He was temp banned for what was likely trust system abuse but is now unfortunately unbanned. He has about 40 active accounts, a decent list of which can be found here. Some of the accounts are already banned, so he should be banned for ban evasion, but I suppose he hasn't because there is no direct evidence linking him to the banned accounts (even though its obviously him). Regardless, he should be banned for trolling. He's left me a total of 10 flags so far, so don't feel too bad about your 3. |
|
|
|
We did tried to reach the guys that have put negative trust explaining that the case is very old and has been resolved with a refund and there were never any accusation for DD since then, but no one seems to be bothered even answering us.
Can anyone suggest or know if there is any formal procedure for appeal?
Negative trust can't just remain forever there should be some way to clear your name, or?
Sure, you can open a thread in the Reputation section of the forum and state your case. Unfortunately I'm certain that you won't be able to remove _all_ of the red trust, but if you can provide compelling evidence that the previous situation(s) have been resolved, then you may convince some of the users to remove their tags. You haven't accrued any more negative trust in over 2 years, so that's a good start. I would put @ + the name of the user who left the red trust, they may be pinged by a notification of the thread. Not everyone reads the Reputation section regularly. |
|
|
|
|
Wow, I just watched BSV lose $50 in 15 minutes. That was breathtaking.
In the last 24 hours:
BTC down 3%
BSV down 14.5%
|
|
|
|
I am sorry to say it Theymos, but you are a rube. I share a lot of the same ideological goals as you, but you are far too naive an idealistic to acheive any of them. It cost Lauda nothing to do this. There was no compromise, no sacrifice. If anything this act did nothing but serve Lauda by giving them cover for their other abusive behavior. Your little social experiment failed Theymos, and your willingness to be manipulated by people like this is responsible.
Too bad you're not a senator, theymos isn't an emperor, and this isn't actually Ancient Rome, because that would have been a great speech. In reality its a forum about Bitcoin, a subject which I've never seen you write one post about. However, in the spirit of Ancient Rome, what has been democratically decided is that your opinion on these matters is, well, less than valuable. |
|
|
|
I see lots of accusations. I see theories. I see assumptions. Where is the substantiation?
I can live with you not seeing it, as I've learned I can't make you see or understand things you don't want to. That's OK, everybody else can see it. |
|
|
|
I am glad you are here. Perhaps you can substantiate the claims of your accusation, since Vod is basing one of his negative ratings on an accusation you have made. What substantiation do you have to support the claim that I was manipulating the trust system?
I wrote pretty extensively about it in the post that Vod is referencing in your feedback: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182530.msg52385837#msg52385837You also never addressed this post where I correct your mistaken timeline of events regarding your involvement with the Turkish community: That said, if you review the original thread Vod bases his accusation on, you will see I made an effort to mutually resolve a conflict between members of the Turkish community and Timelord. This lead to several interactions with several of the members of the Turkish community, of which I gained respect for because of how they handled the response. I must assume they felt the same way and this is why they added me. I didn't do anything I wasn't supposed to and these accusations are nothing but a tall tale designed to make sure I wasn't allowed to be put back on the default trust instigated by people with very long time, publicly documented animus against me. Your timeline is off. The trust trading was happening well before your involvement with Timelord's fake flag bonanza. The post you linked is dated September 7th, and you were playing trust games with Russian and Turkish local board posters from July through August. The only reason these users were on your radar was because they had recently been promoted to DT1, and like you, were either off or barely hanging on by 1-2 votes. Your other great rationale for adding local board posters is because somebody like Foxpup, suchmoon or myself distrust them, which according to you, "makes them interesting." Still a terrible reason to include someone in your trust list, and evidence you don't belong on DT. Anything else? |
|
|
|
DENARIUZ LTD is missing £19 999 800 from its accounts.
DENARIUZ LTD has an issued capital of £20 000 000.
It certified in 2014 and in 2015 that all 20 000 000 £1 shares were fully paid up.
I spent an hour or so researching this and it would look like at least in this instance the money is owed to himself... It looks like shoddy paperwork - don't know why he decided to include DeMorgan (one of his companies) as a shareholder and then remove it without explanation - but I think at worst the missing money is owed to himself. Likely it never existed in the first place. It would appear that his companies Cloudcroft and DeMorgan were just set up to take part in an Australian tax rebate scheme, and aside from the occasional story involving Wright, their existence has been scrubbed from the internet. As a matter of fact, the website for DeMorgan has somehow been excluded from the Wayback Machine. From one such story on Wright, from 2015: After the stories first broke, Biddle reported that Wright had deleted his Twitter account, his YouTube account, and his blog. More suspiciously, the Web sites for DeMorgan and Cloudcroft, two companies in which Wright held large stakes, also disappeared. In a YouTube video that I saw before it was deleted, Wright touted Cloudcroft’s Tulip Trading, a subsidiary operation running a powerful supercomputer known as C01N. On its Web site, Cloudcroft had posted a letter of endorsement from the Australian computer manufacturer Silicon Graphics Incorporated (S.G.I.), which said that it had built and tuned Cloudcroft’s supercomputer. The letter, and other related information on Cloudcroft and DeMorgan’s Web sites, immediately struck some online-hardware experts as bogus. One asked, “Did anyone call SGI and ask them if they sold this guy a ~100 million dollar system? It’s kind of hard to miss.”
Soon enough, someone did. On Thursday night, ZDNet reported that S.G.I. denied having any relationship with Wright. “Cloudcroft has never been an SGI customer and SGI has no relationship with Cloudcroft CEO Craig Steven Wright,” Cassio Conceicao, S.G.I.’s executive vice president and chief operating officer, said. Basically, even though I don't think he ripped off anybody with his CO1N and Denariuz companies, what his filings with these companies does suggest is that he has a long-standing reputation of just making shit up out of thin air. |
|
|
|
All of Vod's comments that you replied to were deleted for being off-topic. As such, your replies were then rendered off-topic and also deleted. Again, this is a very standard policy which you can't seem to grasp. Your reply to me that was deleted and where my post wasn't deleted was this: Wonderful! I look forward to not having to listen to clown music every time I use the forum. Not exactly referencing the topic or adding to the discussion here. The only thing you are demonstrating here is that after all these years you still don't understand how the forum works. |
|
|
|
Disclaimer: I am currently participating in a signature campaign run by Hhampuz and have been for some time.
I looked at the OP of the campaign thread and don’t see anywhere that says Hhampuz is guaranteeing payments, nor that he is escrowing the coin to pay participants. There is the quote LoyceV posted above, but that is ambiguous. For these reasons, I don’t believe Hhampuz is obligated to pay participants. I also believe it would be wrong for someone to demand payment from Hhampuz.
With that being said, Hhampuz is going to have difficulty attracting quality participants if this kind of thing happens on a regular basis. I think the right thing to do is warn participants that he doesn’t have the coin from the business owner and participants can decide for themselves to take the risk of not getting paid, if Hhampuz does not want to guarantee the weekly payment.
I have zero interest in managing signature campaigns, but if I were in his position, I would extend credit to the business for one week to pay participants out of my own pocket. I would also structure what I get paid so that if businesses don’t pay me, I am still making money and would set the expectation that businesses should pay upfront.
Obviously he is uncertain the campaign will refill the wallet. If he was certain, he probably would have paid campaigners out of pocket. Don't know why you're bothering to comment about what you would or wouldn't do seeing as how you have "zero interest" in doing it. |
|
|
|
|
Nobody is obliged to pay jack shit. You got paid anything at all by the Grace of God, and should be thankful you got what you did. If the only reason you are here on the forum is for the payday, you should just leave now and save the rest of us from having to read your forced shitposts.
|
|
|
|
Of course you can assume what you want. Nobody is saying you can't. I'm just trying to give you some helpful advice, but what do I know. Also the recent more than doubling in price of XEM had nothing to do with adoption.
A doubling puts the price at where it was back in July. Maybe it was oversold before and now its where its supposed to be. Neither was the ATH in early 2018 to do with adoption
Right, and the difference is I guarantee you investors or traders won't be making that mistake again. If there is a panic on Wall Street, crypto will be the first to feel the effects as it is the highest risk category of high risk investments. This is due to institutional money now being firmly entangled in the crypto market, even if its just mainly bitcoin. Mainly, I just see no reason for this coin to continue to rise without any sort of actual, real-world usership. Regardless, good luck to you all. |
|
|
|
Check his trust feedback, he has one of the worst trust ratings in this forums history.
I'm pretty sure it is the worst trust rating ever, and by a long shot, too. According to BPIP,  Basically, nobody on the forum has managed to offend or earn the distrust of as many others as game-protect. On one hand, that's quite an accomplishment, and on the other, there's no way you should trust him to handle any business-related matter competently or professionally. |
|
|
|
My apologies to Steve and others for cluttering the thread with GP issues which we are all thoroughly bored of, but I felt this should be addressed: I think making a false claim and later withdrew it is a good rating? h4ns alleged the following, but later withdrew it: ...
He withdrew it because he felt threatened that you might try to sue him. You basically insinuated you were going to sue him for months. In any case, for all newcomers or anyone on the fence about him, please don't hire game-protect. If you aren't getting an answer you were seeking here on the forum, go to a site like AskGamblers.com and ask for their opinions instead of game-protect's, as you will only be wasting your time and possibly money with GP. |
|
|
|
I am a big fan of AskGamblers and just wonder what it was about this last comment that seemingly made them decide to leave Bitcointalk. Basically, the game-protect account needs more competition on this forum from more trustworthy entities. |
|
|
|
If bitcasino.io scammed you, please submit to Game Protect and we will enforce it!  How does this process work? Normally most of these platforms aren't answerable to any regulatory bodies, so how do you recover people's funds when they're basically untouchable? He doesn't. He asks for BTC up front, passes on your information to a lawyer who never does anything, and then calls it a day. Its a predatory service designed to take advantage of people who just suffered losses and don't know where else to turn. See his feedback if you have any doubt. |
|
|
|
Sure, that counts. I call video memes "Feature Length Memes." Its weird how he pronounces it billy-uns, as opposed to just saying bill-yuns. He stretches it out into 3 syllables. Let's say Jina: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDrfE9I8_hs |
|
|
|
|
Oh please. Its obviously cryptohunter, refreshed from their "vacation."
The constant posting in Meta and Reputation.
The obvious dislike of Lauda, TMAN and suchmoon.
The 6th grader nicknames.
The long-winded spiels about the trust system and forum injustices.
Though I am happy they haven't tried to shit down my neck thus far let's not pretend this might not be cryptohunter.
As for the subject at hand: red trust has already been removed. Its now orange trust.
Can't remove the negative sign. Can't get people to always leave negatives only for scammers.
I think the recent Default Trust changes are a good idea, however I do think the merit requirements for voting need to be upped at a rate proportional to that being introduced into the system.
OK trust or dare, I've said all I need to say. I won't be negging you just as I didn't neg PN7. Have at it so long as you can remain un-cunty.
|
|
|
|
|
So the entirety of your OP doesn't matter? Why did you make a thread for it then?
|
|
|
|
Again, you are relying on Craig's version of events, and I am relying on the judge's words that Craig acted in bad faith throughout the entirety of the proceedings. Surely Craig would have known the documents he was submitting to the court were forged and warned the court ahead of time. So why didn't he?
You are relying on the judge's words who goes to the same synagogue as the plaintiff? Have a cup of common sense.  As for why Craig acted as he did. I can only speculate that the clock was ticking for his advantage. Bending some rules here and there doesn't matter if you know you will win the case.
If it were being held in Estonia, you might be right. I wouldn't call initially being on the hook for half a million bitcoin "winning", but you know, tomato/tomato. |
|
|
|
Its a total power grab for whoever wins the popular president vote, not governor vote. This also includes Donald Trump, should he win the popular vote. So in no way were you right. You were just spreading misinformation, I suppose because you've sunk to the depths of becoming a full-on troll. Hard to explain otherwise.
So wait, you agree it is a power grab. You now admit these are more than just bills but actual passed laws as I warned was likely as you dismissed them as only bills. Because it "could also be Trump" now my argument is invalid? Cool story bruh. This is what I had a problem with: "Virginia Governor Issues SECRET EXECUTIVE ORDERS to TAKE TOTAL POWER while everyone was watching GUN BILLS!"
Literally none of that is true. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
