Yeah, as I said, some people have a dog in the fight through the selling of forum accounts to scammers who want to use them as supporting socks. So, you know, it is understandable that there'll be a little thrashing around through the initial pain.

Eventually they'll get used to it. It's not like they're capable of forming a reasonable argument as is clearly evidenced throughout this thread.

Which I duly showed to be the false equivalence that it was and you, erm, I think you tried to claim there was something more to your post but I'm still waiting on exactly what else you believe it contained other than your poorly-conceived opinion.


Colour's what? I see you suffer from the same possessive apostrophe addiction that QS does. Funny that.

Time to roll out the scammer bingo card:

"FUDDERS. They are to blame"
"If I wanted to scam why am I still here?"
"People said bad words about me"
"We wuz haxxord!"
"Whoops. Soz!"
"Dev went rogue"
"I have no fucking idea!"
"If you send me money now, I'll give you some of your coins back"
"Bad guys threatened my family"
"Who are you again? What year is this? What is this thing you call 'beetcorn'?"
"I can't remember the password to the wallet"
"I tried but it didn't work out. Soz."
"You try making a business work!"
"Hey, plenty of businesses fail."
"You shouldn't have invested more than you were prepared to lose"

etc. etc.

Any more?

Ohhhhhh, just another empty tone complaint? Fuck you.


Wow, you and Quickscammer should get together and write a thesis on how similarly you both utterly fail to make an objective argument. It's almost like you're the same person.

If you can't counter the fact that participation in a ponzi is DEMONSTRABLY proving that you don't give a shit where you steal your profit from, then fapping on and on about irrelevance, hearsay and unsubstantiated nonsense is just proving that all you've got in your locker is distraction and deflection.

For all your pathetic whining about wanting to justify showing support for a ponzi just so you can take money off the scammers, you seem to forget the scam you've got in your signature.

Twat.

If people take giveaways they have to post in a thread and show support for the scam.

Your, "therefore. . ." conclusion is, therefore, bollocks.

*Boom!* There goes another irony-meter.

Your grasp of law is extremely poor. Besides, nobody is stopping anybody from collaborating with ponzi scams if they wish, we're just making it so other forum members can see what kind of person they are dealing with in future. Those who wish to receive a share in a ponzi scam as a reward for their assistance in helping the scam operate are, by their own actions, demonstrably untrustworthy.

Ponzi schemes don't make anything, they don't invest anything, they simply steal money from their users and share some of it with others.

The Math doesn't lie. Your 'profit' is derived from theft.

Evidence or STFU.


Read the warning again:


Which part of, "accepting giveaways is showing your support for the scam" confuses you?

Without participation a Ponzi cannot function.

There are more than enough legitimate gambling, gaming and investment services you may avail yourself of. There is no justification for helping scammers operate their ponzi.

Besides, nobody is stopping anybody from choosing to participate, we're just making it so there are consequences to such provably untrustworthy behaviour.

I literally have no idea what that means.



Yeah, I'm reading it again, in order to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm not seeing what you think is being misunderstood here.

You tried comparing playing in a Casino to participating in a Ponzi and I pointed out how that was a false equivalence.

Are there words in your post I'm not seeing, perhaps? Do I need special glasses to make them appear and turn it into some magically profound prose of great wisdom?

Nope, new community action by concerned citizens of the forum.

Which part of, "A Ponzi scheme does not make any money, it steals it from later users and shares it with the earlier collaborators as a reward for helping the scam function." confuses you?

Which part of, "The fact the 'investor' wishes to profit from the theft of money from later participants means he is provably untrustworthy." is difficult for you to comprehend?



Ooooh, burrrrrn! You sure showed me!

Let me make this *real* fucking simple for you. It appears you need it to be.

A Casino makes money by accepting bets based on games of chance and probability.

A Ponzi scheme does not make any money, it steals it from later users and shares it with the earlier collaborators as a reward for helping the scam function.


It doesn't matter. Both play their part in helping the scam to work.

The fact the 'investor' wishes to profit from the theft of money from later participants means he is provably untrustworthy.

Care to try and counter that?

Hi QS! I wondered how long it would be before you started whining and throwing your unique brand of fallacious reasoning into the mix. Just so everybody knows, QS has a dog in the fight as he sells forum accounts and scammers will not bother buying them if their rep is going to be destroyed when they are used for the purpose of providing sock-support for a scam.

So, you want to claim that I think negative trust should be given to anyone who doesn't agree with me? Care to actually provide proof for that bullshit claim? If you were being intellectually honest, and I know how hard that is for you, you'd concede that I have presented a cogent and objective argument for the proposed practice of clamping down on both scammers and supporters of scams.

If you want put forward a counter-argument, please do. As a person who values critical thinking I love to hear a convincing argument to prove that my position is not as sound as I believed it to be. But, just like all the other whining asshats in this thread (and all the other similar threads), you don't actually have a reasonable argument, you prefer your arguments to be chock full of fallacy.

Oh, you mean just like those scamming 'cloud mining monitor' websites do? Innocently reporting on whether a particular operation is paying, right up until it collapses and runs with the money. Which is of absolutely zero use to anybody.

Without participants there can be no ponzi.

Try countering that.

Either you are an idiot or you are intentionally ignoring the fact that this scheme is no different from any other, it takes money from later users and gives it to the earlier ones as a reward for their help in keeping the scam running.

It doesn't produce anything, it doesn't invest anything, it makes no profit other than through theft.

To participate in the face of these facts makes one an accomplice to fraud and theft and, therefore, untrustworthy.

It is not about your funds, asswipe, it is about the fact that you want to collaborate with ponzi scammers in return for a share of the bitcoin they will steal from later users.

Everyone says otherwise? Or a bunch of butthurt socks and scammers?

It is incredibly dishonest of you to refer to a handful of people who resent the process of exposing bad practice on this forum as being in the moral majority.


Wow. You literally have absolutely nothing of substance to counter with other than repeated tone complaints.

The OP is hiding behind a sock while making bold claims about how important he believes himself to be and you are utterly void of reasonable argument other than to repeatedly whine about how you don't like being labelled as the person you evidently are.

If you don't have anything objective to counter with then you don't get to complain.

This thread is exactly like all the other, "I don't like being held to account for my actions so I'll try and get people removed from DT instead" complaint threads.

Shit, all we need is someone to accuse Vod of being the real identity behind Lutpin and Mexxer and we'll have a full house of Bitcointalk Bollocks.

Which part of, "They are mostly Ponzi scams" is hard for you to understand?

It is this notion of wanting to 'earn passively' which is at the crux of the scam. You want to send money to a service which will promise that it is mining and that you will earn a profit. It simply doesn't happen.

Either you mine with actual hardware, rented hardware or hash, or you are simply sending money to a ponzi scheme which doesn't actually mine at all but pinky-promises you that it does.

No, there isn't a ponzi sub on this forum. There is a sub where a number of threads exist concerning services which may or may not be ponzi schemes, but it isn't for the forum staff to dictate whether those threads should exist or not.


Again, no. What I am proposing isn't about forum administration, it is about community communication. People can still support ponzi scams as much as they want, but not without consequence.

There are more than enough legitimate investment, gambling and gaming services for them to use that there is absolutely no justification for actively participating in and, by doing so, supporting those operations that are clearly ponzi scams.

I know that if I want to best determine whether a user is trustworthy or not, the fact they are marked as being the kind of person who doesn't care that they support these toxic schemes in return for a share of the loot, is an objective indicator that they are not trustworthy. So the choice is theirs, they can continue to help these scammers and, as a result, be marked as such, or they can concede that it is morally bankrupt to collaborate with fraudsters and conmen and cease their involvement.