So, you read what one other person said about me yesterday but did not read what I posted about the "attack" when it was announced. Well done.
I suppose I have no right to expect fair treatment from you. This is the internet after all.

P.S.There was some panic selling by people believing the wrong thing. You cannot predict to what extent people will be stupid, you can only predict that some will be stupid. You say you did not sell your LTC, then why are you mad? When you saw the price drop, you could have bought. For you it does not matter why it dropped, the opportunity was there and you could have taken advantage of it.

I really don't understand your fury.
The LTC price is back to where it was.
LTC demonstrated it can mitigate the threat of a 51% attack.
There is one less person on the internet pretending to be something they are not.
Seems like win win to me.

It was a big coincidence like I said.

Let me clear this up a bit for you.

Someone like bitlane, nine thousand khash/s can go solo, earn and protect the net. While others like myself with little hash power took a dive for four days protecting the net, earned one block = 50 ltc, at the time of current difficulty, I would have made 500 LTC in four days at a pool, I guess I was so selfish for putting my miners on solo. In the end, I sacrificed the four days of mining =  500 LTC to help protect against the attack that became a farce. The small time miners that helped solo, took a major dive over a falsified threat.

It's not fury, if you don't care so much why are you in this thread? I am curious. Oh yea, sock puppet, I forgot.

If you are not furious, then why do you follow BCX around and respond to every one of his posts with 72pt red font capital letters that say "SCAMMER"? That is textbook internet rage.

You went solo mining? Why doesn't LTC have p2pool? If it does have p2pool support, why didn't you use that? You would have lost nothing.

You read a post that said I was a sock puppet and you cannot change your mind. Anything I post that disagrees with what you wrote you presume that because k9quaint wrote it that it is from BCX. You are not actually capable of internalizing the content of my posts. Psy made that same mistake, and that is why he doesn't like me. I criticized SoiledCoin not long after BCX criticized SoiledCoin. Psy supported SoiledCoin just because BCX disliked it (he claims he only rooted for SoiledCoin to succeed because it would mean BCX failed, I don't really care what his motives were). I pointed out that he was supporting a scam just because he didn't like BCX. His pathological rage against BCX blinded him, just like yours is doing now.

At this point, if BCX said 2+2=4 you two would be out burning math teachers at the stake for scamming people. You would probably come after me too because I would point out that 2 plus 2 did actually equal 4.

P.S. I am here because there is someone wrong somewhere on the internet! /swirls cape

Don't you see, IT is a scammer? I am just pointing out to all that IT is a scammer. :)

Same reasoning as one of the staff, paraipan had pin pointed out a scammer. No one knew why, but it was a gut feeling and paraipan came out correct about the scammer. I'm just doing the same. I have a gut feeling about IT.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91985.msg1056972#msg1056972

Here is for the next time you ask, ok?

Answer:
Don't you see, IT is a scammer? I am just pointing out to all that IT is a scammer. :)


Oh, you thought about it, didn't you? Here it is again.
Answer:
Don't you see, IT is a scammer? I am just pointing out to all that IT is a scammer. :)

Edit:
I have a feeling that you are a sock puppet.

I know that all you are doing is going on your gut feel. I can't change what is in your gut about me because you refuse to read my posts.
The content in my posts stands on it's own through logic and reason. If you need citations of evidence, ask for them and I will provide them. You will not ask for them because you cannot understand what I type. Thus you will always go on feeling that I am a sock puppet because you read a post once that said I was. That is why I don't have any sympathy for you. Had you listened to reason, you could laugh this whole thing off or even profited from it. Instead, you are still listening to your gut and raging about a person on the internet who lied to you.  ???

What are you talking about now? What posts are you talking about?

You go talking about bartenders or something to jibberish. Are you on a strong type of drug or something?

I posted #45 - Read #45 in this thread.
I read your last posts link under your profile. To see the same jibberish like above.
I came across post #95 from "Re: A Message to the Litecoin Group From Danny Maddox in San Francisco"
I made post #46, replying with what a coincidence, cuz shit, that was. Talk about hilarious.

Your jibberish above is jibberish. I have no idea what you're on about, my only guess is that you are eating some type of hallucinogen?

I know right?  These people are acting in way that is ridiculous and deserves ridicule.

Let's turn their own twisted logic on them and conclude that

1)  pekv2 is a sockpuppet for Psy, because they both refuse to entertain the notion that BCX's actions have merits and those seeing them are not merely her posting under a different name.

2) pekv2 should get a STALKER tag, for following BCX around and hurling Big Scary Red Letters at her.

3) pekv2 needs to buy a thesaurus and stop overusing the label 'jibberish' as if it was an actual refutation of what was said to him.

What? What are you talking about? Whats all this jibberish above?

Any who, BitcoinExpress needs a scammer tag.

Edit:
The vote shows.

+100

Bitcoinexpress needs a Scammer tag

My posts are talking about how you fail to understand my posts. See the irony? I explain, you fail to understand. English is probably not your first language (or your second for that matter) but I have patience.

The posts I told you to read were from when the attack was announced.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=94912.msg1051423#msg1051423
"But is your "investment" worth anything if it turns out there is a serious flaw (hypothetical) that renders LTC nonviable? If there is a flaw in the core protocol of LTC, wasn't the damage "done" by the creators of LTC? In that case BTCXpress is just the messenger. IMHO cryptocurrencies should be proof against the whims of one Apple employee."
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=94912.msg1053598#msg1053598
"Either Litecoin survives the attack, in which case it is a true cryptocurrency that can withstand the whims of a single Apple employee. It may be worth continued investment. Or Litecoin succumbs to the attack, in which case it was never a true cryptocurrency since it could not withstand a single person's attempts to compromise it. It survived only on the "greater fool" theory. Either way, the die was cast many moons ago when Litecoin was designed and implemented. All we are watching is the resolution. "
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=95398.msg1054657#msg1054657
"On the other hand, is Litecoin really a currency if one female Apple employee can destroy it? Apple has thousands of female employees, how can you possibly hope to keep them all happy? If Litecoin cannot be harmed by one female Apple employee, then it might be a currency.
Either way what is all the fuss about? Either Litecoin isn't worth saving or it doesn't need to be saved."

My points delt with two possible outcomes:
A) Litecoin will succumb to a 51% attack by a single person with limited means and thus be revealed to be a poor investment.
B) Litecoin survives in which case you do not need to worry about the 51% attack.

If A turns out to be true, why is everyone upset about losing what has been revealed as a very poor place to store your wealth?
If B turns out to be true, why is everyone upset since Litecoin emerged unharmed?

The damage done by this attack was done on this forum. People believed the hype instead of looking at the situation logically. Speculators took fright, as they are prone to do. Supporters of litecoin did not need to lose any time mining or any sleep over this. Speculators had reason to be very worried and excited. So, were you a supporter or speculator?

See that's the thing, I don't give a hoot, when/why/where you were attacked. That's the thing, I just don't care, I didn't fail anything, ask me if I care.You sir are not interesting. Go troll else where. You're going off topic pulling me off topic. gtfo...

I ended up panic selling all my Litecoins @ ~0.005 because of this BCX guy. Now I'm buying them back @ ~0.007. LOL.

I wouldn't be surprised if he planned the whole thing so he could pick up a shitload of LTC on the cheap.

Yes, I think because of this I lost money and he should get a scammer tag (for scamming us into thinking there would be a successful attack on LTC).

I still think banned, but if not, scammer.