There, FIFY.

Reminder to others in this thread, 'VitaminKing' is a known shill for cloudmining website, which has never offered any evidence to support its claim to be 'cloud mining'. Instead all they have ever done is post the usual bollocks about how regularly it 'pays out'. This of course simply being a fraction of the money it is sent by the victims it is criminally defrauding.

Update: I'm starting to see signs of a new round of shilling beginning after the main accounts have been silent for a couple of weeks. First 'GermanGiant' came back with an 'innocent' post of no particular note, except of course for his huge sig banner advertising his scam. Then came 'VitaminKing' with the standard dishonest spin on criticism of his scam.

I think it's worth keeping an eye out for any more activity from the other sock-puppet shills after they ALL went quiet pretty much at the same time. But, you know, totallynotconnectedamirite?

That 'monitor' website is just as fraudulent as your 'cloud mining' operation.


Public Service Announcement -
This is just another Ponzi Scam
Do Not Invest!

Those who choose to post of their participation
support or encouragement for this scam will
be tagged with negative trust for proving
they wish to help the scammers operate this
Ponzi in return for a share of the funds stolen
from other users. Thereby proving they are not
trustworthy forum members.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

No point in buying high ranking accounts when they are just going to get trashed with deserved negative ratings. That is why so many account sellers are pissy at us, it must have caused quite the drop in business for them.

Cloud mining is an absurd concept in general and ripe for exploitation by scammers. If you want to mine without the hassle of hardware in hand, rent rigs or hash-power directly from the well-known services who supply such. That way you can point the hash at a pool of your choice and you get exactly what you pay for.

No but you do have a raging hard-on for Dooglus and given that your typical obsessive rant threads are their usual fail for you in your anti-Dooglus quest, it isn't too much of a leap of faith to consider whether you'd latch on to creating an 'Honest' ponzi in the hope of stirring trouble between myself and Dooglus as we have a different opinion on the matter of 'honest' ponzis.

Then there is the fact that 'Honestbit' knows way more about both Dooglus and the DT system for a newb, as well as his penchant for posting quotes from your anti-Dooglus threads.

It doesn't escape my attention that the obsessive use of logical fallacy in both your arguments is awfully similar but, hey, personality disorders and intellectual dishonesty go hand in hand anyway. I do know he is lying about this being his first account, but I also know I could be wrong about him being you. In any event it is irrelevant, his 'honest' ponzi isn't honest at all because it is open to participation from random internet strangers who may not be fully-informed as to the nature of the 'scheme'. This means that money which would otherwise not have been deposited becomes part of the system and is taken by the operator and those participants who also know that their share could be coming from somebody who would otherwise not consent.

Fully informed consent is the ultimate basis for secular morality, after all, 'Honestbit'. So one cannot claim a system to be 'honest' if it transgresses the boundaries of fully informed consent.

Seriously? How many ways do I need to explain it?

Actually, no, I take that back shefchenko, thank you! You've just proved to me that even when somebody claims to be fully-informed about a ponzi scheme they *still* can fail to understand it properly.


As long as there is a chance that the operator will knowingly take money from participants who might not properly understand the system then those who operate the scheme and those who willingly accept a share of the money from this inherently flawed process are doing so dishonestly when they claim it is an 'honest' ponzi.

If you cannot ensure 100% fully-informed participation, which you cannot as already proven, then you cannot claim your ponzi to be an honest system because it may contain funds from people who would otherwise not have sent them, had they actually fully understood what the scheme was.

You are dishonestly avoiding the fact I just raised about your scheme not being honest. So there's that evidence of you being dishonest for starters.

Ah, so now you are claiming it is *you* who is being honest, as opposed to your ponzi scheme?

Because you are being honest about it being a ponzi scheme, that has never been the issue. The issue has always been that your scheme cannot be honest as long as there is a chance that a participant may not be fully-informed about how it functions.

Do you see how you fail at this? Your scheme can *never* be 'honest' as long as random internet strangers can be incited to participate.

It isn't my need for 100%, it is your need if you want to assert that your ponzi is 'honest'. That you can't means, quite simply, that you can't.