It appears that Hhampuz took out a loan in the amount of 0.5 btc not long before he what I now believe to be him stealing the btc from BestMixer.
Based on the above, I believe Hhampuz to have used the money from BestMixer to repay his debts.
I think you accidently forgot to include a link to his loan request. It was made in private.... |
|
|
|
|
It appears that Hhampuz took out a loan in the amount of 0.5 btc not long before he what I now believe to be him stealing the btc from BestMixer.
Based on the above, I believe Hhampuz to have used the money from BestMixer to repay his debts.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
A new user logging on is going to need a 4yr college degree to figure out what all the =+#-1=2 mean. I REALLY think this has been overthought and overly complicated especially for someone just logging in to buy a fake gift card from a scammer who they found on Google.  IMO only (no personal offense intended to anyone) I think this is a mistake. The ONLY people who will benefit from this are the scammers. LOL says someone who obviously does not have a college degree. They don't need to know that that score means because it means NOTHING. Only a flag would be important to them for buying their gift card. Then they will get a red warning to help them. The only people who will benefit are THE ENTIRE BOARD that are not scammers. Well done sandy. If a person posts their scam solicitation post in a thread they did not start, and all they have is a newbie warning flag, all anybody will see is a # sign and perhaps an indication that a negative comments was made. This is like having a toy poodle act as a guard dog. I believe they also have a trade with extreme caution warning under their name. |
|
|
|
|
I wanted to write down (publicly) why I supported the flag in case I ever am asked about it long in the future.
I did notice some other transactions into that address, but I was able to reasonably conclude they were signature advertising (and other) payments.
Hopefully he will eventually return and repay you.
|
|
|
|
|
I think there should be a unique thread for every incident. If there are two (or more) people involved in scamming as part of a single incident, it might be okay to use a single thread, but one generic thread for many unrelated incidents is not okay according to my reading of the intent of how the system is supposed to work.
|
|
|
|
|
If you ask my opinion, you are weaponizing the trust system for political reasons. I certainly don’t think there is any written contract he violated. His opinion is different than yours (or LaudaMs, which you are pretty clearly a puppet of).
Although I acknowledge you are incapable of making a well rounded fact based technical argument against bitcoin cash (or at all), I would encourage anyone who doesn’t like bitcoin cash to make this kind of argument and others can make their own decision after coming to their own conclusions. There are plenty of people capable of doing this.
|
|
|
|
|
I don’t think he is a scammer. I do think you are calling him a scammer because he disagreed with you in a dispute.
He purchased his account years ago and conducted himself professionally for that entire time. To my knowledge he has been entrusted with others money and there haven’t been any complaints about him scamming by his trading partners nor anyone else.
|
|
|
|
There will be even more drama than before. I think this will mostly consist of you wining and bitching about your loss of power. It should make it more clear that you never cared about protecting others, but wanted power and money/business for yourself. |
|
|
|
Im sorry lauda, were you scammed? There is a flag on my profile that says you were. Lauda alleges: 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. Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.
|
|
|
|
A while ago, I was actually thinking about joining their campaign as some sort of experiment, back when they still paid a maximum of 0.1 BTC per week (if I remember correctly).
Just to see if I could actually manage to make those 1000 posts required to get the max amount. Not sure if it was a 1000 exactly, but that's the number I vaguely remember.
Not by shitposting my way to 1000 mind you.
They are paying $0.3 per post for legendary members, and bitcoin is trading at roughly $8000/btc. In order to get 0.1 BTC you would need to make about 2667 posts. This would be basically a full time job. |
|
|
|
This reminds me that the prime time to tag HostFat/Bcash/BSV with new flags.
I think these are examples of people the trust system upgrade is intended to protect -- those who have disagreeing opinions from those on DT (and in power) -- and who should not be receiving flags. Craig Wright is pretending to be Satoshi and he plagiarized the Bitcoin whitepaper. There are countless of examples shown here: https://stopcraigwright.com. Anyone actively supporting BSV is claiming that it is Bitcoin. BSV is a scam. It sounds to me like you are supporting weaponizing the trust system. You should be blacklisted. If you have technical arguments as to why BSV is inferior to bitcoin, or other altcoins, you should make them. While I acknowledge you are incapable of making a well rounded argument, about anything, I do not doubt that others who are smart can make arguments against BSV, and people can judge for themselves if they want to buy/use it. |
|
|
|
In this post, he acknowledged the debt (in a quoted post of his), and the repayment address, bc1q2nwf4njwkpeuyycx5a95nj6mf8m45djdk863xs which does not have a transaction receiving 0.01, the promised amount to be repaid. |
|
|
|
So long as theymos keeps his word, the trust drama should be removed: Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP.
|
|
|
|
QS doesn't have the same definition of the word "embezzlement" as everyone else, this is it, really.
What is your definition of "embezzlement". Please be specific and explain clearly so I can understand... It is important to make clear that embezzlement is not always a form of theft or an act of stealing, since those definitions specifically deal with taking something that does not belong to the perpetrators. Instead, embezzlement is, more generically, an act of deceitfully secreting assets by one or more persons that have been entrusted with such assets. The persons entrusted with such assets may or may not have an ownership stake in such assets. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embezzlement) So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that Hhampuz is secretively planning to steal from every campaign he manages, shall they go MIA ? Hmmm, it appears that is precisely what Hhampuz did.... |
|
|
|
I think this is a good opportunity to test theymos' credibility when he said this: Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP.
Those supporting those type of flags should very clearly be blacklisted from the trust system, both on DT1 and DT2. It's excellent. Most DT members will be afraid to support this move; the more do and show that they actually do back up their words, the more fun this will be. Wipe out most of the old DT for flagging a known scammer, that will show them abusers! Direct link to flag is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=35. Well to be entirely fair, there are a decent number of scammers who support you on DT, so blacklisting these people would not be all that bad. |
|
|
|
I think this is a good opportunity to test theymos' credibility when he said this: Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP.
Those supporting those type of flags should very clearly be blacklisted from the trust system, both on DT1 and DT2. What do you think about it?
I think I should be blacklisted as the victims are gone or afraid to speak out, and acting on their behalf is against the format.   More projection I see. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
