Well, set this aside for now.  I’m glad you answered how you found it.  Seems likely enough.

I see that theymos also found it funny, though he didn’t go back and merit it:

theymos’ negative feedback for #883539 “Amine14madrid ALT”
Date: 2016-08-01
Risked BTC amount: 0.00000000      
Reference: (none)


(Note that theymos gives no reference link; but it’s not exactly difficult to find all of the banned alt’s posts.)

---

Note:  This archive is from gyazo.com, which Alia also uses.  I had difficulty with that; I can’t see pictures there, because that site refuses to display the image without Javascript (which I have disabled since the 90s).

---

Now, Alia, I would appreciate if you would address what ibminer said.  Also this post by NLNico from some pages ago, which you seem to have ignored:


I ask this, not so much to prosecute you, but because I really did mean this:


I’m probably the only person on this entire forum who isn’t absolutely convinced that you are favours/revcback/Light/et al.  Closest thing to a friend you’ve still got here.  It would be nice if you could show some evidence of your identity better than “Skype me”, which your alleged (?) brother could also do:

---

That struck me as not-scammy.  Me, at least; others don’t seem so impressed.  But really, all it means is that either you do have a conscience, or this is an impressive long con.  0.18 BTC could be an “investment”, worth much more down the road.  Yes, such is what this world has come to...

If you could prove that you are a different individual than your “brother”, that would go a long way toward showing that you returned that money for conscience.  Based on what I read at all the links others dug up, I’m not so sure that “if he was in the situation of taking 0.18 btc and running he would have no hesitation”.  I think he may return it to buy trust, so he could scam out more.

Are you him?  I hope you’re not.  If you’re not, then I might believe that you did that for conscience, yes; and that would show some basic common decency on your part.

Excellent point, o_e_l_e_o.  Curiously, 23000 runs is well within the realm of affordability for an experiment with the level of wagers Alia proposed:



Surely, to prove her point, Alia could put up <0.1 BTC for 23000 runs on each site, at the wagers she stated.  Moreover, to avoid any doubt, the experiment should be performed by a trustworthy person who PGP-signs an NDA agreeing not to disclose the script unless either it fails to perform as advertised, or it is found to contain any illegal material.  Skeptical investigators’ experiments always take such reasonable precautions.

I began writing a longer post about this, even thinking to offer to put up 0.0092 BTC (10% of the total) for this experiment.  But then I realized, that would only prove with confidence of p < 0.05 that the script could halve the house edge.  That is:  It would prove with >95% certainty that the script could cut your long-term gambling losses in half.  What about profit?

Say, how many runs would be required to obtain p < 0.05 confidence that the script can generate a 5% profit across many runs?  That is a modest “ROI”, at the low end of Alia’s claims.

Please do not insult Alia by suggesting that she prove only that the script can cut losses in half!  Who would want a winning script which only loses less?

Sorry to cut this quote in half; I will show where you were correct by the end.  But first, I want to highlight the problem here.

Many people’s eyes glaze over when they see equations; so I will snip those beautiful equations, and cut everything down to “money quotes” (so to speak):



Otherwise stated:  A user with a ruined reputation has a 29.4% chance of “proving” that the script works—told you so!—and a 70.6% chance of doing what was probably going to happen anyway.

That’s about midway between betting on a die roll, and betting on a coin flip.  For a person with nothing left to lose here, it is close to a ⅓ chance of (imagined) instant redemption!  Not a bad bet for someone who managed to get red-tagged by theymos himself.


For a 29.4% chance of winning trust based on pure luck, with the downside risk limited to a grand total⁰ of 0.00004 BTC = 4000 satoshis (plus some unspecified “few bits”)!


Whereas:


Exactly.

---

Yet notwithstanding the foregoing, I still entertain the notion that a winning script may be Alia’s idée fixe.  Consider here the argument set forth in Alia’s negative trust feedback for RGBKey (2018-02-27):


So, Alia states that “nothing can predict the future”.  Then advocates a method of predicting the future of a pseudorandom process.

And so, Alia admits that the script is based on a “mathematical fallacy”.  But in the next breath, “practice and experience” override the laws of mathematics.

Such blatant self-contradiction is oftentimes shown by those who are obsessed with an idea.  “Nothing can create free energy—and this was made clear in my thread.  However, I have here a machine which will run forever without any new energy input.  It is based on a physics fallacy; but practice and experience have shown me that it works.  Try it out yourself, if you don't believe me.”

---

For the non-gamblers like me who are unaccustomed to talk of games and “busting”, I have an analogy:

Alia outlines what I will here call a (fallacious) calculation over collective probabilities.  A (correct) example of such a calculation is Bitcoin’s difficulty adjustment.  The mining process is pseudorandom, a probabilistic search—a sort of gambling.  Difficulty is targeted such that on average, the time between blocks will be around 10 minutes.  Yet if you watch the blockchain, you will notice that the time between blocks is quite variable.

Due to the targeting at 10 minutes, you might expect “intuitively” that too-short times would be followed by too-long times.  Sometimes, by happenstance, that is what occurs.  But other times, not.  Sometimes, a block is mined very quickly, followed by another block mined very quickly.  Sometimes, the opposite.  Sometimes, neither.

The only (almost-)true prediction¹ which could be made from this is that over the course of many blocks, assuming constant global hashrate, the average of block generation times will be close to 10 minutes.  This is analogous to predicting that over the course of many games, “ROI” will be close to -1% (the house edge).  The former won’t even be exactly 10 minutes, and the latter won’t be exactly -1% (negative one percent), because the processes are probabilistic.

Whereas what Alia claims this script to do is tantamount to claiming that you can semi-accurately predict the next block generation time based on the past few block generation times.  Um, no.  Try this concept for free:  Watch the blockchain, and try to guess about how long it will take the next block to come in.  Sometimes, by pure luck, you will come close with your prediction.  But mostly, you will just find the experience very frustrating.

---

0. Here interpreting “bit” per BIP 176 as 0.000001 BTC = 100 satoshis.

1. Actually, I stated the matter somewhat backwards:  The difficulty adjustment is done every 2016 blocks retrospectively, by looking at how far away from the desired 10-minute target the past 2016 blocks’ average comes out to.  But this is only necessary due to changes in global hash rate; and I here oversimplify by omitting all discussion of fluctuations in hash rate.  If hash rate were constant, then you could reasonably make a forward-looking prediction that the next n block generation times would average out to about 10 minutes—for any large enough n.  Also then, difficulty adjustment would never be required.

Alia, I am open to the possibility that you sincerely believe what you are saying.  Please compare the following recent experience of mine, in a context not involving monetary gain or scam accusations.

It began in the Vanitygen thread, in Development & Technical Discussion.  (I linked to the post which led into the discussion; continue reading downthread.)  With no obvious material motive, Jude Austin (a Legendary!) claimed to have randomly found an address with funds on an imitator of directory.io.  Discussion ensued involving me, DannyHamilton, LoyceV, and dooglus on one side, and Jude Austin on the other.  Key points:




N.b. that Jude Austin spends his cycles on LBC, too.  From his posts, I infer that he passionately believes in the notion of finding address collisions.

Jude Austin subsequently began a thread in Technical Support titled, “I found a collision. The hard part is proving it.”  I did not participate in that thread, or even read it; life is too short.

Now, compare the title of your thread here:  “Proving that my gambling script works.”


It is possible that you could persuade people that you’re a kook instead of a scammer.  Attempting to empirically “prove” the mathematically impossible is not so different from writing university professors long e-mails with designs for perpetual motion machines, free energy devices, or a peculiar favourite of mine, recursive compressors.  I am not trying to insult you here:  That’s just how it is; and if you sincerely believe in your script, then you may not realize how others see this thread.  It looks like a good analogue for this:


It is also possible that this be your run-up to some future attempt to sell the script again, or otherwise profit from mathematically impossible claims about games of chance.  If you were to do that, such would conclusively show your motives.

Now, a question which is sensitive, but must be asked:  Somewhere in your post history, I saw you describe yourself as a “degen” in matters of gambling.  (Don’t take that as an insult:  You said it.)  I am asking you a reasonable question, not to attack you:  Are you fixated on the idea of a winning script?  Many gamblers become obsessed with similar ideas.

I am posting partly for the purpose of saying what I say, and partly to see whether you sincerely wish to challenge in open discourse the people who tell you that what you claim is mathematically impossible.  Some of them are gambling experts (which I am not), who have crunched numbers specifically about the game you are playing.  I have reviewed their arguments.  What they say is sound.  What you claim is not, to make an understatement.  Whereupon I myself am more interested in really knowing why you’re doing this.

I have a scintilla of a doubt here:  Perhaps this individual may genuinely believe, even obsessively believe that the script can perform as claimed.  I have seen such behaviour here before, in a context not involving monetary gain or scam accusations.

It began in the Vanitygen thread.  (I linked to the post which led into the discussion; continue reading downthread.)  With no obvious material motive, Jude Austin (a Legendary) claimed to have randomly found an address with funds on an imitator of directory.io.  Discussion ensued involving me, DannyHamilton, LoyceV, and dooglus on one side, and Jude Austin on the other.  Key points:




N.b. that Jude Austin spends his cycles on LBC, too.  Between “scammer” and “kook”, I will call the latter there.

Jude Austin subsequently began a thread in Technical Support titled, “I found a collision. The hard part is proving it.”  I did not participate in that thread, or even read it; life is too short.  Now, compare the title of Alia’s new thread.

In this overall context of this thread, the question arises of whether Alia be trying to build credibility for a future gambling scam, or sincerely trying to “prove” the mathematically impossible.

I have a minor side hobby of exercising skepticism upon kooks; and although many if not most are swindlers who knowingly deceive others for fame and fortune, some of them seemed sincerely obsessed with a kooky idea.  Alia is a self-described “degen” in matters of gambling.  You will laugh at me if I even bother to point out that many gamblers are obsessed.  She may be fixated on the idea of a winning script.  —Or maybe not.

If she ever tries to sell the damn thing again, that would conclusively show her motives.  As many others have said, I also wonder why she doesn’t shut up, gather up every satoshi in her wallet, and make herself rich with her winning script.

Partly to have my say, partly to help assess her motives, I will post a possibly-edited version of the foregoing in her thread and see whether she discusses it, or deletes it.  —  Edit:  Done:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.msg31351462#msg31351462

https://web.archive.org/web/20180301171902/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.msg31351462#msg31351462
(Too bad, it looks like web.archive.org and ip.bitcointalk.org are not friends today.  This archive also preserves RGBKey’s post, minus his embedded equation image.)

For the record:  I still think that the identity of the person(s) controlling #1764044 “alia” is questionable.  (That’s part of the problem:  Questionable, with IP evidence weighing much more strongly than the user’s uncorroborated story.)  But there is no question that the account sold a fraudulent gambling script, scammed by lying about knowing Dave, and issued itself positive trust feedback (whether through an alt, or an alleged family member’s account—it doesn’t matter), among other misdeeds all worthy of being red-tagged to hell.  I say this according to the same standard I always apply to trust feedback.  Moreover, even under the most favourable (so to speak) assumption that the unlikely “little brother” story be true, that would make Alia the sister of a well-documented serial scammer (thanks: ibminer and NLNico), living in the same household as him and sharing computers and account info with him.  The more likely alternative theory:  “Alia” is him.

If Alia is actually a 19-year-old college girl who suffers a coincidental mix of bad luck, disreputable family, and a fast-and-loose attitude toward the truth, then I would suggest that she learn a lesson here, buckle down to her studies, take a long-term view of her future—and permaban her brother from ever even coming close to any of her computer equipment, ID cards, and account information.

For my part, I have here learned a hard lesson myself.

Before I stepped in and made “alia” famous, that account was quietly posting once or twice per day—mostly in loan-related threads, while maintaining NSFW threads.  The account had 52 merits from other users, mostly awarded after original “merit masturbation” post; but that had been a short-lived fad, quickly forgotten by almost everybody.

Within the span of less than a week, I picked up a Jr. account which had faded to obscurity, and brought it widespread attention—particularly from high-ranking members.  Not only attention, but credibility.  Though surely not all of it, much of “alia’s” public credibility was implicit, by association with me.

Moreover, I am almost certain that aTriz would never have even heard of “alia” if not for my actions—and I’m absolutely certain that he never would have given the account an unprecedented signature deal for a Jr. Member, if not for the association with me.  (Those who call him stupid for that, should ask if it would have been stupid to have given me the same deal when I was a Jr. Member.  aTriz did do some other quite foolish things here, as I expect he now realizes; but I think snapping up the signature of a “rising star” was just business savvy, albeit with a poorly-drafted contract.)  Obviously, aTriz is responsible for his own decisions just as I am for mine.  But I do still feel some sense of moral responsibility.  Sorry, aTriz.

In the future, I intend to be much more careful about whom I grant instant fame—with my own reputation on the line.  I never gave “alia” any positive endorsement of trustworthiness, via the formal trust system or otherwise.  But nevertheless:  Even what seems such a seemingly positive thing as a sexy merit bet and a titillating public romance can have serious consequences, if the recipient of my affections turns out to be a doorway to a whole closet full of skeletons.

Standard of evidence:  Reasonable, articulable suspicion.  Warrants examination.  Not “proved”.

Suspicious links:  Permabanned ban evader #813214 “amine14madrid”, #887705 “amine15madrid”, #888390 “amine16madrid”, and other known variations.

Archival reference: https://web.archive.org/web/20180301125625/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1572983.msg15790516#msg15790516

On 19 February 2018, “alia” awarded these two merits to the Meta appeal of a permabanned user known to commit ban evasion with alts (merit summary):


At the time, I immediately noticed this; and I questioned Alia about it via PM.  The response:


As so oft the case, Alia’s explanation is (just barely) plausible.  The “alia” account has shown a quirky, sometimes outright twisted sense of humour; for another example, on 21 February 2018, “alia” gave +1 to Wendigo for accusing “alia” of a scam.  For immediate reference, the allegedly “laugh out loud” posts are quoted in full below.  To be sure, the posts are absurd.  If I assume that a person is acting in good faith (and squint a bit), I can sort of see why a person whom I believed to be a 19-year-old college girl might “laugh out loud”-level funny (if not why she would deem them meritorious).

Awarding merit to a forum abuser is abusive; however, the user in question is permabanned.  Thus, at the time, I saw no more actual harm in it than awards of merit to any other inactive accounts.  I deemed the matter a bit of immaturity from a 19-year-old, said to myself “nobody’s perfect”, and shrugged it off.

However, against the background of NLNico’s explosive report upthread, I here articulate my suspicion that “alia” and/or “favours” may be connected to “armine*madrid”, or may be “armine*madrid”, on the following grounds:

• It is unlikely that a new user would ever even see the post-ban whine from the year 2016.  I myself oftentimes browse old threads; but usually, they are high-quality threads which have been linked from elsewhere, and/or have significant posts by famous users.  How and why did “alia” even find that thread?
• An award of merit is, by definition, an endorsement of the post.  What I had assumed to be “a bit of immaturity from a 19-year-old” could, in view of recent evidence, be a shout-out of solidarity to a friend—or a vanity homage to oneself.

I could articulate other reasons why this is suspicious; but I believe the above will suffice.

I am totally unfamiliar with the “armine*madrid” case; I never even heard of the user before I saw those merits.  I will try to poke into this later.

Meanwhile, I suggest that those who are familiar with the “armine*madrid” case and/or have access to IP evidence should examine these accounts for any potential connection.

---

“alia” sez, LOL, +1:


Again, “alia” sez, LOL, +1:


(imgur embeds have been changed to web.archive.org.  Of course, in the original posts, the images do not show as embeds due to account “Newbie” status.)

---

I now have more to say on this topic.  I will deliberately double-post, as reasonably required by subject matter plus length.

@scam_detector, I request that you keep this thread open indefinitely.  Given what NLNico dug up, I suspect that this thread may carry on some long-term investigations—with potential connections to abuse on other forums as well as this one.

Also, I suggest that the OP subject line be changed since the aTriz matter has been split to its own thread.

P.S., check your trust page.

For me, what really nailed down the matter was when Dave from Wallet Recovery Services said he didn’t know her.  Yes, Dave posted in this thread.  Oh yes, I remembered that she had said she knew Dave from “the best wallet recovery service” IRL; so I pinged Dave, in case he could corroborate about her and her brother.  After he posted here, her best response was something along the lines of, “other Dave”.

Way upthread.  You missed much.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3032057.msg31227646#msg31227646

That’s after she challenged theymos’ IP evidence on alleged grounds of sharing Internet (and accounts, and e-mails...) with her alleged brother.


That’s now offtopic here.  Thread split by OP.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3038096.0
Issues got mixed up from the beginning; I urged to refocus:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3038096.msg31276141#msg31276141

P.S., suchmoon—sorry about that merit you gave to adjust to 69, plus some wastes of fine wit.

[This was written earlier, in a text editor as usual, just as the thread was being locked.  Now, I can post it..]

---

The reason for which I needed to check Alia’s trust page:


Says who?

Can you get even one credible person to attest that you handled >10BTC for them?  I don’t see it on your trust page.

Since your wording was vague as to whether you say you handled >10 BTC in one transanction, or >10 BTC altogether over time, I also don’t see feedback in amounts high enough to add up to “>10 BTC” except over a very long period if time.  I see 0.01 BTC here, 0.05 BTC there...

...and then there’s a 0.31 BTC feedback from #1472267 “Bigraz”, a Newbie-ranked account (29 activity) created 2017-12-19, whose entire post history (save two altcoin posts) is a litany of posting in loan threads—many (more than half?) in Alia loan threads.

So... who says you have handled >10 BTC?  You?  It is not a rhetorical question.  I am asking you, Alia.

Thank you.  I think an edited, generalized version of what you wrote should be stickied in the Gambling forum.  (If something isn’t already...)

Stripping it down to simple mathematical terms and concrete examples puts the issue quite clearly in focus.


I sometimes have fun looking for patterns in hashes of arbitrary data, or in the output of /dev/random.  At least I know it’s not real.  If I want an extended intelligible pattern, such as the vanity addresses in my signature, then I need to bruteforce it—600 CPU-hours on slow laptop for those addresses.  By analogy, flipping a coin many times until you get n heads in a row.

Thinking aloud here:

Suppose I think that a gambling script which wins, say, 1000 times in a row should be possible.  Of course!  Not only is it possible:  It is trivial.  The problem is that depending on the odds of the game, it will need to lose an astronomical number of times to hit an unbroken streak of 1000 wins in a row.  (Rather like after trying many billions of losing keys, I got one with a corresponding address which spells “segwit”.)

So, I write this script (which essentially just plays the game repeatedly).  Then I create a forum account called “Alia 2.0” (new and improved!), pay some girl to get /r/GirlsGoneBitcoin verified for me, and sell my script as the script which will win 1000 times in a row.

Does that sound like an “upgrade” on what happened here?  I hope so.  I always like to improve things.

What I think OP is seeking here is to know that my “Alia 2.0” alt would not obtain such a glowing mini-review from a widely respected person for the “guaranteed 1000 wins in a row [eventually]” script.

---

Aside:  I feel a bit stupid now for not having paid more attention.  Alia had many posts about gambling, wrapped in a sort of gambler’s talk I tended to tune out.

It would ordinarily be absurd to follow or scrutinize all the posts of users I like, if many of them are uninteresting to me.  Maybe I should have here.

Anyway, after the scandal broke, I PMed a trustworthy gambling expert to ask for learning information.  He sent back a bunch of Github links.  Works for me.  I’ll dig into them later.  Perhaps you’ll see me in Gambling someday—though probably not any day soon.

---

---

Edit:  @MadZ:  Re, “21% of her merit comes from just one user, nullius”:  If you want to ask me about that in the Alia scam thread, I would reply there.  (Short answer:  Nobody gave her “free” merit; I could have given +48 in one shot to put the account up to 100, but would never do such a thing.)  Otherwise, suffice it to say, I think it’s clear that that account will not be receiving much more merit from anyone—if any at all.

Thank you, scam_detector.  I think that when aTriz arrives, all this can be settled amicably some way which reasonably assures that the thing you complain of will not happen again.  I think that’s what you’re seeking; am I right?

Aside, it was from your behaviour in the other thread that I concluded that your intentions are what you claim:  Fighting scams—while not risking flamewar blowback to your main account, but also not taking credit as “the one who outed Alia”.  I see that I was correct in this assessment.

---

For all the people discussing that signature contract:

In the Alia scam thread, I raised the issue of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  Rather than digging up what few words I already said on the topic, or trying to write new ones—here, have a wiki link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_covenant_of_good_faith_and_fair_dealing

TL;DR:  Terms such as “you must not be a scammer totally misrepresenting your identity to obain this contract” do not need to be written into a contract.  They are implicit in all contracts; and breach thereof is material breach of the contract.

---

Thank you.  That was—not only witty, but quite instructive, I think.

---

At least mine were witty—and true.


My best guess:  Star power.  Movie studio exec rushes to lock in a hot rising starlet, who is supposed to be the Next Big Thing—and it turns out, there is some nasty surprise about her...

Again, my guess.

I note that aTriz also hinted at making an offer for my signature.  From Alia’s signature-selling thread:


(Disclosure:  Some discussions were had.  The only reason why I’m not wearing a paid signature now is that I really don’t want one—although I do not wholly exclude the possibility; remember, I’m the guy who couldn’t get scammed out of 1.2 BTC because I don’t have it.  Nevertheless, my PGP key fingerprints need the space.  PGP fingerprints are important to me.)

---

Though I was not privy to any discussions between them whatsoever, I doubt that.  I suspect that aTriz was simply interested in snapping up her signature and, he hoped, mine also.

---

Good idea.  (Suddenly, the prepayment money becomes a public service.)

---

My bad.  Oops.

Preface

I think a few words are in order about why I am peculiarly interested in this topic.  It goes beyond my own liking for aTriz:  I feel a certain sense of moral responsiblity in the matter.

As I made clear to “alia” near the end of the last thread:


I think a great many people never would have even heard of Alia, if not for actions on my own part.  I was well-intended—and I was neither the first nor only one fooled.  But I did get fooled; and I raised her profile.

Especially in the Legendary section, I think a good many of you reading this can attest to yourselves that you never even would have heard of Alia, were it not for me.

On that last point, aTriz will need to speak for himself.  Though I seriously doubt that Alia would have ever come to his attention if not for me, I do not have any direct knowledge of how he found her signature-sale thread, nor of private business dealings between them.

---

scam_detector, whoever you are, I thought you came off reasonably in the other thread when we settled your accusation against me, and also when I nailed Alia for having to known Dave from “the best” “wallet recovery service” (Dave speaks).  I also will here assume good faith on your part, since you were the one who brought the Alia matter to light.

To better keep focus on the substantive issues, first I wish to point out a few things about where the Alia scam thread got off track.


Please do understand the response by people who are in fact subjected to daily troll attacks by known as well as new sockpuppet accounts.  You may disdain these ongoing feuds—but the people involved in them can’t, not when they get spurious attack threads launched against them which sometimes grow to 15 pages in the first day.

If you were to deal with that every day—well, foremost, I think that’s really why you avoid these feuds.  Also, why you are using an alt account.  You don’t want to deal with that every day.  For if you did, it would eat your time; and you would quite reasonably come to develop some reflexes about an anonymous party hurling about accusations.  Ok, it’s this today.

I do think that this is the reason why no action was taken until ibminer tagged Alia and posted in that thread.

For my part, you will observe, I did not enter that thread with a simple “go away, troll” response to you.  That was indeed my own initial reflex; and I wrote a post to such effect.  The reason why that was never posted was part prudence, part luck:  Prudence, insofar as I have developed the habit of checking pertinent trust pages before I post about an issue; and luck, because RGBKey and Joel_Jantsen had tagged Alia.

I didn’t take you seriously, scam_detector.  I took RGBKey seriously, because I have interacted with him in Development & Technology Discussion; I know he’s smart, and not a troll.  Moreover, his negative was reinforced by the harsh words in Joel_Jantsen’s neutral (since changed to negative).

I slammed on the brakes when I saw that.  Then, ibminer posted...

The foregoing is illustrative of why you received the initial response you did, quoted above.

Another problem with that thread was the way you tied the Alia and aTriz issues together.  Being somewhat closer to the situation than you are—I snorted when I saw that.  The very title made it come off like the wacky sorts of accusations heard here daily.  Of course, this problem should be solved by the dividing of issues between threads.

Now here, I think it is wise to presume your intent is to state in good faith what you believe to be a meritorious accusation against aTriz.

I think the most reasonable discussion of that would be served by not allowing conflation of spurious issues.  In the Alia thread, I identified discussion of four different issues—two Alia issues (which are here offtopic), and two aTriz issues.

One issue on-topic here, and (I think) not raised by you anywhere, is the spurious insinuation that aTriz did something wrong by locking in a three-year signature contract with Alia.  I think it’s clear, aTriz got scammed—and that’s the long and short of the matter.  In the absence of any cogent reason to the contrary, I would suggest explicitly dismissing this as a frivolous issue so as to focus on the gambling issue.

On the gambling issue, it is difficult for me to reach a firm opinion.  As I said in the Alia thread, I don’t know enough about gambling to assess this issue.  I have trouble following the discussion, since I do not know all the jargon.  It would take me hours of reading to even begin to get a handle on the issue, when I am already exhausted (now awake much >24 hours due to this Alia blowup...).  I’d be interested in hearing what unbiased, technically competent persons who know gambling have to say about the matter.

I do think it’s clear that aTriz doesn’t know anything about scripting on a technical level.

Also, missing from your thread-split OP is the question of culpability.  Somebody who knowingly promotes a scam is much worse than somebody who is scammed into believing in a scam.  When you write this:


Well, what would you do without the “users who apparently knew what they’re talking about”?  What if you, scam_detector, with your current level of gambling knowledge, were told by somebody who seemed knowledgeable that “their method works 100%”, etc.?

You might say that you’d avoid such a situation.  That’s easy to say when you are not in the situation.  Now, consider if a scammer has already engendered your trust sufficiently to lock you into long-term contracts with much prepayment.  The person is a sort of “rising star”, admired on the forum and apparently well-liked by some technically competent people.  That person apparently shows knowledge superior to yours—then tells you, “this will work 100%”.

Context can be important.  Without knowing the technical gambling part or what the script actually did, the best I can guess is:  aTriz probably did something at best foolhardy, at worst foolhardy; and he got scammed.

---

By keeping focused on a calm, reasonable examination of what Alia’s script did, gambling-wise—what aTriz knew or should have known about it—and what aTriz did or didn’t do about it, I think the matter can be handled without 25-page flamewars which are 90% off those topics.  On my presumption of you’re here, I believe that to be your goal, scam_detector.

I will now mostly defer to people who actually understand gambling issues.  Frankly, I myself would like to see this explained.  However, unless/until I crash asleep, I will promptly drive a spike through anything which looks like blaming the victim for getting scammed out of a three-year contract, etc.  (That issue, I very well do understand.)

I believe that Lauda is talking about your victims.

No, I’m posting this as if you were just talking about how trustworthy you were—which you were—and also, as if you had just recently upthread alleged yourself to have sent positive feedback from your alleged brother’s account to yours—which you did—and also, as if you were told that sending yourself positive feedback is wrong, and you brushed it off as an isolated incidence—which you were, and which you did...

Side note:  Whilst preparing another post, I noticed this:  On the trust page for #1764044 “alia”, some new positive feedback!

Positive feedback from #1892451 “alia_alt” to #1764044 “alia”
Date: 2018-02-28
Risked BTC amount: 0.00000000


Yes, a positive.  Not a neutral.

I took a screenshot, but can’t be bothered to upload it right now.  (A hassle, because imgur blocks uploads from Tor.)

Back to preparing the post for which I needed to review Alia’s trust summary...

Nice attempt to seize the moral high ground in what counts for “moral high ground” in today’s cesspit of a world.  Also, nice attempt to minimize the fact that you were trying to scam people by claiming that you knew Dave from “the best” “wallet recovery service” IRL.  I nailed you hard on that, right here in this thread.  Is that what you would consider a minor infraction?  Or what you yourself purport about leaving yourself positive trust feedback via your alleged brother’s account?  (I red-tag people for that without a second thought!)  Or, for that matter, stealing a candy bar?  Are you one of those people who pretends that shoplifting be inconsequential, a kind of a joke?

Anyway, have you heard of Draco?  He lends his name to the word draconian.  I admire him.

As to trust, dishonesty, and lies specifically, I linked this upthread:


Yes, cheating in school earns from me a personal red tag, even decades later.

@actmyname, forum samurai!


Actually, hilarious, it is tumescent males “thinking with the little head” who are most vulnerable to online sex scams.  Those would be the most likely to swear up and down that any of the cases you have described in this thread were genuine.

For my part—those just joining this thread should be aware that I stated way back in its early pages:  I never saw an Alia cam show or got any pictures sent to me, despite having been under the impression that I could have such things for free.  I intended to, at some point—more as a part of getting to know my lovely camgirl than as wank material.  It just didn’t seem a priority.  I wanted to talk—which I think I did too much of; and I wanted to listen, though she didn’t seem to talk enough.  (FYI also, if/when I seek virtual satisfaction with a remote partner, I can oftentimes be more pleased with pure cybersex—text only, terminal-friendly.  Words make a connection of psyches better than eyeball-candy.)

---

So, you discovered my one weak point:  My deeply-rooted conscionable drive to avoid hurting anybody innocent.  Only, it is not a weak point at all; for it requires actual innocence, a thing which cannot be scammed, manufactured, or exploited.

I tell you:  If you could prove to me to my own independent standards that you are 100% telling the truth, then I would defend you even if every other person on this forum turned against me.  Even if theymos banned me!  I have been in situations where I stood alone against numerous people, in moral opposition.  I am fully capable of it.

Too bad for you, that ship sailed when Dave said he didn’t know you.  “My standards” means that to satisfy my conscience, I do not need to examine massive piles of evidence on many different charges (as I would for red-tags).  It only means I need to catch you in one significant lie.  Whereupon I adhere the ancient and timeless principle:

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

False in one thing, false in everything.

Ingrate.

---

I posted something recently about how I tried to make a sex tape (solo—hot for merit), but as a ghost of the nym.zone, I am invisible and the camera can’t see me.  It came out much funnier before, but I can’t be bothered to dig it up now.  Sorry.  It was hilarious, etc.  (Hey, don’t ban me; I’m tired here!)

---

So...  You haven’t scammed anyone.  Some in this thread say otherwise (re gambling stuff), but set that aside.  You simply sometimes share accounts and account access with a known, well-documented serial scammer whom you allege to be your brother.  That give customers great confidence in you.


Interesting.  Testing the waters?

You shared very little of a personal nature with me; and most of that was generic.  Brief mention of your college majors, etc.  Nothing very personal (except a few sex bits you also give your clients), and certainly nothing which could be compromising to you.  Indeed, the one time I tried to press you for information (because I wanted to help—about your purported privacy breach, for which you got the username change), you firmly kept me at arm’s length; and you barely told me more about that than you stated in public forum postings.

Whereas I gave you a carefully measured amount of low-level private communication which I do desire to be kept confidential.  Nothing which could compromise me if leaked—nothing for which you could blackmail me—because I didn’t trust you yet.  I was trying to build trust with you; and the only way to do that is to give someone something real, bit by bit, and see over time if they can be trusted with it.  (Intelligence agencies have some similar methods.)

I can hardly believe that this individual actually thinks that “Alia” became the talk of the town in a matter of days without any special—assistance.

Sorry about that, hilarious.  (But actually, it is hilarious.)

Not very observant, are you?  I’m disappointed.