Holy shit, QS, you are just bat shit dead nuts crazy, as well as a complete asshole to people. Unless of course my sarcasm detector has malfunctioned.  Thanks for the insight doog. Shouldn't you be busy laundering money somewhere or using your various alts shilling against scrypt.cc? You think that's me? That's not me. I don't have any alts other than an account called "Just Dice" that posted once asking to be freed from newbie jail. Coinonomous uses too many commas, just, like, I do. But I don't think I ever would say "dead nuts crazy". That's just weird. I don't launder money, and I don't think it's possible to "shill against" anything, only for it: shill: noun. an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others. Maybe you should take a break for a while and calm down. QS lied and he should be giving refunds to everyone he scammed without them having to ask.
Kindly point to the post in which I said this. See what I mean? You're replying without reading. |
|
|
|
I could be over thinking this greatly and do not in anyway understand how the Clam System works,
but maybe Whale Digger knows doing it this way (backwards) discloses what the total amount to be dug will be,
as well as when the digging will end, so that the market and users don't become totally disillusioned with CLAM?
It is like a controlled dig that is stabilizing, versus the random dig where no one knows how bad it could get.
That's possible, but wouldn't it make sense to dig only half of what he has available from each block so we think he has less left than he really does? Of course, maybe that *is* what he's doing... we just can't tell. |
|
|
|
|
Just a small niggle, but could you show player balances always to 8 digits?
I see: 0.0004566 BTC which at first glance looks like 4566 satoshis (but is really 45660 satoshis). I don't want to have to "count the zeros" to tell if there's a trailing zero omitted or not.
|
|
|
|
(Selling 500 GHs and for real mining of ~100GHs is fractional mining)
No, selling 500 GHs but only delivering 100 GHs is scam, pure and simple. I think we can forget about Rewards going up. with so much fud already impossible.
I would love to read the explanation of how you come to such an absurd thought construct. But yeah, sounds totally logical. Not Marcelo is to blame for the low rewards. This forum is! It's like this: the scrypt.cc miners are imaginary. They only work at full potential if we all believe in them *really hard*. This constant onslaught of FUD from you guys sharing simple self-evident truths damages our ability to believe in the non-existent mining gear, leading to a decrease in performance. Come on now, if we all believe together we can increase the make-believe 100 GHs up to a ROI-tastic 500 GHs! |
|
|
|
OK DUMBASS, why would the engine allow that buy order to exist in the first place? Unlimited KHS/MHS in the trading engine? Obviously it's a buy order but guess what if you go to Hashnest and try to buy 300 Ph/s worth of shares, IT WON'T LET YOU. Fancy that. Their orderbook limits you to buying what's available on their marketplace.
Any explanations for this, or shall we add it to the list of things you make up and can't substantiate?
To be fair, most trading engines will allow you to put in buy orders for any amount. Here's an order to buy 500 million CLAMs at 1 satoshi each on poloniex. Only ~15 million exist in total:  |
|
|
|
He wouldn't need to access the "escrow code", the private keys to the funds are in/on the JD servers (or are offline in doog's possession), so he could just take the money if that is what he decided to do
Looks like that had less to do with escrow and more of speeding up the process to get their CLAMs, kind of automating things. Why else would someone use escrow when they know the escrow is dooglus or JD, unless they didn't now that would be a different story. That's what I'm reading, dooglus could answer this best though. I use the escrow service because it is more convenient than handling things "manually". The escrow service logs both sides of the transaction so that it appears in the users' histories. It usually goes like this: user: hey, can I buy 100 CLAMs at 0.006?
doog: sure
user: send me a bitcoin address
doog: /escrow <user> 100 0.6 BTC [xBTCaddr]
system: dooglus has escrowed 100 CLAMs for you; send 0.6 BTC to [xBTCaddr] to release the escrow
user: cool, I didn't know you had an escrow feature [sends coins]
doog: /release <user>
user: thanks!
I think it's pretty clear that I'm not an independent third party in the escrow, and that's what makes this quite different than Panthers suggesting QS as a fee-charging escrow, while trying hard to make it look like he's not the same person (without ever going quite as far as to explicitly deny it). |
|
|
|
Go ahead and leave a negative rating if you feel that is what is correct. I won't be around to argue for your removal from DT. I can say that you will likely be excluded though.
Are you threatening him? Plus it would be hypocritical for you to leave one for me and not your level 1 sponsor considering that he uses himself to escrow for his alts as well.....
Are you talking about me? Vod has two level 1 sponsors (TC and me) but I don't have any alts that have ever traded. |
|
|
|
when you say that "Our digger is working backwards",
you mean Whale Digger is entering the btc privatekeys backwards through clam block time?
Yes. Why isn't the digging random? Why would there be a predictable digging of clams going backwards?
Why doesn't it jump back and forth all over?
We can only guess at his reasons. I don't see what advantage it gives him to disclose his holdings in this way, so maybe it's accidental. |
|
|
|
I think the yield seen right now are reflective of the actual amount of mining going on.
What makes you think there is any mining going on? Do you have any evidence for it, or is it purely a guess? I will add some math for you:
Math with your "mining" rewards:
MH price
0,00078499 BTC
MH reward per day
0,00001344 BTC
If you would run that MH with real hardware by yourself @ LTC network:
MH reward per day with real hardware
0,0001493 BTC
So the reward for real hardware is 91% higher than with scrypt.cc's mh.
That means the ROI for the scrypt.cc admin is 5,25 days if he is running real hardware.
Well, lets say the power costs are 50% of all rewards, then the ROI is 10,51 days
Now tell me, why should the admin not buy the hashrate out of the orderbook?
This is an excellent point, but none of the scam's defenders seem to have even noticed it. |
|
|
|
Click Trust then trust setting then scroll down and Hierarchical view.
You will see who added whom.
Got it. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Since you were dealing with QS, you *did* send first; he may have pretended to send first, but was really only sending to himself?
Now this reminds me of the movie Interstellar...  Kind of offtopic, but kind of related: People often appear in the Just-Dice chat asking if I have CLAM for sale for BTC. I often do. Instead of telling them "send X btc to address Y" I'll use the built-in escrow system. It will tell them the amount and address, and hold my CLAMs in escrow until they send the BTC. In a sense I'm escrowing my own deal since I own JD and by extension its escrow system. But there's no fee, they are willing to send first anyway, and I don't think anyone has the expectation that JD is a neutral third party. |
|
|
|
How can you tell? Is there a way of viewing people's trust lists?
add a user to your trust list and you'll be able to see it clear as day. you'll have to exclude DT and remove other users. Can you give more details? Where do I see it? I've added users to my trust list before and not noticed their trust list appear anywhere. Edit: oh, are you saying I should wipe out my whole trust list other than 2 entries, just keeping in the person I want to examine, and ~DefaultTrust? |
|
|
|
please give me a btc address ill send some btc from one of my wallets.
Sure! 1EPZaxUad5RP6TdKsf4JTYAusFqzSaE8P3 Edit: no need to go overboard. Just 1% of your 15k will suffice as a demonstration.  |
|
|
|
BadBear would know if QS was banned.
BadBear would probably remove QS from DT if QS lied about being banned - but that is just my thoughts.
Look asshole, do you think it would be fair to have my personal information published and my name slandered by enemies that I have made on the forum? When the reason I have made such enemies is because I prevented them from being able to steal from others? If you think this is fair then please PM me your new/updated contact information so I can update what is below: Vod: (please note that most people would present this information in a much harsher way).
Do you think it is fair that I should have to risk my money on the potential that someone else will run away while acting as escrow, when I have built up my own reputation to a level in which others are willing to risk their money on me, if I want to protect my own identity? This is not unheard of and has happened before. If you think this is fair, then why don't you repay shdvb the $400 that was stolen from him by maidak, the $5,000 that was stolen from andresmm91, and the $10,000 that he apparently stole from someone on OTC? Maidak was previously one of the most reputable people on the forum until it was revealed that he stole all this money. There is no reason why I should have to risk my money like that just so I can protect my privacy. That's quite the response. Vod was talking about whether BB was covering for you, and your reply was very angry and totally unrelated to his point. It also appears to be an admission that you were in fact escrowing for one of your own alts. BB has removed QS from his trust list.
How can you tell? Is there a way of viewing people's trust lists? If i had known i was dealing with you QS i would have sent 1st and not incurred the fee.
Since you were dealing with QS, you *did* send first; he may have pretended to send first, but was really only sending to himself? |
|
|
|
Nobody is buying that lame excuse. He could set a policy of denying his ownership of any alt he has escrowed for, and otherwise not commenting. Then a "no comment" is not a "de-facto yes". |
|
|
|
You state for a fact you are not QS. We find out for a fact you are. You would probably get negative trust from multiple people for dishonesty.
This is why I don't understand why you just don't state for a fact that you are or are not the same person. Why all the games?
Honestly confused here.
I guess it's because if he admits to owning the sockpuppet then he's admitting to escrowing his own deals which is scammy, and if he denies owning the sockpuppet and someone finds a way of proving he's lying then that's pretty scammy too. Refusing to confirm or deny ownership of the sockpuppet probably feels safest. "Hey, I never said it wasn't me..." |
|
|
|
If you read what I wrote, you would see that the exact same thing was posted on both "April 20th"'s.
Your timeline post was confusing. I read it but didn't understand it. Why are you so interested in this case anyway?
I'm not. I try to ignore it but you (or QS, I can't tell the difference) goad me into replying again, complaining that I didn't "answer your questions". Why don't you help us out. Are you and QS the same person or not?
I have answered this question before, and answering it again is only going to result in my words getting twisted by tsp (and maybe you). I must have missed your answer. I've seen answers like "I am Panthers", "I am none of the new users in this thread", "would it make a difference if I was him?" and so on, but no clear "yes" or "no". |
|
|
|
April 20, 2015:TSP opens a thread in Meta complaining QS on a signature campaign thread about signing a bitcoin message from the bitcoin address he claimed to be holding money in. QS had previously signed a PGP message saying almost the exact same information as the message in the signature campaign TSP was participating in. Over 11 days pass!April 20, 2015:TSP opens a thread in Meta complaining that QS was engaging in trust abuse. It appears that QS had removed the negative trust rating and then put it back on, so I am not quite sure as to what date it was originally put on, however I have no reason to believe it was any date other then this same date. Something's wrong with your timeline. There aren't 11 days between April 20 and April 20. I think if QS had signed a message with the address he claimed to control this would have ended. It's standard practice to do so, why wouldn't QS do it? TSP is not even sure that he is right about me and QS being the same person.
Why don't you help us out. Are you and QS the same person or not? |
|
|
|
I made a pretty insightful reply to your reply here before the thread got somewhat derailed. "insightful" eh? Correct me if I am wrong, however from what I got from your prior posts about the loan is that you sent/tipped him ~1BTC, he did nothing with that BTC (CLAM) that he received from you and then repaid/tipped the same ~1BTC back to you. Or did I miss something?
That's pretty much how it went. Reputation scammers (and trust farmers) will generally start out with smaller amounts, and then will say something along the lines of "dooglus trusted me with with 1 BTC here, so you can trust me with 1.5 BTC" Then when I* decide that I can trust them with 1.5 because you trusted them with 1, then they can say "dooglus trusted me with 1 BTC and QS trusted me with 1.5 BTC, so I can be trusted with 2.5 BTC". Then the next person gets scammed when they run away with 2.5 BTC, and both myself and you (in this example) would partially be to blame for the third person's loss. (The amounts may not escalate as quickly and there may not be as few "steps" in these kinds of scams, but I think this example gets the overall point across).
*I don't think I would fall for this kind of scheme, but you never know if it was in a more complex form.
Cool story, but what does it have to do with this thread? The way that people build up trust is the same whether they are scammers or not. Nobody is going to trust you with a large amount until you have shown that you can be trusted with a smaller amount. It is possible that tsp will scam in the future, and that my report of him paying back the coins I loaned him will have facilitated his scam. The same can be said of any positive trust rating given to any account by anyone. From what I understand, you concur that tspacepilot was due n from TF/coinchat (with the possibility of n being zero), but instead received n + x (with x being a positive integer).
No, that is wrong. I think that x is a small non-integer closer to 0 than to 1. There is precent to calling someone a scammer when they receive money they should not have received.
[unrelated stories deleted]
Those cases are quite different. KoS refused to give the money back. tsp didn't. He was willing to discuss the situation but TF refused. As I understand it tsp was willing to discuss the matter with TF, but TF was unreasonable about it and refused to even discuss the matter unless tsp paid him relatively large apparently arbitrary amounts of money. tsp refused to pay the demanded amount, as I think anyone else would have done. That's what I said. I would dispute that tspacepilot attempted to discuss the matter in a way that would result in tspacepilot repaying money that was sent to him in error. [ If you look at
]this thread closely, you will see that, although tspacepilot did "dispute" the amount that he owed, that TF providing an accounting of the amounts owed would be a waste of time because the overall consensus was that tspacepilot did not have any intention of paying anything back. I counted 5 people saying something along the lines that they did not think tspacepilot was going to repay anything back, which included 3 staff members (tysat apparently is no longer a staff member, but was counted as one in this case). OK. Because "consensus"? Additionally, tspacepilot demonstrated his willingness to repay by saying that the amount he stole was closer to 0.01 (then .5), and then later said if the amount demanded was 0.001 that he would pay just to make the issue go away:
You keep twisting people's words. Those two statements are not in any way mutually inconsistent. He is saying that the amount his bot earned is small, and that he would be willing to pay a small amount to make this nonsense go away. Also, IIRC, you had posted that he told you the amount was something closer to a few thousand satoshi (0.00002), so the amounts he is willing to admit to stealing keeps getting smaller I don't remember the amount he told me other than that it was tiny. Perhaps I understated its size. It's an amount earned by a malfunctioning bot on a site run by a suspected scammer without any terms and conditions in place at the time forbidding the running of such bots. Let it go already. While yes, 0.001 is closer to .01 then .5 is, however this is generally not the way that people will speak/argue a point, so I think it is reasonable to say that tspacepilot was admitting to stealing at least .01, but was only willing to repay .001 (which is 10% of the amount stolen).
At no point has tsp admitted to stealing anything. I think you have repeatedly demonstrated that you have little to no grasp of the concept of what is "reasonable". |
|
|
|
See how QS/Panthers twists people's words: I'd go out on a limb on this one and say the chances of Dooglus being TSP are about as good as QS not being Panther52.
BAC said that tsp and dooglus are the same person
(I meant Dooglus isn't TSP)
It was obvious to everyone all along that BAC was saying that the chance of me being tsp is zero - the same as the chance of QS not being Panthers. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
