They've always shown themselves as co/founders. Founder's Syndrome comes to mind. Regardless, the consequences a manager would face as compared to the person on his team causing the problem is usually different and far less extreme, assuming no evidence of collusion exists.
Absent collusion, managers will face termination if they failed to implement sufficient controls to detect activity outside of company policy, which in almost all cases is the most severe punishment a company is willing to impose. Lauda went as far as to say that everyone engages in this type of behavior (allowing fraudulent statements to be made in a bounty campaign being run by him) by saying that this is a global issue.
Not sure what you are referring to here, Lauda's comment about the "global issue" I believe was about an idea of campaign managers putting a disclaimer on ICOs to provide more transparency, see below: Maybe "vouch" is not be the best word, but without disclaimers disassociating a campaign manager from the ICO, it is misleading, certainly to new members who probably don't even know campaign managers exist. This may be more of a global issue with managers/ICOs though.
It is a global issue, thus we can't blame anyone individually for it. Yes, that. There were clearly fraudulent statements in the bitblisscoin ANN thread that aTriz posted. When you make a post from your own account, unless you give an indication you are quoting someone (or are otherwise relying on someone else), you are making the statement yourself. This is not a complicated concept, and if you were to reject this, you could not hold anyone accountable for anything, ever....someone who failed to repay a loan could argue they did were not the one who promised to repay what was borrowed, it was really this other random guy who is wanting to raise money via an ICO. In the above quote, lauda was saying that aTriz should not be held responsible for statements made in ANN posts he made. this forum is filled with scammers, and I'd argue it's because of account sellers (like you) who have sold so many damn accounts to whoever would offer you money, but I digress. Actually you are wrong. I checked up on the accounts I had sold many months after I stopped dealing in forum accounts, and the overwhelming majority of them were not involved in any kind of scam-like activity, and a fairly decent number of them reasonably played an active "positive" role in the community. If you don't believe me, you can go into the scam accusations section and see how many scams there are done by recently purchased accounts, it probably isn't very many. Your statement also ignores basic economics. If someone pays $250 to buy an account, if they were to attempt to use that account to scam someone, they would be risking that entire $250, even if they are unsuccessful. They would need to successfully steal $250 just to break even. Someone who buys an account has a fairly strong incentive not to scam with it. Similarly, someone who is the owner of an account that could be sold for $250 would be better off selling his account rather than trying to steal money from a NPV perspective. |
|
|
|
It looks like that is some kind of "wall observer" type thread (or maybe more accurately, a market discussion type thread). This is similar to the daily discussion threads on r/bitcoinmarkets which gets thousands of posts every day. |
|
|
|
Bump
Seriously? I guess even the NSA and the entire Pentagon agencies must be on this now. Let it go, man.  I want to be sure anyone considering doing business with any of these scammers/extortionists are duly warned. |
|
|
|
As was the case with an outrageous claim about a pill addiction, you started it with zero evidence (but the possibility of good evidence) and ultimately just made statements about a secret source whom you would never name nor present any evidence the source gave you. You are mistaken. In the thread I made exposing Lauda's pill addiction, I made it very clear what evidence I had, and I made no promise to break my promises of confidentiality by outing sources, who would no doubt be retaliated against shortly thereafter. I also made it very clear that, even if my sources were to be named, evidence against Lauda would still be hearsay. I pointed out that those types of chat logs cannot be verified. The evidence I presented was my word that I was personally told by someone I believe to be credible that he has good reason to believe that Lauda has a pill problem (I forget the specifics, they are in the other thread). You can decide to believe me, or you can decide that I am someone who should not be trusted, or you can decide that my judgment is diffident, and therefore even though you believe I am telling the truth about receiving this information, you do not find my evidence credible. Vod is [saying] TF sent you 20BTC [...] I'm curious what your stance is here? The title to this thread very clearly states I received $200k, which is a baseless accusation that does not warrant a response. I'll agree he began the same trollish-like behavior on these threads that have been done in the past with other threads attacking him, which could be interpreted as a hypersensitive reaction for someone who is frequently attacked with threads of this nature. I would disagree with that. There have been many threads opened by people who have received a negative rating by lauda who opened threads attempting to discuss said rating that were met with trolling. Surely you believe in a person's right to defend themselves, and their actions? I would say that lauda is the subject to attacks because he is a bad person. He is a criminal. He tries to take money/property that does not belong to him. He takes strong affirmative steps to silence his critics. He has endorsed and advertised for companies that are very clearly scam attempts. The list goes on.... Lauda implicitly or explicitly denying the allegation is a denial of the allegation.
Whether he said he was or was not going to respond beforehand doesn't seem relevant. It is relevant because it very much gives him a way to argue he was not lying regardless of the outcome. Also, he did not say he will not deny the allegation and subsequently change his mind. He said he will not respond after an implicit denial (and a very weak one at that), which would give credibility to a denial of lauda that he was in any way denying that he has a pill problem. |
|
|
|
ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE PROVEN NOTHING BUT TROUBLE FOR MYSELF AND MY DAUGHTER AYN. I HAD HOPED THAT AFTER MY PREVIOUS COMMUNICATION MY DAUGHTER WOULD BE LEFT AT PEACE BUT IT SEEMS THAT IS NOT TO BE THE CASE. AS IF THE ZERO DAY VIRUS WHICH INFECTED HER COMPUTER WAS NOT ENOUGH TROUBLE, EARLY YESTERDAY MORNING BEFORE BEGINING HER HOME SCHOOLING I DISCOVERED THAT MY DAUGHTER HAD NOT SLEPT AT ALL. I FOUND HER KNEELING BESIDE HER BED DEEP IN PRAYER WITH A HAGGARD AND TIRED FACE. MY DAUGHTER WAS ONLY INTENDED TO BE USING THIS BBS FOR SUPPLEMENTATION OF HER ECONOMICS LESSONS BUT SHE IS LIKE ME A DEVOUTLY RELIGIOUS INDIVIDUAL AND TOLD ME THAT SHE HAD WITNESSED AN INDIVIDUAL DEEP IN THE SUFFERING OF SEXUAL IMMORALITY AND WAS PRAYING FOR THE SAVING OF HIS ETERNAL SOUL. I CONSIDERED THIS A WORTHY EXCUSE BUT LATER WHEN SHE FELL ASLEEP DURING HER LESSONS I DECIDED TO INVESTIGATE FURTHER. UNFORTUNATELY IT APPEARS THAT MY DAUGHTER WAS LYING TO ME, AN UNFORGIVEABLE OFFENSE, AND HAD IN FACT BEEN PRAYING FOR HER OWN SALVATION. AS I INVESTIGATED THE LOGS OF HER USAGE OF THIS BBS I DISCOVERED THAT SHE HAD VIEWED SEVERAL PORNOGRAPHIC IMAGES OF A BESTIAL NATURE INCLUDING AN INCREDIBLY OFFENSIVE COFFEE TABLE. AYN HAS HAD ISSUES OVER THE YEARS WITH SEXUAL IMMORALITY, A PROBLEM I HAD THOUGHT SHE HAD OVERCOME, BUT NOW IT SEEMS THE PROBLEM WAS WORSE THAN I HAD THOUGHT. I HAD ALWAYS VIEWED HER OBSESSIONS WITH HORSE FIGURINES AND ASSOCIATED MEDIA TO BE A HARMLESS HOBBY WHICH COULD TEACH HER LESSONS OF THE VALUE OF AQUISITION, HOWEVER IT IS CLEAR NOW THAT UNDERNEATH SOMETHING MORE SINISTER WAS AT WORK. I HAVE BEEN FORCED TO CONFISCATE ALL OF HER HORSE FIGURINES, HORSE POSTERS, HORSE LAMP, HORSE FIGURINE ACCESORIES, AND BITCOINS. FOR NOW THEY ARE TAKING UP HALF OF MY GARAGE AS I CONTEMPLATE HOW TO LIQUIDATE THISE ITEMS. TOMMOROW SHE WILL RETURN TO THE CHRISTIAN TREATMENT CENTER UNTIL HER EIGHTEENTH BIRTHDAY WHEN, GOD WILLING, SHE WILL BE FREE OF THIS IMMORALITY AND ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF HERSELF. BITCOIN BBS, YOU HAVE BEEN NOTHING BUT PAIN AND ANGUISH FORME AND MY FAMILY, BUT MY DAUGHTER COUNTS MANY OF YOU AS CLOSE FRIENDS SO I HAVE ALOWED HER TO TYPE A BRIEF GOING AWAY MESSAGE: *MESSAGE REMOVED* I HOPE ALL OF YOU ARE HAPPY FOR WHAT YOU HAVE DONE, PLEASE CLEAN UP YOUR ACT IN THE FUTURE. LET US PRAY: BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS, FOR THEY SHALL BE KNOWN AS THE CHILDREN OF GOD. BUT I SAY TO YOU THAT HEAR, LOVE YOUR ENEMIES, DO GOOD TO THOSE WHO HATE YOU, BLESS THOSE WHO CURSE YOU, PRAY FOR THOSE WHO ABUSE YOU. TO THOSE WHO STRIKE YOU ON THE CHEEK, OFF THE OTHER ALSO, AND FROM THOSE WHO TAKE AWAY YOUR CLOAK, DO NOT WITHHOLD YOUR COAT AS WELL. GIVE TO EVERYONE WHO BEGS FROM YOU, AND OF THOSE WHO TAKE AWAY YOUR GOODS, DO NOT ASK THEM AGAIN. AND AS YOU WISH THAT OTHERS WOULD DO TO YOU, DO SO TO THEM. AMEN. GOODBYE. |
|
|
|
So i know my brand new account is a hugr red flag but im looking for a lender that i can pay back on the 3rd of next month, i can provide collateral and will cooperate and or jump through hoops to satisfy concerns, im fairly new to this but have a solid trade revord on paxful and have 0 negative feedback. If you can help out please contact me, if my request is ridiculous my apologies i figured my willingness to comply with the lenders needs may be enough to make it worth a shot.
What collateral? |
|
|
|
He goes on holidays? May be aTriz does not have much time to deal with these nonsense?
Or he/she know these barking dogs (us) will eventually become silent someday cause Lauda has his back.
I "don't have his back" on this because he has made a huge error, These statements you made disagree with this... I would note that ibminer's above examples are not the only fraudulent statements made regarding that ICO. There are other fraudulent statement in the OP that aTriz himself posted, such as "all monetary transactions with BIBC are processed through secured servers, so users have no need to worry about any risks...
That is absolute, pathetic nonsense. The people who post these threads for others are not vouching for their content, the same way that they are not vouching for the success of the project. Neither one is up to them, and never was. Anyone claiming otherwise has no idea what they're talking about/is showing a clear lack of knowledge and experience. Maybe "vouch" is not be the best word, but without disclaimers disassociating a campaign manager from the ICO, it is misleading, certainly to new members who probably don't even know campaign managers exist. This may be more of a global issue with managers/ICOs though.
It is a global issue, thus we can't blame anyone individually for it. |
|
|
|
Please send me a private message if you are willing to sell above 20k BTC.
You want to buy $130+ million worth of bitcoin? Face to face?  |
|
|
|
At this stage, maintaining objectivity, I can't hold Lauda accountable for BitBlissCoin & aTriz's actions.
In the workplace, it is the norm to hold a manager and partner accountable for the performance of his team, including to an extent any actions a team member does that might violate company policy, be illegal or unethical, the only exception might be if a manager followed company established procedures to prevent said negative activity that was insufficient. I would also point out that lauda pushed back strongly against calling what aTriz did as being “wrong” (let alone being ‘scammy’ etc) and continues to do so. This means that someone who might not understand this is wrong, might look at laudas statements about the various aTriz scams and act similarly being under the impression that what they are doing is okay. Lauda went as far as to say that everyone engages in this type of behavior (allowing fraudulent statements to be made in a bounty campaign being run by him) by saying that this is a global issue. I don’t think it would be very fair to label someone as a scammer in the future when someone shown as somewhat trustworthy is arguing that said behavior is acceptable. There is little dispute as to the ethics of the underlying behavior, so I would say the question of if the behavior is acceptable is *not* a difference of opinion, nor is a political dispute. My impression as to the reason for the delay in calling aTriz a scammer is that he was given the benefit of the doubt in that it was assumed he was naive. The same cannot be said about lauda because it was explained why this is wrong prior to lauda defending the behavior in question. Although I cannot affirmatively say what the relationship between the ALU partners is, however I can say that at the very least, lauda indirectly benefited from aTriz scams because it would have drawn additional business to ALU, some of which would have been handled by lauda. I would note that various contact methods point users to contact specific members of ALU and their ANN thread implies campaigns will be handled by both lauda and aTriz jointly. |
|
|
|
I just dont understand. No shady behaviour
You are incorrect about this argument... |
|
|
|
Another good idea, but something that would require a little more effort on the backend, would be to change the order in which ANN threads are listed in the ICO/altcoin section to something more random for threads that have been recently posted in. For example, all threads that have been posted in over the last 48 hours could be grouped together and ordered randomly, and threads without posts in the last 48 hours (or whatever timeframe is used) would continue to be ordered by date of last post. This would effectively make bumping an ANN thread useless if done the way these spammers are doing it.
This would definitely make people lose the incentive to bump up threads. The flipside is that people are so used to using the time of the last reply to check whether there is any new activity on the thread and would get confused. Also the effort involved to make a change like this is too much, considering that this is a problem specific to one section of the forum. When compared to the amount of time it would take to moderate these sections, the effort to make this change would not be all that much. When considering that you cannot realistically moderate these types of services (far too many false positives) with any significant effectiveness, I would say it would be worth the effort. Users can use the watchlist and 'show new replies to your posts' to check for updates, and someone can create a sticky explaining how threads are sorted in that section. |
|
|
|
|
Owlcatz participated in a criminal extortion conspiracy. The last time I checked, that makes him a criminal. Notwithstanding, his behavior is certainly not in line with what I would consider to be remotely trustworthy.
|
|
|
|
I'm still butthurt because my account trading business is seriously damaged.
FTFY again. Once you start posting unbiased lies, then we can move on. Nothing that you've said in this thread about me is even remotely true. Well, maybe in your delusional fantasy land. You want me to post unbiased lies[\b]  |
|
|
|
I don’t think there has been a single instance in which lauda has accepted responsibility for anything.
Of course there is; this is just not a case for which I can even remotely be held responsible. The fact remains that he was strongly pushing back against holding his business partner responsible for his involvement in his businesses scam activity and promptly disavowed him once it was shown his reputation is a lost cause, not once the underlying scam activity was made public.
Some people complain that I act quickly, and then when I don't, they complain that I don't. You can't have it both ways.
You can't have it both ways predictable snowflake. Your statement speaks volumes about you and is another reason why you should not be in any position of power. I have not criticized you for being too fast with your actions so using that to deflect is well nothing more than a deflection. Regardless, the fact remains that you only took action until you were unable to continue to protect his reputation and continued pushing back against calling what he did to even be wrong until his reputation was lost. This is not taking a long time to take action, it is actively protecting a scammer and keeping a business relationship based on reputation with said scammer. |
|
|
|
I'm not here to babysit others.
You love leaving negative feedback to random newbies for almost anything. Now that your partner is a confirmed scammer you don’t want to babysit? It’s inconsistent hypocrisy like this that makes it so nobody honest could possibly take you seriously. I don’t think there has been a single instance in which lauda has accepted responsibility for anything. The fact remains that he was strongly pushing back against holding his business partner responsible for his involvement in his businesses scam activity and promptly disavowed him once it was shown his reputation is a lost cause, not once the underlying scam activity was made public. |
|
|
|
We don't need to address this because you're a Quickseller alt.
He is not actually. That is Lauda's go to excuse for deflecting concerns raised about him. I don't really spend very much time on here anymore. It does seem like there is a double standard around here.....to the extent that those reasonably described as scammers seem to get protected. |
|
|
|
I will just leave this here... ...Lauda's crew for fear of retaliation..
There is no such thing and there was never any retaliation on anyone. I saw you retaliate against someone for criticizing you very recently. On 2018-02-04, user VirosaGITS (previously 40: -0 / +4) opened a thread titled " The forum would probably be a slightly better place without Lauda's nonsense." On 2018-02-06, Lauda left negative feedback for VirosaGITS [??: -1 / +4]. Lauda claims that VirosaGITS was pulling a "self-escrow" scam. But if you look at the context and chat logs, he said that he was willing to use an IRL escrow (as opposed to paying high forum escrow fees) if payment up front on the basis of his positive trust and trading history was unacceptable. Neither of these things is untrustworthy. Neither of them are a "self-escrow" scam. If you read the chat logs, there is literally nothing indicative of a scam or intent to scam. There was literally no agreement made and no shadiness to speak of on VirosaGITS's part. The rest of Lauda's feedback is meaningless unverifiable blathering about "false claims" and "slander." As it turns out, the user VirosaGITS supposedly "scammed" was trying to pull an escrow scam himself. Yet, Lauda's negative trust rating of VirosaGITS still remains. It seems like a very clear cut case of trust abuse triggered by VirosaGITS's thread about Lauda. Unsurprisingly, no one else tagged VirosaGITS because the notion of doing so was ridiculous. Yet no one on Default Trust was willing to speak against Lauda for this retaliation, either. No one wants to bring that kind of wrath on themselves for obvious reasons. I commend OG for having the balls to stand up to Lauda. |
|
|
|
I don't need people visiting the hospital.  I am also curious what you meant by, "I don't need people visiting the hospital." Who is aware of this secret meaning? I don't see how any reasonable person could see this to be anything but a threat of physical harm. |
|
|
|
|
My question is, who in their right mind hire someone that is even remotely connected to an extortion scheme when they are trying to raise money via an ICO (or otherwise) from investors? These types of investments are already super high risk for investors, and competition for money is fierce, and I cannot imagine a potential investor having any interest in a company doing business with someone who is a tenth as shady as lauda/aTriz/ALU.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
