Bitcoin Forum

This concerns a system wide exploit so must remain in meta.


The following may or may not be true, but there seems to be some evidence to suggest this exploit is viable. The reader must conduct his own research.


So we heard all the DT members crying because THEY CLAIM that you should not need to wait for someone to become a scammer or endanger other peoples money here, that is too late they scream.

So they want powers to pre-emptively strike out and flag accounts for ANY reasons THEY BELIEVE indicate you COULD become a financial danger in the FUTURE.

The potential safety or lack there of for the board is MORE important than the reputation of a possibly innocent single member. The safety for the board as a whole is paramount.


But WAIT a moment. Apparently if you transfer certain amounts of BTC to  some of THESE DT MEMBERS each month then their minds could just be reversed to believe the OPPOSITE of what they believed before the btc hit their wallets


So now apparently if someone is PAYING a DT/campaign manager 0.xx BTC then it can suddenly work the OPPOSITE WAY AROUND.


You get to pull observable financially dangerous behaviors many would term as theft... and your PAID DT member/campaign manager will  OPPOSE warning flags or tags you get and continue pushing this project on the board. So he will protect your image now?? is that how it works?? and help other members to deposit their funds with you for safe keeping.

WAIT A MOMENT - - WHAT ABOUT THE DANGERS POSED TO THE BOARD??

You will advertise them and protect them against warning flags to the best of your ability AFTER THEY HAVE DONE THINGS WRONG??  placing the board in DANGER NOW.




What can be done to prevent DT brains being reversed at the sight of 0.XX btc per month?  how can we thwart this attack vector??,  We are working on a hat like what magneto wears for these poor vulnerable DT members,  but other suggestions could be useful too.


More reading in the scam accusations forum .... research there for your answers and possible fixes.


Be wary of conspiracy theories.

If you don't like people on dt. You're encouraged to use your own list anyway so go ahead and make one of those... I have a list with a limited number of people on it I can actually trust...

Who are these dt members thst are influenced to not give negative rep when they're paid also? Maybe you should show examples of these so enough people can exclude these people. I don't think systems have ever been made without exploits and flaws and one probably won't ever.

I'm going to take a stab and say he's talking about Hhampuz, though there really ought to be prizes for guessing what he's talking about. :-\

Yea the OP is referring to Hhampuz. Hhampuz is taking 0.06 btc/week to run the LiveCoin signature campaign and is opposing the flag against LiveCoin, in addition to keeping the signature campaign open despite evidence of their scamming that has been admitted to by LiveCoin.

This is very unethical and shows he can be bought.

So foxpup matches the above description to the  behavior of Hhampuz?  Interesting... the same scum bag supporting his proven scamming pal laudas trust abuse for far lesser deeds completely unrelated to financial scamming/wrongdoing? that hhampuz? supporting red flags for asking questions (backed with observable evidence) and whistle blowing but not for taking peoples money away? I see. That guy... oh yeah we remember him now. Actually, it is good you brought him up foxpup.

Perhaps the reader should investigate this in the scam accusations board and see for themselves.

Not only to NOT give negative rep, but to oppose and protect against negative rep. So to PREVENT a warning to other members LOL  - wickedness.

So now DT's don't want to flag before people commit any directly financially related wrongdoing, based on their speculations of possible future indicators? to protect against possible dangers of scamming to the boards members??  

All this crying there MUST be the possibility to create WARNING WARNING HIGH RISK financial danger posed on a persons account for which they can provide no instances of financially related wrongdoing (for the good of the board) is reversed to  - we must not allow warnings for those that HAVE OBSERVABLE INSTANCES of financially related dangerous behaviors because they are paying us money? Is this really correct?

Get these people their magneto helmets asap. This effect on their brains by some btc crumbs is dangerous to themselves and to the board.

This blatant double standards could not be intentional could it? I mean they could not believe this would go unnoticed could they?  Surely not?

Then again could be a conspiracy theory?? best for the reader to do their own research.

What is perhaps more worrying is that NO OTHER DT has flagged this behavior?? why not?? I wonder if they are concerned about their positions on current or future CAMPAIGNS...then what will they sig spam for all those fab cycled merits...

Sorry these wild and unreasonable speculations of completely ludicrous motivators must be contained. This is how "conspiracy theories" get started we hear.

Let's start pushing for TRANSPARENT FAIR RULES FOR SIG SPOTS AND MANAGERS.. not more gamed bullshit like oh what my pals didn't give you enough merits this month or what you whistle blew on their scamming so YOU'RE NOT ON THE GRAVY TRAIN.

Bogus gamed metrics judged/controlled by bogus greedy and corrupt campaign managers/and pals must not be allowed here any longer. The mask of DT is sliding away to reveal the abyss of greed, collusion, corruption and double standards. 

This is not just about one person this is about the entire system and everyone in it. All humans will turn greedy eventually given enough opportunity and reward (not us). Let's start making it all transparent and trustless.

Theymos has done all he can for the TRUST system, we appreciate this, next it is time for the board and projects to ONLY work with transparent and honest campaign managers.  Tackle the problems from both ends.







 

 

You mean you weren't talking about Hhampuz? Drat. :( I thought for sure I had finally managed to successfully extract some meaning from your incoherent jumble of words. Obviously I was being too optimistic. Who/what are you talking about, then?

DT system is decentralized so DT1's can exclude DT members who are doing what you said they are doing.
You literally posted this in topic:
Only red flag I am aware of that is opposed by dt members which are in that campaign and manager managing campaign is livecoin's campaign so you are pretty much talking about this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=308). So why trying to keep publicly available information as secret?

Only one you are "aware of" ...." pretty much taking about"... you say?

No attempt made to convert "publicly available information" into a "secret".  If you want to assume that the scenario is only applicable to hhampz at this time that is fine, we are more interested in if it would be acceptable and correct by ANY member. Does being paid change things? or is there another reason?

Perhaps focus more on the content of the initial post rather than your own assumptions on the motivation for the initial post being made.

Perhaps you could speculate on our motives since we claim we had none for not insisting only hhampuz is guilty of such actions. That could be useful to the reader I guess if it were plausible. However, let's not derail for too long. Just get it off your chest and then we confirm or deny. Then we move along. Not that it could alter any observable instances that are independently verifiable.

It seems there is a debate on the issue on  a few other threads so this one moved to rep now seems less useful to keep going.

Interesting in itself though that DT members are not looking for these clear worrying signs (or blatant actions perhaps) from hhampuz to slap flags and tags. We believe it could be because although they may now or in the future be paid via a hhampuz or other campaign managers sig spots this polarity reversal may be taking effect on them already. This is a dangerous exploit of DT minds perhaps.

Who would have thought ... money can corrupt.

Please keep on topic and no derailing.  Great to have you and suchmoon back chatting to us again. Welcome back.

Perhaps you should focus more on the content of topic which is clear enough or you think everyone except you is stupid and can't see what is content of this topic?
It is not speculation, unless you want to share which DT member and signature campaign manager did this:
Which reminded me, I need to bump something.

What is the point of fighting over signature campaigns and managers when in this forum the signatures can be counted easily, no more than 10-15 signature campaigns actually running and most of them are closed. Stop losing time all of you and mind your own business.

We need not present anything. It is for you to prove that we were certain there were no other instances that could be related to the above description.

Please don't seek to derail our thread with speculations on the " motivations" for posing a question. The implications are system wide and even if only one persons actions at that time could be related to which we described it does not say others could not suffer the same effects.

If you wish to believe we knew only hhampuz so far had adopted this new approach and were referring only to him that is fine. Please shut the fuck up about it and make your own thread. We wish to discuss it as a system wide problem and to demonstrate just how different this approach is to the "claimed" need to pre-emptively give tags and flags for "things" they believe could indicate the POSSIBLE danger of financial wrong doing in the future.

If you can not grasp the very clear difference here moronbozo then again that is fine. We have no interest in wasting time of the lowest of the low who know they have no real chance competing on a fair playing field and need to game the systems of control in their favor.

Your points are stupid and invalid each time we have the displeasure to encounter you.  There is no satisfaction in crushing your points because they are stupid and irrelevant to start with.

@bitcoinsupremeo

WTF are you even talking about .. please STFU and stick to the topic which is clear double standards and reversal of what they previously claimed was essential, the entire reason for there even being lemons flags or trust feedback. Sig campaigns and all other rev streams are central and core to the motivation for gaming the systems of control and preventing fair and equal treatment of all members.

Do not use our threads to spam your yobit scamming shit pit.

I am not sure why have you quoted my post and replied to moronbozo.
Yes you do, you created this thread so you need to present everything.
And where I have said that?
You said this:
I will need specific case for possible fixes. Thing which I mentioned is not it because you said it is speculation, so I have no clue what are you talking about.

How can you fix something which does not exist? Unless you want to say what has to be fixed, or you want to fix things which are not broken? That does not make any sense then.

Why are senior people still feeding the troll? Block and have a wank over his/her/it’s constant state of misery. The op is just a used tampon

There must be something lost in translation. You seem very confused or else we are not getting what your point is. Clearly state your point instead of hinting at it. #

How do you suggest we present for analysis that  we were not sure if other members were acting in the same way due to not having read all threads on this board.

@TMAN the auction scammer - please keep your weird low functioning spew to yourself.