I'm not much of a supporter of giving up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, or in other words, protecting idiots at the expense of loosing valuable users over minor infractions that could possibly put some idiots at greater risk, but if that is what it is then atleast it should be done consistently..

This whole Yobit situation has become too fine of an obfuscated line..
One could definitely make the argument that any advertisement of any Yobit product is advertising a "scam", as in very "high risk" and even predatory "investments"/"scams?"..
On the other hand an argument could be made along the lines of "So what?".. If people are stupid enough to buy the crap then they are stupid and stupid is as stupid does..

The current situation is some sort of blurry line drifting around in the sea somewhere between both of those camps, with possible harsh punishment for tripping on it?

Stupid situation that wouldn't even exist if users didn't want that yobit dust so badly..
Seems you can get away with a lot more, and push the boundaries, as long as you throw around some coin..
Almost like a bribe.. What can you get away with as long as you are paying?

I wouldn't recommend Yobit as a very safe exchange or any of their investments as good investments, but I would use it to dump some coins or something and might recommend to use it to get in, do your business, and get out..
Also, no matter how terrible some coin or asset being traded is, if it has volatility, it can be flipped for a profit..

Is it a "scam" or just a predatory "high risk" investment offering? Where is the line?

Right..
After that it's surprising to me that it was welcomed back as it has been, especially considering its borderline scamminess.. But it pays right?


crazy-joe=off topic

It seems the community came to the general consensus that yobit is not too much of a scam for it to be advertised on the forum right?
I don't like that they were allowed to come back and advertise after being banned for it but the community allowed it..

"Oh well I guess CryptoTalk isn't really directly a scam though its parent Yobit facilitates extremely likely scams" -let them advertise
"Oh well I guess Yobit isn't directly a scam though it facilitates extremely likely scams" -let them advertise
"Oh noes!! X10 coin? That is almost definitely a scam so we can't advertise that!!  Better just go back to advertising only Yobit, who is a scam advertiser, but indirectly advertising scams is ok? Right guys?" -let them advertise

X10 coin is nothing new for Yobit.. They have been pushing similar "scams" for years since the ROM crap..

I wonder how many DT members are currently accepting payment from Yobit?

Is Yobit a scam or not?
Is advertising for Yobit advertising for a scam or not?
If it is, then why is it here advertising at all?

It's just too darn close to the edge for a clear consensus it seems..

Why can Vispillo be tagged for advertising a "scam" but all the other that do can not?
Because he posted that he thinks one of Yobit's products is a "scam" and therefore is knowingly advertising a "scam"?

So let me get this straight..
If I go find any posts from anyone currently being paid by Yobit, or has been paid by Yobit, who has previously stated that they think any of Yobit's products (past or present) are a "scam" prior to them accepting any form of payment for their advertisement, they should be red tagged?

But no red tags for anyone advertising Yobit as long as they have never themselves stated that they think any Yobit products are a "scam"?
What a situation in that it depends on the post history of all individual advertising users..

Their are probably plenty to be tagged on this basis.. How many even in DT I wonder?

How can this be made consistent one way or another?


Maybe if I go find a couple more examples of users advertising for yobit while having previously stated they think that any yobit product is/was a scam, then it can be decided to tag them all or tag none..
Sound fair?

You are 100% correct..
That whole spiel about trusting 3rd parties and such..
Maybe I've been too far into the "I didn't do anything wrong so don't have anything to hide" camp...

Seems PN7 being QS is worthy of breaking into the qualification of "very rare" circumstances..

I'm not sure how much I like staff using backend information, or arguably confidential/PM information, against users like that...

Who knows... The next thing I know staff could be blabbering about my email account(s) used on the forum and have any users pissed off at me brought very close to my family's home...

How much exactly should staff-only information be expected to remain private?

When should one expect even the IP log to be leaked?

You basically have my dox, so how safe is it in your hands??

I'd like to think I could trust Bitcointalk against anything but legal subpoenas within proper jurisdiction, but maybe not?  

Maybe I should ditch this compromised account and go full anon..

I don't think theymos is that interested in revenue..

I considered it..

I surely wouldn't like my own beer tab calculated and presented to me.. Whew that could be frightening..

A pro..

Public publishing is a good proof of events/POW, providing a public proof could keep him or any company from being scammed by eachother.. Or provide proof thereof..

Not too many of them left are their?
"Legendary" shitposters are a dwindling subset..

It looks to me like a description of how to organize all of your bounty hunting related data in a certain software with the goal of efficiency to the point where it will even set up the forms for you..

https://etherscan.io/tokentxns?a=0x27457e296214f60b3dc04e4f4b9e62f9efba6623
"A total of 426 txns found"
Currently worth a bit over $1,100 total..

Can anyone analyze this to determine about how much he has been able to make from all this including what he probably sold along the way?
I wonder if it is worth it..

I sent him a merit for the hell of it..

I don't know if I really see bounty reports as spammy.. They are in their proper place and aren't shitting up anything you are actually trying to read are they?
It's a lot of actual economic activity flowing through here too, and look at all the actual on-chain transactions happening because of it.. Real use of cryptocurrency (love it or hate it)..
It is quite a big economy and Bitcointalk is the HUB of this economy.. Isn't it?
Where else on the internet are things like this happening?

Theymos must kindof like it too for some reason since he allows it to take up so much forum resources.. I wonder what he thinks about the whole situation.. I bet he really has a big picture view of the situation that I would like to know..

Obviously most of these projects are junk and many turn out to be scams, but it is pretty cool that Bitcointalk facilitates this free market of projects, and the freedom of all to say anything they want about any of them, good or bad, weeding out and informing of scams in a free market way..

A lot of junk comes out of it but also just about all of the legendary projects have come out of it too no?

One could make the case that it is spamming up facebook and twitter.. But is that a concern?

I have never necessarily trusted him and since the time he has been brought inside of my attention span that situation has not exactly been improving..


If I see someone having such a strong opinion on a topic I don't see much of a problem in prodding them to put their money/tags where their mouth is, so to speak..

Wow! Maybe 2020 will actually turn over a new leaf on the board..

QS genuinely apologizing, and Lauda genuinely accepting that apology as if they care at all, are both unexpected moves in a good direction showing some semblance of mutual respect here..

Good form chaps!

Makes me anxious to see what other positive revelations may be coming in the near future..

Rats.. You caught that edit?
I noticed at the last minute while comparing myself to the "both hard right Republicans" checklist bit, therefore the edit..


Frame him for what purpose? To ruin the QS account reputation? lol
Maybe try to frame him as a ban evader or actually scam to frame him as an actual scammer other than the self-escrow gig?

iirc not too long ago QS denied being an alt of another account on the basis that he did not want to be liable for the actions of the other account, and it was generally believed that his denial was true.. (Not digging for it)
A denial from the QS account in this case would likely actually put more doubt in my mind that PN7 is QS and this refusal to answer is just technicalities..

Not denying here is more evidence he is QS to me, similar to, and as is, the discreditation of SM referenced and seen above..


All we have so far is one red tag from lauda, which I doubt will stop PN7 from being paid for a signature..
Is the goal here to stop PN7/QS from being paid for a signature? Or just to make sure QS is being watched for something actually serious?

As I have alluded to previously I think one of the only dangers of QS is in his mastermind if he did actually put effort into trying to pull off a big scam..
But I don't see where QS has ever tried pulling off any big scam, and as time goes on, it becomes only less likely in my mind..
Heck, if PN7 is indeed QS he didn't really put much effort into obfuscating his posts to not be caught now did he? Maybe it is even an experiment of his to see if he will be allowed to post cleanly under a new account..

I think QS signature posting under a relatively cleaner account is quite harmless, and now it is well known and will be well watched..
I understand to most here that QS is absolutely unredeemable in their eyes, so I won't even ask what the requirements of such would be, but I guess that I will dangerously admit that I myself do see some value in users like QS and TOAA, in the fact that they keep everyone on their toes, and force them to toe the straight-and-narrow line, because others are jumping at the opportunity to expose wrongdoing of rivals.. (Is "wrongdoin" a QS or TOAA word?)
It has some good in the big picture from my perspective..

Actually related to my last post on the concept of the....
The false accusations don't fly do they? The free market works..

Another interesting dynamic I see happening is that it used to be that every sock was QS, and then lately every sock was CH, now is it going back to every sock is QS again?

I think it is probably QS but what are you all going to do about it? And what do you think should be done about it?
Maybe that should be the title of a thread.. "What should be done about PN7 probably being an alt of QS?"..
Lit up red or just plenty of neutrals?

One of the greatest aspects of this forum is that it is mostly an open marketplace of ideas wherein "the truth will emerge from the competition of ideas in free, transparent public discourse and ... ideas and ideologies will be culled according to their superiority or inferiority and widespread acceptance among the population."

It's a beautiful thing..

I have some insider information about the likely outcome here so I will not be applying and can say that I see many high up on this list I am confident will not be chosen..

Merit is definitely not everything in this contest and likely not even one of the foremost considerations possibly aside from where it was earned..

I have been on the boarder of this subject immidiately after seeing the first accusations but their was absolutely no evidence at all presented transparently and surely wasn't 100% convinced past the maximum benefit of the doubt, but the evidence presented in the OP of this thread, while still circumstantial, does further convince me that PN7 is likely QS..

I think the underlying root cause of QS starting this fresh account would be for monitory reasons (like Rodger Ver's "real Bitcoin") as others have stated to earn from a signature campaign, rather than to further sow discord..
Atleast he didn't just buy an account passphraise and created it on his own from scratch..

It is still there.. Check the untrusted feedback section on his profile..
Like I said about more users seeing marlboroza's trust as default..

I am wrong from time to time and it sucks, but I do my best not to stay wrong when I get new/more intel..

He admitted to me the paid bumping stuff and that was enough for me to see lauda's new tag as correct..
As I said.. No contest on the new tag from me.. Lauda is right on the new tag but the tag for merits wasn't imo..

Maybe I should go back and reread that thread.. I wasn't that thorough in his past investigations admittedly as I basically got all the information I needed for the tag from the ICO bumping..

If he is still lying "today" about whatever then that is very disappointing to me as I had hoped he was turning things around..
I don't exactly follow his posts though and you obviously do a much better job of keeping an eye on him than I..

I was disappointed to find these things out about him halfway through this thread..
I and others didn't think it was right to tag someone for sending a merit but it turns out their were other concerns brought up that he should be tagged for..

I saw that your evidence against him was old 2017-18 stuff and thought that he had turned his shitposting around since was able to get his permanent ban from plagiarism overturned, which is usually only done if the user has sense become valuable correct?
If he hasn't/isn't becoming valuable and stopping whatever bad actions you see then that's a shame..


marlboroza you seem well researched and very sure of this subject so maybe you should reinforce lauda's tag for the main reasons of your tags having more credit at face value and your tags show up as trusted to more users, and maybe include some of the more current pertinent information..

Maybe I fucked up here not knowing everything about everything but I just can't do that..
I have been gone for a few days just now also so I probably missed things..

None from me..
This thread was originally contesting a red flag for simply sending merit to TECShare... Successfully contested because it was wrong..

While that red tag didn't fly in the eyes of the community it brought attention upon hacker where dirt was then dug on their account https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.0 and the admission from hacker of past paid ICO bumping..

Resulting in the new tag you see now which is mainly uncontested..


After all, it seems that hacker has a pretty rough history of shitposting, plagiarizing, and bumping etc. but from what I see hacker has been turning their posting quality around since their early actions as a newbie and has been mostly honest about their past mistakes, so I am hopeful that after a good amount of time from here on out as a quality poster and being a good asset of the forum, hacker may be able to redeem himself.

Nope... I basically stated that those are the reasons he is in the position he is in actually.. As I have previously in my comments about QS..

It is obviously not OK to steal anything no matter the amount..
The point was that other reputable escrows, that are still reputable, have self-escrowed exactly the same way QS did..

The difference is that they didn't lie about it, deny it, admitted it was wrong/shady, stopped, and have remained reputable escrow..

It is/was not OK, but not irredeemable in itself, as suchmoon alluded to earlier..

Quoted for trying to make it sound like I condone "scamming/stealing" isn't going to work..



Happens all the time that accounts get slammed with a ton of red trust never having attempted to scam or scammed anything..
Look at TOAA.. What did he ever scam or even try to? Nothing..

When I think “bad-to-the-bones scammer” I think of much more serious and lucrative scams of noteworthiness..

[1] False logic.. PN7 could be the alt of any other veteran member and know things, even if not drunk like TMAN..

[2] "bad-to-the-bone scammer"?  What did QS ever even scam other than possibly a small % on escrows, depending on how you look at it? It's not like he is some infamous scammer that got away with a bunch of coin or something.. Unless you know something I don't?

[3] Man you talk about lauda an awfull lot..

http://HowManyTimesHasNulliusPostedLaudaToday.tk/ ??


lol 68 hits

You obviously have a lot more research to do.. Maybe start with flags..

I also find it very funny that you try to come off as some cypherpunk anonymous anarchistic idealist but can't stop blabbering you unwavering support of the greatest current authoritarian threat who would crush the liberty you portray to protect..
Shit don't add up bro..

Serves that douchebag fiat paper shill right..

Their are a lot of references to this subject completely unrelated to the devil..

In the unlikely event that PN7 proves they are not QS it will be quite comical, but how could they possibly prove such a negative anyway?
If PN7 proves he is someone else that is not QS, you will all just probably think that user is QS too..

I don't pay enough attention to the writing styles of users to have much of an opinion on it other than somewhat trusting the opinions of other users here who do claim to do just that..

This is just entertaining and I don't really care to research their compared linguistics much because I don't think that QS is that high of a risk of scamming in average trades anyway..