Bitcoin Forum

I have noticed that although promoting a ponzi in the investor based games may be allowed by default trust members as the promotion is limited to people who fairly understand the risks of investing.
But what about accounts that promote it in their signature and essentially promise a fake return to people who may not understand yet how ponzis work?
I have heard about cloudminig's example where dserrano5 was about to be given negative trust for such behavious but was probably forgiven by most people, but should the other people be allowed to promote it?

Voted yes, down with the ponzis.

Topic title and question title are asking two different things...

How so? I think they are essentially the same thing, correct me if I am wrong

Let's say I am very anti-ponzi.

Should people who promote ponzis in their signature be given a negative trust?  YES
Should ponzis be allowed to be advertised in signatures?  NO

Realized my mistake, edited the poll accordingly.

It's a quite hard question, and in my opinion in this case we can count on the Criminal Code. In my country there is no criminal responsibility for information distribution of some pyramid investment scheme or other financials bubbles. So I think people who promote ponzis in their signature can also be cheated so they should't be given a negative trust.

Well it doesnt work the same way in bitcointalk. Negative trust "definition" is : You believe the person is a scammer or you highly believe he is going to scam. But you are free to have your opinion

What is the definition of a ponzi in this case?
Do cloudmining sites count? What about some shady gambling sites? Or are we just talking about the obvious 'Double your coins in a day' ponzis?

Official definition is: A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization, pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors, rather than from profit earned by the operator. Operators of Ponzi schemes usually entice new investors by offering higher returns than other investments, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent.
So I think cloudmining without any proof of their mining equipment should be included in the same category as ponzis, gambling sites don't count as "shady" is the farthest you can go, but ponzis you can be sure they'll end up as scam.

Thanks for the thread.



AFAIK (not the actual law of your country obviously) this ruling only applies if someone does not know they are promoting a ponzi. If you have a ref code for a ponzi scheme in your signature you know its a ponzi. You are fully aware that you need to lure people into the scheme for you to benefit from their loss. I am not talking about cloud mining services that might turn out to be ponzis.


IMHO this is the important question to ask. After giving it some though[1] I would certainly draw the line where someone guarantees a return that can not be reasonably done without ripping someone off or promisses high free bonuses. A clear example would be this signature[2]:


It should be obvious that these are ponzi schemes and that they not be sustainable, on the other hand it should also be obvious that you should not give a loan without collateral to a newbie.

[1] I asked Patejl to make this thread so I had an hour or so to think about it.
[2] URL and names changed.

Definitely yes, a lot of them have neg trust by promoting ponzies but its amusing how people defend it with things like: "people know its a ponzi" or "it's an honest ponzi" like please wtf is going, we allow scams because they tell us are scams

in this case I think you should notice this person that he advertising scam, and explain him his responsibilities. And only after conversations and explanation you could give him a negative trust.

When it comes to questions about how to use the trust system, I always try to assume the position of a complete newb.
Does my trust rating effectively warn the newb in a way that prevents him from falling for a scam?

I don't think that a newb will make a direct connection between the trust rating of a member and his signature, so the answer to the question above in this case will most likely be no. If there were a way to somehow flag the signature itself as untrustworthy, I'd totally do that.

On the other hand, if I started to deal out negative trust ratings towards members who display signatures of ponzis, more people would take more care about which signature campaigns they partake in. Which could eventually lead to the point where "bad" signature campaigns will no longer be able to find takers.
I would harm a lot of members by doing that, though.
For me, this seems to be too much damage for too little of an effect.

The real reason why Investor-based games board was made was to move all those ponzis into it, wait.. wait.. and then BAN! ;D

If anyone wanted an example of someone doing the things I have written in OP that is promoting ponzi in their signature here is an example.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=492957

I don't think they really deserve the negative trust. Neutral would be more reasonable. Most people would be quite motivated to put on a signature if the payment is high. If they are promoting ponzi, it would potentially cause more people to become victims. Some ponzis are actually quite hard to see through, anything promising high returns is potentially a ponzi while cloudmining contracts are harder to see through. Unless it is in escrow, most people would be quite reluctant to join though.

Actually the signature campaigns should be banned rather than those who promote it. The people who promote it do so as they get paid but why should these companies be set free and allowed to advertise on the forum? When the websites aren't promoted here and they aren't allowed to have a campaign, there will be no need to worry about. The people who promote it aren't scamming anyone and giving them a negative trust doesn't sound logical IMHO. Those people definitely are doing an unethical thing but aren't scammers.

Although many people who promote it using their signatures are actually the owners of the site.

Ponzis are considered as gambling by this community. (Check the Gambling section: and you can see the ponzi section under it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=56.0 )

And you're wearing a gambling signature. Since gambling is illegal in the most of the world, You should get neg trust too by your logic.

You've chance to win money on ponzis (if you get in early.) You've chance to win money on dice sites etc.

So I've voted no. Also; "Caveat Emptor" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveat_emptor

That's a poor example, some twobit semi-game based on "last one in gets nothing". Kids play them they know the rules, they're harmless (as harmless as any gambling).

The Ponzis that you should be concerned about, if your motivation is to stop highly motivated criminals stealing from our naive young noobs (as opposed to just being a busybody) are shit like the one in my signature, the ones that totally maintain that they are legit, deal in millions and destroy lives.

Another example of this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1173398.0

The owners of the site should definitely get a negative rating as they are obvious scammers.

No.you cant hold members responsible for promoting ponzi or anything which later turned out to be a scam unless there is a solid evidence to prove that the said member was aware that it was a scam

The ponzi do come out as scam, or you think ponzis are going to pay the "doubling costs" from their own pocket, and members are fully aware that ponzis do end up as scam.

Winspiral isn't a scammer nor his website is a scam website. I know him since he was a member on another forum and he asks to invest cents (not even dollars). We shouldn't assume ALL investment websites as scam websites.

Saw his site and got to know its a revenue sharing site, although the promised return seems a bit fishy, but now he seems to be accepting over 0.001 so not at cents. Have a look at his sig if you wanna know what I'm talking about

Yes I can.
If I think that someone is deliberately turning a blind eye to compelling circumstantial evidence that the business that they endorse by carrying a signature is a scam, simply so that they can collect money from it, then I will consider giving them negative trust on the basis that anyone that prizes money over ethics is a potential scammer.

Gambling is not illegal in most of the world tho and the investor based section is there tu gather all ponzi scams in one place, it wasnt made to help ponzi promoters but rather to gather all scams in one place, people that participate in them, almost everyone, knows what a ponzi is and what risks he is assuming.

If you are using a paid signature then you are promoting that business. If you are promoting a scam then yes you are part of the problem and deserve the negative trust.

"You invest minimum 0.001BTC
This system is not a ponzi because you will get back your investment.
If you invest less than 0.001BTC it is a donation."


I used to be a member of his earlier scheme where he had no investment required and he used to offer LOW returns via Liberty Reserve which then shut down and he lost all his shares.

If you look at his claims, they seem fishy but not unimaginable. 0.001 BTC is nothing much and one can definitely give it a try. He has said it's not a PONZI and hence I don't think he deserves a negative trust (although now he has got one :(). I'm just saying this as he was a trusted member of the other forum.

No, ponzis got their own section because some people consider it a form of gambling and it was too much to handle for the gambling section.


Lets not get into the "a ponzi is not provably fair" discussion again, shall we?


Check the wording of the signature. I would not consider "this is a startup, invest pl0x" as harmless and assume that the risks are known. The site does not even explain how the ponzi is supposed to work and they in fact flat out deny to be a ponzi. Oddly "this is not a ponzi" is a typical sign of a ponzi.


I wish it would be that easy.


Their "proof of payment" is fake. Please explain to me how its not a scam or at least how they work.


Like any scammer is gonna state that they are scamming their users.

Not by me they're not.
You must draw a distinction between the "last one in loses" games that people knowingly play in the "Investor Games" section, and deliberately misleading schemes run by professional thieves masquerading as legit investment opportunities.

A Ponzi scheme involves deceit aimed at swindling money out of investors. Knowingly promoting one deserves red trust.
A Ponzi game is gambling. Why warn someone off if they are happy with the (lack of) rules?

I could only find this: http://www.moneymakergroup.com/Bitcoinwinspiralnet-B-t499992.html

I dint find their proof of payment nor I am an investor of his/her website. I just know him from EMS forum that I was a part of.

Source: http://bitcoin.winspiral.net/


TX to/"from" that address on the given date:

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/d2257878f06daec86f1a90b7520fb4b3fd0fc5cca37f13479bb448d16fa0b40f
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/4e35d016a9a2315d12b05e130cda6348702fd63bc8915899c7861292e47491ad
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/be0f68f82d5d45eec9cc2892a0b8e75f84f081559063567a4e3c2f06e8b97feb

None of the given amounts match any of the inputs or outputs of any of the transactions. The site also does not explain how they work, but only states:


as well as:

From the forum link as "explanation":


I marked the typical ponzi bullshit for your concenience.

The rest is copy pasta from bitcoin.org.

https://istdasliberaloderkanndasweg.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/shut-up-and-take-my-money.jpg

Dont be gullible just because you think you know someone.

thanks
I have forgotten who you are...perhaps had you an other nickname...

The only bad thing in this story is that an innocent has now negative trust points for a wrong thing.

I keep up saying loudly that my system is not a ponzi,unfortunately i cannot prove it.
In the other hand you cannot prove that it is a ponzi.
You prefer give negative points to an innocent without proof than letting a probably scammer steal people.
Without knowing that the guilty are you...Among you and me...I'm right and you are wrong.
Of course for you negative points for an innocent is not a shame...
You believe that you have done your duty.

I keep up saying that it is not a ponzi and that after 100 days all will be given back with profit.
Have a nice day...
and thanks again "erikalui" for your trust.

I hate to derail this thread as neither you personally nor your "start up" are the topic here, you are just an example. I will however take the time and answer to your post. If you want argue this further you should create a topic in the appropriate section.


Can you explain it? Can you explain why the information you present on your site do not match the data on the blockchain?


Giving a negative rating in hindsight is the only way to have proof of a scam. Thus it could never prevent a possible scam. Consider it my personal - slightly amplified - opinion based on the above findings. I encourage you to answer to what I found and explain it.


I was put in a positions where my warnings matter more than that of others. I have never asked for it, nor worked towards it. I will still make the best of it. If thats what you consider "my duty", yes.


How?


You too.

Please go on my topic if you wand discuss about.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171677.msg12445194#msg12445194

Will neg trust stop others from investing in ponzis?

A better question is: should BitcoinTalk be investigated for allowing ponzi schemes and rip-off artists to solicit their scams.  I cannot count the number of times I've been ripped off by scams I found here while at the same time I get censored or moderated when complaining or commenting about my plight.  I find myself constantly having to censor what I am saying just so I don't attract the attention of a moderator who has an invested interest in the scams that take place here.  Now watch this get deleted!

Moderators very rarely remove posts as long as they are not spam or referral. You were probably posting in a self-moderated thread, where any posts can be deleted by the OP of the thread.

I voted no.

I'm all for distrusting ponzi owners, but not the many many peons that promote them. 

I voted no as well. There are many desperate people who will advertise anything in their signature for bitcoins, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are affiliated for that site. They just want the money; nothing more, nothing less. They could be perfectly trustworthy people.

But how you can determine whenever he/she is not involve the ponzi site at all based on your statement " but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are affiliated for that site. " ?

and what about my negative points for a supposed ponzi link in my signature?
I have so far 2 negative points about my signature
and 1 positive point for ma management about the site linked in my sigature.

i'm negative pointed from 2 people who suppose that I have a ponzi link in my signature.
A,d what can I do?
the 2 people wha have me negatively pointed are now proud as Oscar thinking they have done their duty...
But in reality they have made a mistake.
And now...all my posts are add with negative points for something who is not a ponzi.

Do you believe that wrong accusation will avoid real ponzi pactice?
No in the contrary...
I will be the living example that one cannot trust to the "trust point system"

Each time we will see negative points...we can now say:
trust system is not trustable...we have the poof with winspiral the webmaster who had for over 20 years always been honest.

It is si easy to believe and to give negative points for supposed "things"
I hope that you will not be negative pointed for wrong reason.
i could now run to my negative pointers...and do the same..;But I will not because i will not participe to a trust system who is not fair if we can vote with false arguments.
I can so far look me in a mirror...

Remove the ponzi link  from your signature?

You are stating it's risk free - I might leave you negative trust for lying like that.

Post offtopic reply, wonders why post gets deleted.


I got the following PM this morning. I dont think I have left a negative rating on a peon yet. The ratings should not be left lightly though. Yet, how to detect a peon? Write a PM first?

How can i remove a ponzi link from my signature if no ponzi link is in my signature?

He said only 2 people suppose that the link is ponzi it is not proved.Why should we remove links on others supposition? there must be a solid proof

If they are that desperate for money that they will promote something which they know is probably a scam just for "..the money, nothing more, nothing less", then there is the likelihood that that desperation will make them likely to scam if given the opportunity to do so, hence they should not be trusted.

So because he is not affiliated with the site is ok to advertise any kind of scam to make money with it??? In my books that means you are a scammer as well, its like saying someone who witnesses a rape and does nothing is innocent

Technically, someone who witnesses a rape and does nothing IS innocent.   :-\

You can't force morality on people.  You can't make people believe what you believe.

Some people on this planet only look out for themselves.

It's depend in what country you are! In Russian law if you are witnesses a crime as rape and didn't help you are guilty.    
Article 125 the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

Sure, but that doesn't mean I should trust them.

Greed is....
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQhpBJJyM3xYs0_IQMhg0Rtkiub3Ol3hKJ0bn9u75qmLv1VPsqyTw

perfect reasonable and i'll follow that advice.

i'd love to have a way to trust-rate sigs and/or ads here ;)

same is true for germany.
at least you have to call the police

As other people said in many countries you are guilty if you do nothing, it´s not about morality only, my point stands, someone who knowingly promotes a scam or a scam scheme is a scammer as well

By your logic; "forum administrators let those scams promoted on forum" then they're scammers too.
They have power to stop/delete/ban ponzi,hyip topics . But they don't, so they're scammer!

As I said earlier; "caveat emptor".

Witnessing a crime and not reporting is a in fact crime in most of Europe. I can't speak of the USA as I'm not even sure what the equivalent term in English since I'm a non-native speaker.

That is ridiculous.Who would come forward in court as eye witness if he would fear of being persecuted for witnessing the crime? One would rather keep mum than help in investigation

the point is to stop the crime from happening (in case of rape: stop the rapist asap). IMHO thats more important than the investigation afterwards.

AFAIK american law is much about revenge. german /european law is more about finding ways to not make such things happen again.

ahem

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=failing+to+report+crime&tbm=nws

I don't know why but I feel as if the thread is getting a bit derailed.
I see many people voted no for negative trust but I still don't think I have seen a strong argument as to why.

i voted no, mostly ponzi signatures is just a paid one and some users only want to earn and not really promote the site in their sig

Well, I think that occasional negative ratings can be ok. If for example someone is trying to deceive people into thinking that a HYIP/PONZI/PYRAMID is an actual investment opportunity without disclosing risks then in my opinion he's doing something very controversial. Such schemes benefit early 'investors' which the advertiser is likely one of them, as well as providing heavy referral rewards. It's very likely that any successful promotion will lead to people losing money.

As to that argument I have two counter-arguments:
1) There are lots of signature campaigns so there is not really a necessity for joining a signature camp for a ponzi site.
2) Running for a signature campaign that you know is scam , and still turning a blind eye as to what effects it may have is a shady behaviour.
Although I do agree signature participants should be given a chance before they should be given a negative feedback for promoting a scam.

I have got 2 negative trust points for a link in my signature.
What can I do,
nothing...the voters have the last word even if they are wrong.
because this 2 negative trust points i have lost a sponsor.
What can i do?
Nothing.
Remove my link?
So if a link does not please  in a signature it need just to give negative trust points?
Do you think this is a fair system?
What would you say If I and severals of my friends would give you negative trust points for a wrong reason?
Because with my negative trust points you not only hurt me,but as well all winspiral's members who can lose money for a lying.

be carefull with your trust vote...it can fast be  explosive...
yes if you vote negative because you suppose that the member coulf eventually be a scammer...then you play with the fire and you can burn yourself.

Everyone is free to have his or her opinion, and you giving me 1k+ negative wouldn't affect my trust rating.
What you can do is stop running a ponzi and make shorena reconsider his negative feedback.

but it is NOT a SPONZI

Yet, you are unable to explain to me how it is not. All you came up with - before you asked me to leave your thread - is that you get ad revenue. You still have not explained why you need investors for ad revenue and why you do not inform your possible investors in advance of your business.

I am open for arguments, but your sob story will not help you.

@winspiral- If you do want to "sob" about your negative trust try convincing shorena through PMs or make a thread in meta.

You guys are derailing the thread but you can always be an anonymous eye witness and yes moderators that do not remove those ponzi scams dont do it because they are told not to, it is not the same

Of course, ponzis and their advertisements aren't against the rules here or anything but leaving trust ratings freely is also not against the rules. If the single person in default trust that left you negative thinks advertising ponsis while not disclosing what they actually are is immoral they he's free to accuse you. While you probably didn't scam someone directly, the most responsible thing to do while advertising something would be to warn people that are potentially interested on what they could be getting into.

For me it is clear:
I will time let prove that it's not a ponzi and that i'm not a scammer...
Anyway one cannot do something against...
I cannot prove that my system is not a ponzi
and i cannot prove that i will not be a scammer in the future.
Can someone prove that he will never be a scammer?
Basta...

If you can actually prove that this is not a ponzi (or scheme of similar likelihood) then I'm sure shorena would remove the rating and you'd stop being looked down upon. Time alone won't help a lot though, there have been scams running for a very long time.

this is very hard to decide.

from one side, bitcoin is about freedom and this forum is almost without moderation (at least, compare to other forums on web), in other hand, one stupid link may literally ruin people lifes these days..

anyway yes, people promoting OBVIOUS ponzis should be marked red and not just by users..

I tried...but shorena does not understand my English.
I wish only one thing..;that such thing does not happen to other forum members.
My purpose is programming systems,making money and dispatching it to my members...without risk.
if someone does see in this a ponzi sheme i cannot avoid it.
In my eyes with a ponsi sheme you have ever a loser...
Explain me how a system without losers can be a ponzi?
if asking satoshi means ponzi...then all no free systems are ponzi.
All sites are then certainly ponzi if you send satoshi somewhere because the recerver can not send you something for your satoshi.

But it is clear...here anyone can note negative for anyone and the "negative noted" can just dry...(lol)

In France...if you write something in a newspaper about you...you have a "droit de réponse" (right of answer)
I think near to the vote and comment from shorena,I should have  the right and the place to answer...

Okay I get that but why do you need investors money for it then? And how can you promise back an interest along with it as well?

it is the two points who are not understood by my detractors...
i have explained it already 5 times:
the investment is JUST to fix the prorata of dividends.
I promise an interest but I do not promise a "amount of interest" for exemple 1% or 10% etc...
The only thing I promise is that the principal is given back in less then 100 days.
About the dividends nothing is promised...exept that what you see on your account will be given with the last payout.

So long people does not understand this...they believe that it is a ponzi.
But if one understand the principle...the one understand that it has absolutly nothing to do with a ponsi sheme.

If you can explain it to anyone else and they can explain it to me that works as well. Again you claim 20 years of experience in this section, I would expect an expert like you to be able to break it down a bit from the technical terms.


I was under the impression that this was done when you answered me in your thread. You have stated your view on things, I have stated mine. You answered 1 out of 3 questions I have and asked me to leave your thread. I did and asked that you let me know when you are willing to answer my questions in simple terms. I dont think thats unreasonable. I have yet to received a PM. Instead you are now here, borderline derailing the thread.

To make sure we are on the same page here are the questions again:


Edit:

One more if you dont mind. You created your thread in the HYIP/Ponzi section. By your returns we can hardly talk about a HYIP. Why didnt you open a thread in the security section? Which would be the appropriate section for a non ponzi with reasonable returns.

if i have wrote this it was not in my mind...
have I wrote this?


I do not understant tied...

this is what i answered on my topic to an other member:


and for this:

I thought that all would gone slower and that I would have more time to talk about little by little when pages are created.
I thought that discussion will start on the other forum where the link from is on homepage.
The talk about page is not yet "arranged"
But I feel that forums will not be enough to explain my system.(lol)

You have certainly noticed that on the site is a contact link where one can ask for more info too.

So you are saying this ponzi is your system, and you are not just promoting it?

of course it is my system but not my ponzi (lol)

"Most people know the results of investing in ponzi so won't make a difference"

Come on people... The name "Ponzi" will forever be synonymous with fraud.

I voted the third option only because I think they should by punished if and only if they are aware of their scam they are advertising.

No you shouldn't give those people negative trust.

It's allowed on this forum to create topics about the ponzi. If you don't want to have users promoting it, you should first stop the topics about the ponzi. If you allowed to first, you should accept the second.

Creating a topic about ponzi is different from advertising or promoting ponzi
When we create a topic about ponzi, that is a way for us to discuss what the site is all about.
Topics like this helps educate and warn others that site is ponzi
Unlike a signature, it will say something about the site but not definitely say that site is pozi

Its also allowed to scam you for all you have. That is the exact reason the DT system exists. To keep moderation and things like this seperated as much as possible.

---

Here -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171677.msg12464219#msg12464219

At least that was my understanding of your "it is no need to tall about other things.." after you ignored my questions twice and talked about something else.


The question is why do you need investors if your income comes from ads.


Yes, you sell "shares". The question still remains, why? Do you have expenses that are covered by 1mBTC shares? Usually a company sells shares because they need money, e.g. to expand. Investors assess the situation of the company the possible expansion and decide to invest. They take a risk that the expansion might fail with the promisse that if the company is successfully the investors also got a part of the profit or their shares raise in value, usually both.


I dont get it. If I double my investment the dividend you pay gets divided by 102 instead of 50? Why do I get a smaller piece if I invest more?


You want peoples coins, there should be no doubt what they are buying from you.


So you just did not have the time to inform the people you take money from what you do with their money?

If I see how hard it is to inform you just to inform that with this money is done nothing and it is just used to fix the prorata...I do not regret not talking about...
it's a startup...and investors who have invested have not waited that you understand...
they have contact me and have asked about what was not clear...
Do not take investors for "idiots"...

Is what I do with the money so important?
What is important is that investors invest and are sure to get back their money...with profit.
More is not in the deal.
You trust or you do not trust me.
Investors are clever enough to investigate about winspiral and they can easily see if it is worth or not to invest and if winspiral is trustable.

I have started my system and given the possibility to invest at who want...
After if people invest or do not invest does absolutly not matter for me.
All we are now talking about has so few importance because if I would scam people,I could scam people...but why should I now after so long time on the net?
Just for few satoshi?
Do you believe that people will invest 100 bitcoin for just few satoshi dividends?

Have you not understood that if to much is invested for actual dividends it is non-sens and then even if all is given back it is non-sens.

Why should I invent a ponzi where it is not recommended to invest to much if dividends are low?
Why should I invent a ponzi where I show that the dividend is low?

Once again...
I program systems for the fun...and people invest if they want and if they do not trust they do not invest.
I do not say they have to leave the thread...just not invest.
If they trust me...then just invest if they think that the profit is interesting.
After what i do with their money...I say it and say it again...i do nothing with  it it is just for the dividend dispatching.

My system is not just an investisment system.
It is more a game where you have to decide if it is interesting to invest.
it's not "invest and you get 10% in 100 days"...
No.
You have to decide if for you...and only for you it is interesting to invest for eventually very few dividends or perhaps yes perhaps more.
You play this game or not...
For me even if only one do play...it is enough(i have already explain it)

To be honnest with you:
I had never believed that so much is so fast invested in my system.
I believed that people will first "look" how things will progress.

Good night...it's late here in France (lol)

I apologize if I'm asking a noob question and I also apologize if this is the wrong thread to be asking the question, but I feel like it's germain to this discussion (forgive me if I'm wrong):

What is an Avatar sponsorship and how does a negative trust rating effect it?

I'm a living exemple for your question:
iI had a sponsor who bought my avatar place and I put at this place his avatar and few propotion words.
I got negative points...and so My sponsor has decide to stop the avatar sponsoring because he want not be associated with a negative pointed.

it is why you should be carefull with your power to give negative points because you can indirectly decrease the incomes of an innocent.

My negative trust pointers believe that they do somethings good for the society,but in reality they destroy a part of incomes of an innocent for a wrong reason.

I insist about this story for at least 5 reasons:
1)My reputation is blacked because it is said i'm a ponzi promoter.
2)My site is blacked because wrong promotion is made about it.
3)I lose money for many reason for this misinformation.
4)People perhaps will lose money  because they do not invest after reading that i'm a ponzi promoter.
5)My investors are taken for (Chose the word yourself) because they have invested in a supposed ponzi.
6)My investors will ean less because I and my start-up earn less.

It's the last reason who hurt me the most because innocent investors loose money for wrong reason.

i dont know if it is allowed or not ,but people do get a neg trust when they are caught doing it ..
check VOD's sent feedbacks you can find many neg's on this case.

I'd like to see some click stats on signature campaigns. I wonder if they get a lot of traffic or rather mediocre traffic...

It is your assumption that I take your investors for anything. Please if you find someone that understands your system, have them contact me. You keep repeating the same things, there is no reason to do so.


In my opinion (and that of other) it is. I would like to assume that everyone thinks their own money is important enough to at least understand what they spend it on. There is nothing I can do about people that just blindly trust someone, but warn them. This is what your rating is about. Its a warning that you run and promote a complex investment scheme you seem unable to explain in plain english. I think I should probably rephrase the rating to reflect that and link to this thread as it allows those who care to read up on our discussion and make up their own mind.


I dont trust you, in fact I have a strong feeling that you are after coins from other people without a concept (this was only clear after the discussion) only to enrich yourself. Your scheme reeks like ponzi, you fail to address questions and repeat the same bogus stuff over and over again.


If that is true, than my rating did nothing to you or your business. If investors actually understand your system and have researched your system, they should have no problem to cast my opinion aside and invest regardless.


Scammers gonna scam for the smallest amounts. You dont have a point here.


What would be too much for you though?


If you just want to give away a little, why not create a faucet? Why do ask for money if you dont need it?


Good night.

tl;dr Since you dont answer my questions anyway, find someone that can.

For example  now is running ICO [SCAM]SweetStake[SCAM] on yobit exchange. I think this is one of ponzi plan. So in author opinion should I remove they logo from my signature and give every one negative trust who didn't do this? 

It's very simple, you can leave negative feedback if


If you don't, don't.

Simple.

AFAIK its a alt coin, I here am talking only about ponzi sites(not plans) which require you to send btc to a address and promise a false return.

Thanks for your interest in my system...even if you disapprove it.

it is endless...it seems you are the only one who does not undertand.
But it is better so (lol)(that it seem you are the only one,not that you do not understand)

I will take your "interrogations" as base for doing a "FAQ" page on my site because here is all spoted every where and it is even more confuse that my own site itself(lol)
And with an french man who cannot perfectly write english an a forum member who does not understand what is wroten it is not easy...
By the way i have  running 2 faucets...why program another one?
But if it can rassure you...my 2 faucets are even more complicated than my invest system...(lol)
Fortunately you have not yet seen them...because ther are even more suspectable to be scams.

A topic is also promotion for the ponzi. Its just made to get people to the website. You're right about the signature doesnt mention its a ponzi, but people can read right. If you see something like 'GET YOUR BTC DOUBLES WITHIN 24 HOURS' there should go some alarm-bells ringing.

even if you see 'GET YOUR BTC DOUBLES WITHIN 1 YEAR'

It is probably a ponzi.

Well, in the beginning the whole Bitcoin cryptocurrency scene was considered a ponzi scam by many.  In fact, I still hear that from many today, even after it got some legitimacy behind it.  Putting an untrustworthy label on somebody because something they promote appears too good to be true, or what they promote is associated with other projects that were scams, would be wrong without providing a fair sample of proof.  When you think about it:  when we promote Bitcoin, we're doing so in light of Mt. GOX, the silk road, and every other scam that uses the blockchain; however, we aren't responsible for those accounts, so we shouldn't be labeled untrustworthy on account of them.  Right?

Well, they were wrong. Bitcoin has never been a ponzi in any way.

That's my point....People shouldn't get a negative trust for their signature in a signature campaign unless it is "proven" that they're culpable...otherwise, we'd all have negative trust based on popular opinion.

New question - should people who offer to sell pictures of their boobs for positive trust be given negative trust instead?   :-\

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1193147.0

(Edited to provide google cache since the scammer deleted his/her post)

Cmon, dont derail the thread. Besides you should have made a backup of their thread, it was edited and there is just free pictures now.


How do you suggest we prove that?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=481346
this guy promote hyip too in his signature, :-\ but still with neutral trust.

I wrote them a PM, judging by the boards they post in, they are aware. I think they should be given time to respond here though.

PS: https://archive.is/2muLo

Personally, I don't have too much problem with sigs like that, it's clearly marked HYIP which anyone with the slightest idea knows means Ponzi.
HYIP is just a name the industry made up.
The site Rob It Bot  :D (the clue's in the name) only makes a half hearted attempt to pretend they are anything but a last in loses Ponzi type scheme.
There has got to be some Caveat Emptor somewhere, anyone going into that would probably have their eyes open.

What I think should be negatived are schemes like the one in my homemade sig, which blatantly lie and pretend to be legitimate, forex dealing, arbitrage, cloudminers etc.
That's why the CloudThink signature campaign raised a lot of criticism of senior + members who signed up for it, it so obviously screamed scam while pretending to be legit, but they still queued up to take the money.
I personally think that established forum members have a duty to research what they advertise and if there is a major red flag, err on the side of caution and decide against helping pretty likely scammers (although not proven to legal standards maybe) with their deception.

That makes no sense, yes people may have thought that bitcoin was a ponzi but these guys are promoting a ponzi, they are telling you it's a ponzi, there is nothing to prove since ponzies are scam, they are not a real strategy or business investment, they are a scam .

I cannot agree more, people need to wake up and realize that promoting questionable businesses is a problem. Unfortunately people are easily swayed with relatively small amounts of money.

hmm i dont have problem too  ;D
anyhow this is topic for this discussion, so i just bring along the profile that promote ponzi in their signature,
some people here got negative feedback but some don't for promoting ponzi signature. just curious..  :-\

Hi Shorena, I noticed I was given negative trust by you because I had a ref link of an investor-based game (ponzi) in my signature. I wasn't sent a PM warning me first of the consequences though. If I had known it was frowned upon I would have gladly removed the link. I have now read this thread and I understand my error.

Is there any way to be forgiven of this mistake and for the trust level to be restored?



 

Yeah, sorry for that I did not send a PM to everyone at first. Seeing that you removed the signature I removed the rating as well.

Thank you very much, @Shorena.

I suggest proving it with proof.  If one is convinced that a signature campaign is a ponzi scam, to justify punishing somebody who is not convinced, one should, at least, be able to provide support for their argument in the form of facts and not just opinion alone.

I don't think people should get negative trust. I think this poll or question should be something like this:  If a ponzi operator claims it is a ponzi, and there is a chance you will not get your money back, will people still play.  I am fairly certain most of the people still playing realize its a ponzi and are hoping to get a double here or there. Why not just be honest and hope for the best.

So we tag ponzis after they ran with the money?

if you tag before you can kill innocent ones
If you tag after it is almost too late.

If you think putting all in the same hole and recover them for ever is the best solution then tag...
but please do not cry in the future if you are killing with innocent ones.
perhaps a day you will be in the same situation as me for an other fact.

For you if people do not think same than you they are on the bad side.
Why could people among themselves not play ponzi?
Ok about scammers...but you cannot know in advance if a ponzi runner is systematickly a scammer.
if you think that ponzi's and investment systems are against the rules on this forum,then propose to the rule changing and we are then with forul rules and not imaginative members rules.
if here each member imagine his own rules it is the end of this forum.
If all members here believing that you are wrong "tag" you...what would you say then?
Do you believe then that you are "over" the rules too?

With this kind of attitude towards all of this you guys are getting dangerously getting close to the 'guilty until proven innocent' mentality, I personally do my best to avoid sites that do dodgy shit and also avoid the ones that put silly restrictions on what I can and can't say about them. However, you can't prevent stupid people from pissing away their money on ponzi schemes. You can only really warn them, if you lot go into a scorched earth policy with this kind of thing you'll have a lot of angry newbies posting around and a lot less people will be willing to register here and it will make even me consider staying the fuck out.

No, that is just your interpretation. You claim to be innocent without addressing any of the issues I presented you.


Why advertise outside of the ponzi section if you want to stay within? Notice how I dont tag anyone that stays in that section? Because I dont have a problem with ponzis in general, I have problem with people like you that present overly complicated systems and try to pitch them as safe investments.


I dont think ponzis are against the rules, scams are neither. Trust is not about rules.


Depends on the wording of the rating. I have little problems with people leaving me negative ratings out of spite, its pretty obvious anyway.


No.


Yet we are no judges, we do not imprison anyone, we can just issue warnings. There is a big difference here in the power someone on DT actually has and the power a court has.


Its all I do, its all anyone on DT can do, nothing more.

@ shorena

we are not in phase...
you believe that I'm a ponzi owner and will soon or late scam...

I believe that you "modify" unjustly my system and your negative point and certainly indirectly the second I have got makes "fishbone" effect in my throat...

But you can be rassured I will not point you negatively for your wrong believehood about my site and me.
Perhaps in a year or 2 you will see that I have given more out that I have get in...and perhaps then you will change your mind about "winspiral"

Innocent ones? All ponzi schemes are that, ponzi schemes, we all know how they work, they have to scam in order to exist.

I'm not going to give bad reputation for someone promoting a ponzi scheme in their signature. You should just leave bad reputation to the owners of that website.

If people know how to tell a ponzi from a legitimate site, I'm sure there's no excuse to advertise a ponzi in your signature then.

Isn't it bad to promote sites like that since you are like asking someone to use it and you vouch for that site?
So I guess promoters together with the site owner should be liable for the continued spread of the ponzi site because of continues promotion

Me too. I'll just post negative comments to the ponzi owners thread if there are any to warn potential victims. I lose money on ponzis too and i only blame myself for not being vigilant.

I believe that people have not yet done the differency with ponzi and scammer.
A ponzi is a game and if people know that it is a ponzi and what a ponzi is,they know that it is a risky game.

A scammer is not the same level.
A scammer can steal you with a "non-ponzi" site as well.

All hyip are generally ponzi...this does not mean that the hyip runner is a scammer.

If you would be right all ponzi monitors runner should be negative trusted because they promote ponzi or hyip(this is the same)

My question is: what are the requirements that would be used to determine which signatures are ponzis and which are not?  All ponzis are not alike and some are very cleverly disguised as legitimate investments.  Most are not even defined as a ponzi until the investors have lost their investment and the scheme has pulled up its stakes.  So, if we're going to give negative trust to those who have ponzis in their signatures, what would be the pillars to determine that fact?

Ponzis and HYIPs are easy to spot. Impossible high return in a short period of time form sites advertising they have a magical formula to earn money real quick and wants to do the community a favour. There is no excuse advertising for a ponzi, it is not ethical. Members who advertising for them should be warned and given negative trust if warning is ignored.

We all have a responsibility to try our best stop these scams. Bitcoin is given bad impressions because of these.

I agree that we should all come together as a community to stop the scams; however, I disagree that they are easy to spot....Remember, there were many who classified Bitcoin proper as being a ponzi in the beginning; in fact, I believe there are still some on-going court cases which are still arguing that point.  We need to be careful about where we point our fingers because we my find ourselves pointing into the mirror someday.

I don't think these guys deserve negative rep unless they're spamming, or fully throwing this ponzi "out there". I think we should give them neutral trust, but with s negative comment.

This old bullshit again.
What court cases? Link or STFU.

"Many" people believe lots of things, so what?

Negative trust mean what it says, you don't trust them because you strongly believe they are scammers.
Scammer = thief.
People who knowingly run or shill for unsustainable "investment" schemes such as Ponzis, whether in fiat or crypto, are thieves and accomplices of thieves.
End of fucking story.

---

No it is not.
A Ponzi is a scheme which misrepresents its income in order to steal money from investors. Hundreds of millions of dollars are stolen every year worldwide by criminal gangs operating these schemes. They are most definitely not a fucking game.

If you're talking about the "last in loses" games that are played by people on BCT in Investors and Games, that's a completely different thing altogether.

---

Good for him, you deserve it, promoting that shit.
He strongly believes you are shilling for money by advertising a scam and doesn't trust you because of that, so why shouldn't he say so?
It doesn't matter if he's on DT1 or DT101.
Putting "Invest at your own risk" means nothing, apart from confirming that you realise it's a scam in the first place.

---

Two ninja edits, don't want to be accused of posting for my sig campaign. :)

^

*cough*

Bitcoin Forum > Economy > Marketplace > Gambling > Investor-based games (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=207.0)

Why would thermos do that?!

Scams are not moderated, the section was put in place after the ponzis made the rest of the gambling section useless.

Edit:
The rule(s) for a sub section are essentially "have enough threads/posts to make it a dominant topic in an existing section". E.g. blockchain.info might get a seperate section if the support posts are too much for the service discussion section.

Because he's a libertarian and believes in Caveat Emptor, but mainly because the all important "legit" gambling lobby on here was moaning about this type of scheme being promoted in their sub forum.
I've watched it since it started and I think that the kids who go in there with their faucet dust burning a hole in their wallets have understood pretty quick what is real and what is not so, on balance, I think Investor based is a useful sub forum.
I'm not advocating wrapping people in cotton wool to insulate them from the big bad world, but calling out thieves and liars is a different matter.

Might "8ball of Meth and Rusty AK47 Gift Set" get a separate section if the support posts are too much for the goods section?

If not, why ???

As useful as any ghetto, i suppose. The problem's the public face of Bitcoin is now a ghetto.
Grills are laughing.

If a say "a ponzi is a game" I say it because it is a game.
This does not mean that it is a honnest game or a fair game.
I plaid ponzi in the past...
Now I only invest in "things" which only "could be ponzi" (because often you can not know if they are ponzi)
Often people know that they invest in ponzi...

The sub forum was made to gather all ponzi scams in one place so people know that those ''games'' there are definitely ponzi and if someone tries to promote a ponzi somewhere else the thread will get moved to the investor based games. There is no way to stop ponzies from showing up, if mods deleted them people would just promote them without telling people they are ponzies so we would actually create more scams.

People here are so paranoïack that they see ponsi even there where no ponzi are...

For the time being, I'll overlook the likelihood of you posting just for the sake of getting a few satoshi from your 'provably fair casino' sig, and explain to you why every forum on the internet doesn't have a subforum dedicated to ponzis, illegal gambling, or selling shitty drugs, rusty AKs and child porn.
You ready?
Here we go:
Because, surprisingly, yes, yes, you can stop those things. In fact, it is the duty of the forum operator to stop such things.
Even 4chan stops such things, why can't thermos?

I will explain you something, theymos is the owner and he can do whatever the fuck he wants and if you don't agree you can leave, no one is forcing you to stay here. Maybe other forums do not have a sub forum dedicated to ponzis BUT I'm sure they have people promoting ponzis secretly trying to make them look legit, how is the admin supposed to stop those ponzis? You can't until you know for sure it's a ponzi, instead with the sub forum, ponzi operators come clean and just by posting their site, system, there they are admiting it's a ponzi, people know the risks.

correct


OP was originally about sigads.
i do like that ponzis have their own section but this is not true for sigads.

so i'd like to see something like a trust rating for sigads (eg a link redirect where you see the trust rating of the link before you'll get redirect there or a rule that sig-links are only allowed to start with http://bitcointalk.org)

Not this again.
Thermos is not the owner, he doesn't even claim to be. He is no more the owner of bitcointalk than Stalin was the owner of Russia or Hitler was the owner of Germany.
Stop parroting shit you've heard other say & spreading misinformation.
If still not clear:
Shit came together in such a way as to enable thermos to control bitcointalk, Stalin to control Russia, and Hitler to control Germany. This doesn't make any of them "owners."

I don't understand what is the problem that some users have with theymos. No one forced you to like him nor the way bitcointalk works nor to post in r/bitcoin, just create your owns and share the ideas that you like between you :)
Back to the topic, i voted yes if the guy is fully aware and got a warning before the NT.

Edit:
I have a lollipop (bought from the satoshi i made in the sig campaign, maybe?) that I planned to give to fw... but for some reasons i changed my mind... Wanna take it son? It is free.
Btw if you focus on my words again you will notice that ''you'' refer to ''some users'' mentioned above not specifically to you son.

You can give them a negative trust. But 6 weeks after they remove the signature, you should remove the negative rating.

Why 6 weeks?

No.

I remember when silk Road Poped Out as it was known that it is not good to ecosystem according to Law still Theymos let the Thread of Silk Road here , all reason was that the site was not selling any kind of drugs or weapons or Hiring assassinates here on this forum but they were doing that via external site , this forum let that site flourish until enforced by Law with caution under it.

another way to feel the situation is Bluefilms , they are illegal and are a matter of shame if you watch it in front of your Parents or family , but do you quit it , even blue film sites have a caution before it let users enter it.
All i know people have to use their conscience to determine.
anyways if a DT member feel it other way and takes it to his words , then he might give a negative trust to the user wearing the signature , i think older DT members who have been here since old days wont do it because they know the inner(whats going on).

because 6 weeks is the time after i removed my link...supposed ponzi (lol)

What does my liking/disliking thermos have to do with him not being the owner of this forum?
Do you read before typing, or are the few satoshis you make from posting just too sweet?

Definitely hon !

Why the hell will anyone try to sign up a contract for promoting obvious ponzis?

Well, they should have looked this thread first before making an useless decision > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615953.0

In my opinion, they should be given negative trust forever and not just their period of promoting ponzis. That's what negative trusts are for I guess.

Here is another campaign for a ponzi -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1322129.0

46 BTC Total would be required every 7 days to pay all participants at max posts, I doubt they will come up with that much for escrow.

If they had that much money why would they make a website to scam others

I dont see any reason to give people negative rating for their signature.I dont think anyone on the forum is going to help/promote the ponzi's in any way and they themselves hate that but greed is in human nature and they want to enroll in those high paying campaigns regardless of the design and link in their signature.

However,there is nothing that can change this mindset because jealousy is so obvious. :P :P

if one trusts negative point each time a signature is not at good tast...one will only see negative trusted...
people who see dice games or lottery or trading places or what ever has to see with cash could then be negative trusted.

Why not trust negative as well people who promote faucets because they promote waist of time?

If someone promotes a ponzi in their signature, I'd send them a PM first informing them of that.  If they refused to remove the signature, yes I would give them negative trust.

People who promote/run ponzis can get negative trust without warning - they know they are trying to steal from people.

And people who give negative trust for non-ponzi are honnored ...is this right?

Yes. We need to get rid of Ponzis if we want to build a trust worthy environment for bitcoin.

Posted From bitcointalk.org Android App

I don't think it's necessary to tag those who"unknowingly" promotes a ponzi. If the site is known to be or an obvious ponzi and the one who promotes it knows about it, then that user needs to be tagged. But for someone who doesn't know that it's a ponzi and just found out that it is, better give the user time to repent and remove the sig. It's like recommending a trusted escrow then escrow turned to scam, do we go after the one who recommended the escrow?

It should be better to stop signature campaigns in bitcointalk that promotes ponzi schemes.

True, thats the reason why participants for campaigns like Cloudmining.website , oremine and many others weren't given a negative trust. However , 12coins and doublebot(with the former being more of a trouble due to the high rates it offers I guess) re clearly ponzis which cannot sustain the scheme and will certainly scam. The participants were given a warning in the first page of both campaigns.

So if scammer make reasonable rates (Ore-mine, CloudMining.website) can make signature campaign, but when scammer make not reasonable rates can't.

a good guide for the future scammers.

It depends what you define by ponzi or scams, many sites seem legit and then with time you learn that they were just growing a base to scam people. Even casino and exchanges have done this in Bitcoin world and I don't think campaigners should held responsible. Actual ponzi schemes or HYIP that are too obvious won't waste time with signature campaigns since they will be gone in less than a month.

Its not about signature payout rates but about signature campaign of any known ponzi,when you know its ponzi you shouldn't promote this.

I do make an exception for a ponzi that calls itself a ponzi. For a ponzi to be a scam the operator must be deceptive about the source of the payouts. If they are upfront about the fact that payouts are paid from the income of new accounts as they join, then there is nothing really hidden and one could consider it a kind of game or gamble.

However most of these are scams and try calling players "investors". That's like investing in blackjack  ::).
Or the operator may say he can double your money based on his special algorithm or other such nonsense.

I have been negative trusted for this link in my signature:
http://bitcoin.winspiral.net

They said: it is a ponzi.
I said: it is not a ponzi.
They said: A website with  such an horrible design can only be a ponzi.
I said: (lol)

No, Shorena's reasoning was :
You don't inform how you "build up" the interests from the "investments" , and do you have to spam that link at every topic you can?

I'm not talking about sirnature rates. I'm talking about ponzi rates - Ore-mine with normal rates is not scam, but 12dailycoin (or something like that) is scam.

Very interesting way of thinking.. Or i missed something?


Yes, i remeber this situation.

Who decide what is ponzi, and what is not? If you don't have proof, it is just your justice - nothing more. I thought that law like this was forgotten around 500 years ago..

You still don't get it do you? First prove that they are ponzis and maybe DT members will start considering a negative feedback. IIRC, Cloudmining.website(even though I highly suspect its a ponzi) has no evidence of being a ponzi, it once displayed the mining proof with one concern being one of the photos was deleted as it was copied. Honest mistake or shady activity? Not enough "data".
Ore-mine, seems to have a sustainable "ROI" and has not yet suggested any reason for it to go "bankrupt" in a few months,heck they even do ad campaigns (not that I'm suggesting it is actually sustainable)

So before pointing out how DT members are not doing their job, using the "power" that was not given to them for being super-active police ninjas, rather for having good judgement acting only when necessary, try helping them instead of crying " Why are you giving negative to X but not X, its unfair muaaaa!" . For god's sake

"Send me 0.01 BTC , I may return double or nothing. And if I return nothing, you can't give me a negative feedback because I declared you may not get the doubled amount" , don't find any trouble with that logic /sarcasm

I kept up saying it but he has never read it or if he read it he has not understood.
It is not because if i say something and shorena does not understand and does not believe me that I am a lier and a scammer.

BZW ... so far all investors have been paid with profit.
here I talk about because it is the topic for...
and other where I talk about because the red trust points have to be explain...
because of Shorena I'm taken for an horrible scammer...

1) You haven't explained how you are able to maintain the returns, signs of a ponzi
2) If you have tried to, you have not made a good effort, IIRC sho even offered you to first bring someone who spoke the same language as you , but spoke better english than you. Still haven't heard anything about that
3) Shorena/nor I will not be scourging every thread where you seem to have posted an explanation.

I see that you don't get it.

Almost ALL Pnzis let people get ROI at the beginning - I hope you know that? So difference betweet Ore-mine and 12dailycoin is only time of providing and rates.
Any proof of legit from both services - no!

CloudMining.website - no data? one from my few postat about that: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=843417.msg12951556#msg12951556

I'm not poining job of DT members. Im pointin way of thinking.

You contradict your argument in your own statement .
Cloudmining.website has "proof of mining".
Ore-mining supposedly "runs ad-campaigns on the website to make it sustain".

Now go disprove those claims and then come asking for "equality".

Edit: tl;dr version, 12coins is a obvious ponzi while Ore-mining and Cloudmining.website, require extra time/energy to disprove their claims. Hence the difference.

lol yeah, it may not be a good idea but look at the link below for something called "open-ponzi". They are not guaranteeing anything and are clear that you get paid as more people join. Assuming the numbers are real they are quite transparent and I would not call it a scam.

https://open-ponzi.com/

Yeah most "open-ponzis" are a joke attempt. I still remember when doog gave a positive trust to someone who declared he was running a ponzi scheme openly.

you are the same kind of people than Shorena:
yoy invent things about my system and after the bad boy is me...and in reality you are the bad boys because you invent thinks about my system.
Why should i explain how I am able to maintain the return if the only thing I promise is to return the investment.
If you give me 0.01BTC whi should I not be able to return 0.01BTC or more or not more bur never less.
Why are you so unclever to understand this?
Is my English so bad that this is not understandable?

I run faucets and give away faucets for free...
Why should I not be able to give little profit for an investment?
Have you seen somewhere that I have promise a specific profit...no you havesaid:ponzi it's all.

Your argument that Ore-mine is legit was that people get ROI there.
and that they don't want bankrupt.

Almost all ponzis get ROI. Please, take a breath and think.


Please show "proof of mining" from CloudMining.website.

Btw now i should give you red trust that you advertise Ponzi?


This same want to make 12dailycoins - i don't see differense.


Maybe if 12Dailycoins will have enough time will show this same energy and involvement? Don't you think?

 

No it doesn't.

Its shills frequently like to claim that once, in the distance past, it did show proof of mining but that proof is conveniently absent from the internet now, apparently.

cm.w is, at best, fractional mining, but is most likely just a straight ponzi as there is no mining proof at all.

IK, which is why its in quotes.

Months ago I was punished...severely punished with 2 negative trust points for my investment system (taken for a ponzi) in my signature:

http://bitcoin.winspiral.net

Since it is always in my signature...but since investors endind 100 days plan have all been paid...

it was the same story for my U2cloudmining system (in my signature too)
Unfortunately the untrusters can not repeat  undefinitely giving negative trust points...

We have learned with this topic that honnest webmasters can be dishonnestly be punished for imaginative believing.

We learn as well that dishonnest negative trust giver can continue to sleep well...(lol)

In fact...what is the most untrustable here is the forum itself...

here on this forum we read so much non-sence about investment that it is even dangerous to read it knowing that the first purpose from a forum is to help members...
if the only often comment is just "it is a ponzi" or he is a scammer" then the members can not detect the truth from the lies...

have a nice day...and be careful...here is writen more non-sense than ponzi...and scammers...(and we know that on the net many scammers and ponzi...exist...

As far as I can see, outside of that horrifically sloppy, barely functional, website of yours, you haven't actually explained where the profit comes from.

Stating that a bunch of investors have all been 'paid' is not proof that you're not using new investors money to repay old.

If you cannot explain how an 'investor' is earning money through your site then it has to be assumed you are not running a legitimate operation.

if I say you the profit comes from my poket you will not believe it or you will believe i'm a fool...

i will return your questions:
lets suppose i proof i have incomes...(it is a supposition)
what will prof that I am not a scammer?
what will proof that I do not only pay investors with new investments?

The problem for investors is that all investment webmasters are potentially scammers...
But the topic is not here...
Proof of income does not avoid scam...
The topic is that people are accuse ponzi scammers without proof...

I can only proof one thing:
In my system i never promise something...
So if I do not make profit...I just return the capital without profit...how can I proof now what i will do in 100 days?
or about my U2cloudmining...
How can I proove that I will pay in the future what i even not promise in the present...
About my U2cloudmining system...
I accept that it is said that it is risky for investors and more risky for big investors...ok
Thant the profit can be low...ok
But I am sorry,I can not accept that it is said my systems are ponzi shames or that i am a scammer.
Warn people so much you want...You will never warn more than meself...
But please do not accuse me like scammer.

The most of big investors of my systems are friends i know already for years...
Do you believe that i will scam them?
The most of investment from my friends has been earned from my systems all over the 20 years...
they know that even if i have sad problems...it will be more hard for winspiral than for investors...

if you interess yourself at my systems...you see that it is always "limited"
...the U2cloudmining is limited...if tou much invested...it is given back because investment means buying shares and buying shares means selling shares...it is a kind of "shift"...
...the 100 days plan..;if you follox you can see that 90% of investment is given back long before the 100 days...

Have a nice day...

I see one thing...so far none of my investors has been scammed.
They have only made profit...
My red trust points have just help some members here to avoid earning satoshi...
Much thanks dear red trusters...(lol)
I hope you can sleep well...
Have a nice day.

Nobody's taking the Ponzi nonsense seriously anymore because it requires 10 minutes of research to see why it's wrong.
Might want to catch up  ;)

you are right...
but if people believe that you run a ponzi and it is wrong...what do you do then?
Do you say yes and amen?

I would never say yes to Ponzi (fraudulent investment).
Most people probably will never going to see there money (investment) again.
The bottom line is with Bitcoin being pricey, it is always luring to find a way to get some for free.

Sorry I do not understand the single word of what you mean...

IMHO, people who promote ponzi in their signature should NOT by given any sort of trust. That honestly doesn't make sense at all. Everyone understands that there is a risk involved in investing in ponzis/HYIP's, so it's their choice. Other than this, no one would actually put any already-turned-scam ponzi website in their signature space.

Maybe this trend should be re-considered.

No, they don't. That is the problem. Newbies see 'Multiply your BTC 2x' and don't understand how the program works, therefore possibly getting scammed.

Then explain them the risk...
Then work for forbiding if it is illegal...
the problem is that it is allowed on this forum but red trusted...
and above all if truster see ponzi shemes and scam where no scam is the forum does more confuse that help...
and a forum is not here to do confuse...
People saying I'm a ponzi runner or a scammer do not help the community...Who can admit that every one whi has not proved hes innocence is guilty?
In what kind of world do lieve the red trusters here?

However, people don't. People that run/promote Ponzis and HYIPs are not interested in making sure their investors are safe, they are interested in making a profit. If everyone knew how Ponzis worked I'm sure they would get significantly less interest from new users.

Ponzis inevitably scam due to how they work. You will never find a truly 'legit' Ponzi, as it is impossible. The forum allows these schemes to be posted, however that does not mean that they are trustworthy.
By members marking the people running/promoting these Ponzis, it shows that these users are untrustworthy and to use caution investing in the schemes. People are free to run and promote them, just as others are free to mark them as untrustworthy.

That is how it has to work on this forum, else truly innocent people get scammed. Especially since Bitcoin is irreversible, if users were to give people running websites like Ponzis the benefit of the doubt and assume their business model is viable they will inevitably be scammed (as the business model would not be viable and the coins would not be returned).
If someone is running a site like this and they can prove the viability of the site's income then people will trust them. Otherwise, they cannot be trusted without innocent people losing their money.

if I understand well:
You agree that I am red trusted even if i have never run or promoted a ponzi sheme.
You agree that I am red trusted just because people believe that I run a ponzi sheme and promote it.
The funniest in this story is that i have never promised the single satoshi in profit...
The only promise i have done is that I refund 100% of the investment after 100 days...
How can i prove that I will give back the investisment?
If I red trust you and ask you to prove that you will be honnest in the next 100 days...how can you prove it? (lol)
And just saying that my disign is horrible and my English poor...is very poor for an complement of argument.

It seems you have forgotten, so as a reminder if you can answer the remaining 3 out of 4 questions[1] I will remove the rating. You have demonstrated in the past that you are unable to unwilling to do so. I also offered you to find someone (e.g. one of your investors) that can explain your model to me. I have not been approached by anyone. All I ever read are your passive aggressive posts.

[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1183602.msg12483785#msg12483785

I explaind you 100 times that I need the investors money to dispach the profit.
Explain me how i can manage the percentage invested if people do invest zero satoshi.

it seems that only you do not understand how my site works.
Nothing is explained on my site because it is evidence...
if you see that you own 12.7% of the global investment it is an evidence that you get 12.7% of the profit.
i have in my webmaster life never seen an investment system with so much information.
You can see at the satosho near,each investment of each investors...all the investment,the pending investment and the paid out.Even what they have claimed for free with the booster.
Tell me one site on the net where it is more clear about info.

The problem is ...the day you have understood the system will have closed (because it will close when the last investors will have passed the 100 days)
As you can see...it is not a ponzi because no need for new investors whi pay the old ones.
Soon the system will end and all will be paid with the made profit...

Once you have perhaps understood  that it was not a ponzi and not a scam...you will perhaps remove the red points...but all other 7 red trusters will forgett to follow you and the red will remains.
Then you will discover that this system has merged with my U2cloudmining system...where you understand as well nothing and then you will red trust again...

By the way...on the U2cloudmining system...the money from my investors has been used to pay me for my work...
Are you happy now?
is this scam?
New investors can only invest for free...
And sell the shares for real satoshi.
Do you want a proof that I will payout them?
sorry...i can not prove it because i do not know the future...
Do not worry...i do not need you to pay out 0.3 BTC or so...
if you think that i'm more agressive that your red trust covered with honney is less agressive...ok if you believe it...
You red trust has attracted other red truster who like you have not taken the time to understand...
shorena is respectable...and if he is respectable you can only be a scammer meriting red trust...hopla...one red trust more...(lol)

Have a nice day.

The more you clarify the more you make their troll attempt succeed.You don't wear a signature then why do you care about some unknown,unseen person's opinion ? loll..

Wouldn't it be easier to ban all links and references to ponzi schemes. That would help to clean up the board, and also help to improve the image of Bitcoin.

How do you want ban ponzi shemes links if people here see ponzi shemes every where...
Look my
http://bitcoin.winspiral
all people who do not understand the system bemoeve that it is a ponzi sheme and that I am a scammer.
if after each link you have to explain how the site works you will spend your life for this...and certainly without result.

And above it...if all sites with poor English are taken for ponsi shemes...no end...
And if the site's design is horrible...no end as well (lol)

I think it would be better if ponzis are not allowed to run any signature campaign.
It is more logical and fairer than giving people negative trust.

So you dont actually need their money, you just use it as a way to determine who gets which share of the profit you would make without investors anyway. This makes no sense to me and we have been here time and time again. If you just want to give away coins you dont need investors.


You can not accuse me of not taking the time to try and understand your system. I have spend plenty of time reading your posts and arguing with you.

i accuse you only to red trust befor understanding...
if I red trust all what i do not understand about...I could only do this all the day.
I have never run ponzi shemes...it's all.
All the people who have seen or who see a ponzi sheme in my 100 days plan are wrong.
if you need 1000 post to understand that people invest and get dividends at prorato of the investment...I can not help you.
But it is endless...because the 100 days plan does not accept new investors
and the U2cloudmining is the same principle...just the payout system is different...
So even if a day you understand the 100 days plan...all the bad storry will restart with the U2cloudmining system.
All my red trust points have just avoid at certain people to earn few satoshi...

i dont understand a single word of what you wrote. someone told me you speak german, can you explain it in german to me?

Mein English ist besser wie mein Deuch...
je suis français...

in other word...i'm accused to run ponzi shemes and it is definitively not so...
My English is perhaps poor
My design "horrible"
but i know exactly what a ponzi sheme is.

LOL, yeah that's the only reason I don't bother posting the PSA in his thread, I don't think *anybody* can understand what the fuck he's claiming his 'investment' system to be.

The only thing I managed to pick up a while back is that he has since ditched his U2 miner, but still refers to his U2 cloudmining system?

i am trying to understand what you do, but i just dont get it. therefore it just looks like a ponzi.

You can, I can, everyone can. I have reason to believe that you run a ponzi and as such feel obligated to warn others.


Yet there is not a single person that understands your system or at least no one was bothered to contact me.


I dont need many or long posts, I just need a concrete explanation. You mostly say "you dont understand" or stay very vague about what you actually need the investments for and how they are related to the profit. These discussions are not moving in a circle because you have not said enough words, but because you dont say anything new.

I know you feel you are treated unfair, but you also have to see that my warning is nothing more than that.

At least you have understood something...it's a good start.
You do not understand more because you pick up just words or phrases out of the context...
Sometimes i refer to mine "sold" U2
and sometimes I talk about my system about a site about a U2 (lol)
I understand your difficulty to understand that my system makes profit...
You have the people who do not understand...but they claim.
then they go on different pages and little by little they understand the sysmem.
they understand the difference among the 5 "claim options".
they see even that arround the end of Month they are paid ouf if more then 10000 satoshi in their pending payout balance.

A German saying
sorry for the grammatik..."probieren geht über das studieren" (trying goes over the studying)

Have fun...


For the 100days plan:
I have several times said that I need the investments only for dispatching the profit.
All my investors have understood this perfectly.
On a page you see the percentage invested.If one sees 12% this means that the investors get 12% of the estimated profit generated by the site.

For the U2cloudmining system:
it is almost the same principle...hard to explain is few words what you can learn in many pages on the site.

get one of them in here to explain it to us

See, this is where you lost me. You say you dont need investments, why take them? Do you keep the invested coins?

and you lost me...
I need the investments only to dispatch the profit.
yes i keep the coins and if you had taken a little time and followed the information on the site you had seen that 90% is sent back after 50 days or so...
It is time you understand because in June the system will be ended...
But you will see that all investors will be paid with profit.

Explain me how it is possible to run a investment system without investment?

With my U2 system...
in fact it is almost the same system than the "100 days plan" but only the first investors have invested satoshi.
Now is invested only what people claim for free in shares.
The payout system is as well different...
the payout depends on the activity of the claimers and the profit.
People can sell their shares or reinvest pending cash.

Some people have invested in my U2 system without understanding the system...Just because they trust me...
other ones have asked me many questions about.(here or by PM or contact link...you can not say I do not answer question lol)
I have even adviced some people not to invest because the return could last long time.
So many people have said that my U2cloudmining system is a ponzi sheme...and I asked why...only wrong arguments was given.

Its clear reading through meta that this issue is branching off into different issues. Rather not use witchhunting to define the issue but I think it is important that people understand the optics of going after members of the forum in a smearing of their account. Trust comments with negative aspects can ruin a new account and destroy a more seasoned account. So if some one carries a ponzi signature are you checking to make sure they know what a ponzi is before ruining their account or is it par for the course!

We often accuse the government of railroading laws and acts with little hidden agendas tacted on at the last minute to be pushed through and here is a issue that has not been defined enough to be taken seriously. What some see as a ponzi could be a lot wider than what you are currently attacking. Lets say alt coins are ponzis because they can pull the whole night and flight aspect and be gone over night.

I know this falls on eyes that rather not address these problems because they have bigger fish to fry,but I think you need to look into the optics and how this looks to people from a far.

In my view , who ever is promoting any scheme without any proof of income it is a ponzi scheme and who ever is promoting have to be given negative trust. If his scheme is legit then why dont you give the full and clear picture of your scheme. so that you may get more investors then you are expecting.

In any business when ever you are investing you first ask about the reliability, guarantee , same is here also.

That's being done by the ponzi-busters that I know of. They post clear warnings in ponzi threads. They also provide a way to get those ponzi negs removed.

The rest of your post about government etc is not applicable here. This is pretty much the opposite of the government telling you what to do. Anyone can easily opt out of DT or any part of it if there are concerns about those trust ratings, or simply ignore them. Try opting out of or ignoring IRS or NSA.

So you dont use the investment as an investment as such you dont need the investment to make profit. If you only use it as a way to distribute existing profit its not an investment. Its a dare.


I will start to cut down your posts like this, maybe it helps you to shorten them. Adding more words that have nothing to do with the topic are not helping me to understand you better, in fact they make me less interested to read your posts at all and just leave it as it is.


What even is an investment for you? For me an investment (unless its a ponzi) is needed when a company or business needs funds to expand and increase their profit. The need the investment to work with the invested funds. What you explain is not an investment in this sense. If you have a different definition feel free to share it.

shorena...
why are you here?
are you here to help people earning more or are you here to help people earning less?

so far you have helped both:
you have helped some people earning less.
Because some people have earned less...other people have earned more...

But seen globally,you have helped for less income for me...this means less income for my investors.

perhaps my systems are not investment systems...it's possible...
But my systems are new and you have never so far found the same on the net...
it is so new that they have not yet a name...and will perhaps never have one...
My systems are generally so ephemery...
they are created...they make profit...and die...
People have not profit?
Do not worry...I will create other profitable systems...(it's my fun)

In June "100 days plan" is finished and merge with my U2cloudsystem...
I'm astonished that you have not break down this one...because if I can scam with "100 days plan" i can scam with U2cloudmining...

I believe all is now said...and sorry if the word "investment" does not suit with my systems...I have not found better.

How about "existential challenge"?

Anyway it is too late now...In June all is behind us.
Now it is the only "100 days plan" where it is impossible to invest...
The funiest in this story is that it is discussed about a name...
But who remember that it was said that the system need new investors to pay the old ones?
We have the proof now that no new investors are needed to pay the old ones.

What will be known in June?
In June the proof will be done that all investors have been paid with profit and basta.

Yeah, let me know if you have anything new to say.

It seems you make fake quote now...
Sorry...I could do it...but I'm not the kind of person who "quotes" words out of context...
Have a nice day...

In simple terms:


Key Phrase ::::I need the investments only to dispatch the profit.:::::::::



Means you pay investors with investors money that = Ponzi

you are funny...
if i say "to dispatch the profit"  it means I pay profit.
Any way...soon the 100 days plan is finished and you will then see that all investors have made profit...

You will then see that i have not need the "investments" to pay back investors with profit but only to dispatch the profit...
All people talking non-sense here have not understood my "genious" (lol) system.
You can now continue to say nonsense about my u2cloudmining system because it is almost the same principle.

http://u2cloudmining.winspiral.net

You can find the forum long on my site on the FAQ page.

So you can keep up earning pennies with you sign campaign...

For pure information...
so far all investors have been paid in time...
As you can see...this system will soon end...and no need to have new investors to pay the old ones...
End of June you will have the proff that all investors will have been paid with profit...
I am wondering why I am not more red trusted for my:
http://u2cloudmining.winspiral.net

Have fun...