Bitcoin Forum

Since theymos introduced a flawed flag system, this has to be done. Original thread is locked and can't be directly quoted from. Every escrow deal ever conducted possibly has a victim in it, thus the damage has always been extensive.

You can read the full story by clicking on the quote or by using this link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.

---

Therefore, a newly created flag would be valid and should remain active for all eternity. Flags can't be edited, flags can't be removed nor updated.
Flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=56

---

Local rule; the following users are not allowed to post: Quickseller, TECSHARE, OgNasty, bill gator, cryptohunter and anyone else with more negative ratings than other ratings (people without ratings excl. newly created shill accounts are welcome). This does NOT include the accused user.

---

Updated local rule (7PM forum time), the "accused user" is no affected obviously even when this isn't an accusation thread.

1. You are not a claimant (victim), thus by Theymos's standards you are not permitted to create a contractual violation flag.


2. The affected parties were not only refunded, they have forgiven Quickseller.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12366566#msg12366566
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12366803#msg12366803
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12352452#msg12352452

"Lauda alleged the following, but later withdrew it: Quickseller violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. Quickseller did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around September 2015. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance."

You are endorsing a false statement. No damages were incurred, any fees for services not actually rendered have been refunded, and those effected have forgiven Quickseller.


3. That is a cute local rule excluding people from defending themselves, or those most likely to defend them from posting. Also local rules not added with the original post are not valid. You edited the OP to add the local rule after I posted. Good luck getting that enforced.

Quote for reference:

@Lauda, now you are acting like a bitch. Clearly you are trying to harass QS to satisfy your personal issue. I thought I said goodbye but now I had to comeback seeing your attempts to create drama surrounding this new trust flags.

You should be excluded from the DT network. You were the root of all these drama and now when theymos finally done something to eliminate all these drama you are not liking it. Spread love instead of spreading hate.

Link to your flag please?

I wanted to create it, but I can't due to an early flag that I left with a bad link (limit 1 per 180 days per user). You can create a flag (type 1) if you want, and I'll support and add it in OP. Note: You can't link to the old thread.

It appears Hhampuz has added a flag with this thread as a reference in retaliation for my calling him out for stealing funds from BestMixer.

*accusing him of stealing funds from BestMixer.

No, he actually stole money from BestMixer, but the difference doesn’t matter in the context of this thread— in either case, the flag by Hhampuz is retaliation.

You have yet to post a single piece of hard evidence regarding that accusation.


Another assumption.

On the bright side, the new guidelines for red trust (remember those? used to be all the rage until recently) allow me to use it if I think trading with Quickseller is high-risk and obviously his attack on Hhampuz shows that. It might rise to the level of a yellow box too, I'll have to think about that. Quicksy does a lot of malicious shit to damage people's reputations.

I'd say Hhampuz would have a strong case if he loses work over this, unless QS finally decides to post evidence instead of evading critical questions.

The yellow box probably doesn't require HH to have suffered a loss, should be sufficient to show Quicksy's intent to cause damage.

I can add more cases into OP if that is what people want. You can then use the same thread for multiple incidents.

I'm also a victim due to the pill-addiction fiasco. :)

Nonsense. No reasonable person would believe it is unsafe to trust with me. I have been trusted with large amounts of money by multiple people without incident or complaints. When someone retaliates they don’t admit to this. You really are a tool.

More nonsense. The standard is what a reasonable person would believe, not what you believe.

More nonsense. Hhampuz is a scammer (he stole money). I never entered into any kind of implied agreement with him to not call him out when I believe him to be scamming.

Sounds about right:

https://meem.link/i/a/t3IihQ.jpg
Edited 2020-11-30 to fix a broken image

That is what you believe.
There is this whole scam accusation thread you opened, where you stated more of your beliefs :


Care to share with us more of your theories ?

---

Nice try to derail the conversation.
I am supporting this flag.

Confusing system.

Lauda is tagged or should I say "tagged" by theymos, link in reference is https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=35 and link is pointing to this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5152349.0 but it says "act occurred around September 2015"  :-\

Flag from topic links different thread, and it is handled. Also, I see QS has new negative/orange/red/whatever trust/feedback.

Just for confirmation, if OP locks thread, that "box" won't be visible any more, or?

I have no idea. What happens if the thread is deleted?

Well, I tagged a user by the name of iramsarwar. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2435883)  He was nuked later on, so the thread that I was using was deleted along with everything else. However, the trust score still had the # symbol and if you go into his trust history, people can still support or oppose my flag. (Not that it matter since he'll never post again, anyway.) To cover my ass, I posted the archive to one of his threads as a negative trust comment. I'm hoping it does not become necessary to open up a whole new thread just to give a newbie-warning tags to small time wannabe scammers.

That's good to know. However, this shows another flaw in the system: Flags can't be edited. Flags can't be deleted. You can post 1 flag per user per 180 days. If the reference link is dead, the old flag is useless (regardless of support/opposition).

So can anyone in support of this flag define the damages for me?

You of all people would probably be the last one I'd suspect to oppose this flag. It is a type-1 flag and it is very self explanatory (including the information you can find in this thread).

Are you just opposing it for opposing?

Did you just create the flag just to flag QS?

---

Your characteristic became like this: Yes boss, Yes boss.

Come on, you are not a slave of anyone to obey their orders? Or are you?

I am pretty much sure that Lauda asked you to create this flag because she was not able to create another one for the same user. It does not matter even if she doesn't (the ask). Your new image reflects the suspension.

https://media.giphy.com/media/p4NXFVyrA1K1O/giphy.gif

So is that a no? Was this act years ago suspect and slimy? Sure. Was it anything worse than other so called trusted members have done? Absolutely not. He just happened to be the one who got caught. He was out of control and needed to be taken down a few pegs and that is exactly what happened. He misrepresented himself but he didn't steal from anyone. Furthermore this was a time in the forum where things were more fast and loose and there were no clear lines of what was acceptable. I don't condone it but I think this flag is motivated out of retribution rather than a genuine belief he intends to defraud anyone.

As long as he can control himself I think the forum is better off with him than without him, and that is said as a former target of his. If we aren't providing an avenue for reform all that is going to happen is he s going to regress to his previous behavior. Giving him this opportunity means he has incentive now to earn back his reputation instead of just shit slinging. You can only beat some mules with a stick so many times before they stop caring, some times you need to try carrots too.

I gave him an opportunity to even earn some a while back.. see where that got me?  ::)

---

Do you honestly believe that the numerous baseless claims and accusations is something the forum really needs? The only reason I even hired QS in one of my campaigns was because of how much he does in the beginners section, which I do acknowledge and can even respect to certain level. But then it's like a 360 and he comes up with something new that is dodgy to say the least, mostly targeted at someone that would otherwise be considered "more respectable".

Believe you me, if he came after you with something I would have the exact same reaction. The flag is needed, now that their profile doesn't look too shady.

None of this other jibber jabber matters. Provide me some evidence of damages and we will talk.

You do not think that the scam accusations, the obvious ramp up in posting over different topics/sections while wearing questionable signatures is harmful and potentially causes damage?

You can start posting from your main account now.

but then you took it away via non transparent means with no explanation at all? that is shady

Now you are just laudas bitch and also a trust abuser. When you line up all of your recent actions

1. refusal to be transparent regarding your campaign selection/refusal
2. supporting a dox and risking the boards money and the safety of the boards treasurer
3. Trust abusing people
4. apparently stealing 0.5btc from a project?

then we can see that QS does not look so bad in comparison to you does he?  you are fortunate that QS has not started a flag for you hhampuz because that would seem to be perhaps worthy of a higher flag level than his own.

To be fair QS escrowing "danger" seems less worrying that laudas own escrowing debacle.

Irrelevant. You know damned well you aren't going to get anywhere with me with these semantic games. You don't seem to be internalizing the idea that the trust system should not be a tool for you to settle interpersonal disputes. It was used that way and look at the constant cluster fuck that resulted. The trust system is to help protect people from fraud and theft, not as a stick to hit your opponents with. He is free to be a shithead and make accusations all he likes. I don't endorse it, but all you are doing is further incentivizing it by trying to pretend this is about protecting others from theft when everyone knows damned well this is just about retaliation for him accusing you. Furthermore I really don't buy that you believe this caused you any demonstrable harm other than your agitation. All you are doing is harming your own reputation pushing this, more than he ever could with his accusation threads.

Alright so no need to discuss anything with you anymore again then. Since you'll choose to be blind.

It's not true. I sent him first couple times more than 1btc total. Without any issue. so your statement is false or what you think is not true.

I'm sure some people got money back from bitconnect, TradeFortress and other scammers. What's your point?

I am not making any point here. I was just saying the truth. did he scam you?

I did not create a contract violation flag, now did I?

---

Also, why didn't you leave positive trust for QS for sending him up to 1BTC first? Last recorded trust you left for QS was in 2017 and you used Og as an escrow.   ::)

Unless you have any evidence to present then, no not really. Is that supposed to bother me that you are going to ignore me? You calling me blind could also be interpreted as you being wrong, but that is not possible now is it?