I just did refute it, moron. If you're not smart enough to understand the difference between objectively reasoned argument and logical fallacies I don't have the time, nor the inclination, to teach you.

1. Tone complaint. False equivalence.
2. False equivalence
3. Red herring. False equivalence.

Quick enough for you?

So, no, you chose to go with more rambling nonsense instead of a reasoned counter-argument.

Do you even logic?

Let's try this one more time for the dumbest fucks in this thread:

1. It matters NOT whether participating in a ponzi is illegal. This is not even the issue.

2. The profit you seek to make through your participation in these schemes is that which is stolen from other users.

3. Posting of your participation in any form in their threads is UNDENIABLE PROOF that you don't give a shit about other users being ripped off.


Which part of point 3 describes anything other than somebody who is PROVEN THROUGH THEIR OWN ACTIONS to be untrustworthy.

Ergo, you are marked as such so that anybody dealing with you in future understands the type of person you are.


Seriously, fuck all your other whining bullshit, dismantle point 3 with reasoned argument and I will concede. Otherwise shut the fuck up.

It always was a fucking scam you twat.

I'm just waiting for you to post of your participation in another ponzi-based thread and I'll hit you with that red text you keep baiting me for.

So far I'm working on the principal that since I have begun putting up PSA's warning of the consequences of posting of your participation in these fraudulent operations, thereby showing your support for it which encourages others to join, you haven't actually crossed that line.

How you move forward from this point is up to you. If you want every future interaction with members of this forum to know that you are proven to not give a shit where you profit from, even funds stolen from other users, then feel free to choose to join in with these scam threads and show your support for them. Otherwise, perhaps you'd like to reconsider whether it is morally acceptable to want to profit from theft.

Fuck me. The depths some people will stoop to.

Shame on Roger Ver! He knows damn well he's talking to scammers, but simply because they have a no-fee mining pool that draws miners to it he wants to throw a little, "Maybe I was wrong about you", solely to buy support for his bitcoin-version of choice.

Just. Fuck. SMH.

[edit] I've just emailed Coindesk about this. Hopefully they'll run a piece on this, erm, 'piece'.

I see that you, just like every other whining dirtbag can't put together a decent argument to counter my assertions.

I'm not refusing to see other points of view, I've already said that I love to have my position challenged with reasoned argument. Trouble is, you and your ilk have no reasoned argument because your support of ponzi scams in your quest for illicit profit is indefensible.

As I already said, you are free to do what you like in your quest for profit. You are not, however, free to do so without there being consequences for displaying behaviour which objectively proves that you care not where that profit comes from, even if it is stolen from other users and shared with you as a reward for your collaboration with the ponzi operators.

The butt-hurt and whining is pathetic. You don't have an objective counter to this simple fact:

Do you have an answer that *isn't* centred around logical fallacy and tone complaint?

Giving negative trust on DT is to communicate to other forum members whether you are provably untrustworthy. Hoping to profit from money stolen from other users is one big fucking slab of proof that you are not trustworthy. I think it is worth ensuring that other forum members are aware of that fact when dealing with you in future.

Grow up and accept responsibility for your actions. Freedom of choice is not freedom from consequence.

Freedom of choice, just like freedom of speech, does not equate to freedom from consequence.

Tagging people for being provably untrustworthy does not stop them from continuing to support ponzi scams. Do not conflate the issue with that of denying people their autonomy.

Jeepers! This is another reason to warn participants, the scammer isn't making enough to cover the expenses he needs to make to keep the damn thing operational - This means he's going to end up running with whatever coins he can snatch fairly soon.

Which is why a very clear PSA is posted and if a user messages me to ask why they have been tagged and that they didn't understand what the situation was, then chooses to delete the supporting post they made in the thread, I will delete the rating.

I've done it a few times today already.

Logical fallacy. Highlighting the dishonest behaviour of others does not assuage your own.

If you told me you wanted to send money to a ponzi scheme in the hope that you will be sent a greater number of coins in return, would this say to me that you care about where your 'profit' is coming from?

Ponzi schemes make nothing, produce nothing, invest nothing. They steal money from some users to share with other users in return for those users' participation in helping the scam operate.

Which part of that process sound like the people involved should be considered trustworthy?

If there are no participants in a Ponzi there can be no Ponzi.

Having a tough time scamming, scammer? Awwww.

Feeling under-appreciated and having to put in too many hours just to steal other people's satoshis?

Crime ain't the easy ride it used to be, amirite?!

The trust system is for scammers and those you suspect of being high risk of scamming in future.

If you behave dishonestly today then people who deal with you in the future need to know that you have been proven to have behaved dishonestly.

It isn't a preventative action, it is a community communication one.

Still ignoring the shredding you got from the other thread on this point?

It doesn't matter who is shill and who is 'investor'. Both participate in the ponzi scam in order to help it function and steal more coins.

They are both demonstrably untrustworthy.

So your not talking about your scammy self makes your anti-anti-scam opinion not biased?

Hmmmm. Sounds legit.

Are you struggling to understand the following, OP?

Nobody is stopping you from doing anything. You can join in as many ponzis as you wish in the hope of reaping a share of the coins which are stolen from later investors. But don't think your demonstrably untrustworthy behaviour will go unnoticed.

If you don't care that your profit comes from theft then those who deal with you in future should be made aware of that fact. Tagging you with negative trust makes them aware of that fact.


LAWL! Just noticed That's sweet of you to make a gift of this thread for me. Thanks!