While i agree there's ethical problem, IMO it's problem between ChipMixer and the user who wear copycat signature, all we need to do is let ChipMixer representative know about this problem. Wasabi is not a profitable service
While i doubt it's profitable, there's 0.003% coordinator fee. According to Chainalysis, Wasabi mixed $250,000,000 in 2019*. That means $750,000 has been paid in coordinator fees, which seems pretty profitably to me  . *source: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/chainalysis-most-mixed-bitcoin-not-used-for-illicit-purposesWhile I am quite surprised (I have underestimated Wasabi), I am not able to follow your math. 0.003% is per anonymity set ($7500 assuming all went through a set of 1). On average, the set I would say is in the 50-75 on average. Regarding the OP, I don't really see the issue as long as it is an individual using the signature (in a non-campaign way). It would've been honorable if the user PMed the signature designer first, but you can't prevent people from using the BB code. Campaigns could add a disclaimer in the OP but there would still be no way to enforce it.
Translation: Some theft is okay, some other theft is not okay.  |
|
|
|
What do you think? If it's plagiarism, it's up to the Mods to deal with. I don't even know if Global Mods can do that, or only Admins. No. That is post plagiarism. Signature design plagiarism is theft that has been dealt with the trust system. Forum rules apply to signatures as well. We shouldn't use the trust system for either kind of plagiarism unless the staff explicitly refuse to take action and there is an actual risk involved, e.g. the user is promoting a scam. We have always acted using the trust system, and there is no reason to stop doing so. Forum rules if applicable are an added bonus. Right, not profitable for any campaign then. |
|
|
|
While i agree there's ethical problem, IMO it's problem between ChipMixer and the user who wear copycat signature, all we need to do is let ChipMixer representative know about this problem.
No. It our problem. Wasabi is not a profitable service
While i doubt it's profitable, there's 0.003% coordinator fee. That is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
What do you think? If it's plagiarism, it's up to the Mods to deal with. I don't even know if Global Mods can do that, or only Admins. No. That is post plagiarism. Signature design plagiarism is theft that has been dealt with the trust system. As for the parody: an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect. I guess I just don't see the comical value for Vadi2323's signature on a Bitcoin forum where many users value their privacy. Correct. This is why I think my previous opinion is wrong. That particular case is simple, but some other cases might be very difficult: e.g. something that may be funny to some but not to others. Easier if the consensus was just: Do not do it. |
|
|
|
I think this should not be allowed either because it is plagiarism, the intended use is irrelevant. What made you change your mind? Unless you think that Vadi2323 is actually promoting terrorism, this is either parody (may be fair use) or satire (probably not fair use). Given that Vadi2323 seems to be ridiculing the Chipmixer campaign itself - it could be considered parody. On the other hand, he could be targeting privacy/anonymization in general, in which case it's more of a satire. IANAL. This. Good quote. I am not sure that my previous agreement with this stance was the right decision. There can be so many edge-cases because of that. I think it would be much simpler if we uniformly disallow any kind of plagiarism/copying and modifying. If somebody wants to make a parody, then let them make their own design(?). What do you think? |
|
|
|
How about this?  AFAIK I never saw anyone complain about the profile owner plagiarizing or copying chipmixer's signature design despite being around for a while now or is the wasabi issue a special case? I think this should not be allowed either because it is plagiarism, the intended use is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
I was not asking about Wasabi, I read up on them and have no interest in what they say can deliver.
It is not what they say they can, they have delivered! Wasabi is an amazing wallet, which provides decentralized permission-less mixing - think of it as the next level of your classic mixers. This is probably why the user, on their own, did this. They want to promote this amazing wallet - because actually amazing wallets do not have marketing budgets like all the multi-coin garbage like Coinomi or Enjin. But it is obviously a clickbait. Using someone's else design to promote similarly service is conscious deception. The low marketing budget is not enough justification. Wasabi has no budget, they have not authorized anyone to do this. Wasabi is one of the sources of good, not evil. I guess the user needs to explain himself as using the Chipmixer (or any) signature without permission does not look good.
I am waiting for a response too. |
|
|
|
If it is only Gyrsur, I suggest that you contact him and get this remedied. I have sent him a PM. He has been on and off trolling the ChipMixer signature campaign thread for a very long time, I'm not even sure if it was because he's rejected from the campaign or something else. Afaik these signatures are not copy-righted and publicly available Almost everything is copyrighted, but the thing that gets you banned would be for plagiarism. If that is indeed the case again, then this is not good. The user must respond as soon as possible. Campaigns usually pay for designing their signature. Using the design freely is kind of cheating. Only participants of the campaign should be are allowed to use the design.
FTFY. This has always been the case. Promotional theft of designs, i.e. copy design and make minor adjustments then promote your own service/company, was always dealt swiftly with negative ratings. |
|
|
|
I was not asking about Wasabi, I read up on them and have no interest in what they say can deliver.
It is not what they say they can, they have delivered! Wasabi is an amazing wallet, which provides decentralized permission-less mixing - think of it as the next level of your classic mixers. This is probably why the user, on their own, did this. They want to promote this amazing wallet - because actually amazing wallets do not have marketing budgets like all the multi-coin garbage like Coinomi or Enjin. Only him? Nobody else? It's the only user I saw with, but there might be more. Afaik these signatures are not copy-righted and publicly available, so I guess everybody is free to use or modify them. I always thought, that this could lead to issues, not sure what this Wasabi one is about though. No. You are not allowed to plagiarize anybody's signature design here. |
|
|
|
Only him? Nobody else? I cannot say for sure if it was an authorised signature by Wasabi or not but what is going on? First it was Unnamed Exchange that copied the Yobit banner of all banners and now this....
Wasabi is not a profitable service, and therefore has no signature campaign and therefore I doubt: 1) It is authorized - but you do not need anybody's approval to promote their activities with your signature. 2) It is authorized to plagiarize the signature.
If it is only Gyrsur, I suggest that you contact him and get this remedied. I have sent him a PM. |
|
|
|
When I read your post, I remember that I write something similar few days ago in this post on topic "Having secondary/multiple accounts purpose is..?". We seem to share a similar opinion about some moral and ethical principles, but they are hardly applicable in the real world, let alone in the virtual world. I believe there are people who have several accounts active in various sig campaigns, but this is allowed by the forum rules. This is one example where the community is failing. For certain things we draw to "it is allowed by the rules, but we do not condone the behavior (thus act on it)", on others we draw to "it is allowed by the rules, but we do not condone the behavior yet we will ignore it (and thus not act on it)". If it is ethnically and morally wrong, which it is, the community needs to draw to consensus and start dealing with it. This would be very simple. Group together whole DT 1, get majority to agree what is right and what is wrong behavior regarding multi-accounting and the issues is solved.
This is not happening because the very same members (some are - not all obviously) are involved in this business, either by multi-accounting, by enabling multi-accounters as proxies, by managing the campaigns or by doing both and more. There is no other good reason for this that I can think of. Quite unfortunate..  |
|
|
|
Awesome thanks again Veleor. Waiting to get cleared by lauda now.
Sorry I missed doing this earlier, evildoers like hacker1001101001 took away my time today. I have removed my negative, withdrew support of my flag and opposed it. I have also sent a PM to everyone who supports the flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=934
Please withdraw support! |
|
|
|
It is all coincidence, it is coincidence that Little Mouse copy/pasted OP's application and said:
You forgot to add: this is also due to difference in opinions, and disagreements too. So no reason to tag the members.  |
|
|
|
We just happen to know each other personally, shared information and made some deals.
I have the very thing you claim with around ten to a couple hundred people (albeit non-personally). With some of them hundreds of transactions. With none of them are you going to find 1/3 of the evidence that there is for the two accounts. Bad excuse. |
|
|
|
© 2020 IOTA Foundation - Privacy Policy Email: contact@iota.orgBoard of Directors: Dominik Schiener, David Sønstebø, Serguei Popov & Navin Ramachandran ID/Company No.: 3416/1234/2 EU public ID number in the EU Transparency Register: 500027331119-04 EDIT: is the user account of Dominik Schiener not known? he has a Bitcoin history (Switzerland based Crypto exchange which did broke) and I assume he was active here on bitcointalk.org too.
This is his account. He officially only joined the IOTA team in early 2016, since he was still busy with some other ventures and he even missed the ICO and had to buy his stack OTC, what you can also track a bit by checking his posting history in bitcointalk. Flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1416. I want to extend this with a flag on the user: mich (UUID = 9645). This account is stolen/hacked/bought and has been for a long time. I do not know who controls it. It shills pro-IOTA (among many other coins) posts despite countless red flags. He is also caught in merit abuse, merit trading et. al. - snip - Flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1417.
OP please add. |
|
|
|
I already read books and am already getting educated. But you are decepting users with your made up theory of claming to be using your art of OPSEC on me. You tried to threaten me and you have even done so in the past with many. You have an history of exorting users and it was always your intention to witch hunt me which lead your hands on this info.
I have never done anything of the stated. You pulled out the extortion card, the most petty and pathetic attack that I am very accustomed to. Do you have anything else or is this it? You can make up any technical shit after you already know that the accusation is real, as I have already admitted it. I am not an harm to the community, I could be an harm to your abusive bheviour here though. You were purely motivated to crush my opinions here, which made you not wanting to forgive and threatening me with whatever you can.
You are a danger to the community and you have harmed it many times (and are trying to harm me in this very thread). I will document any future malicious behavior individually with separate ratings. |
|
|
|
Again a turn of deceptive beheviour from your part.
You had the info some hours back and now you don't have it. Obviously it would be an origination from your part if my information is published on internet anywhere as you were the only person claiming and intended to do so publicly here.
Just even check the deception level, yours one is way higher to the degree that some people could take it as truth.
Nope, I have nothing. If we want to be 100% technically, cryptographically correct: I never had anything to begin with at the time of flag creation (most of the users and participants in this thread will not understand how this is possible either). Do not blame me because you are too stupid to be able to indulge in the art of opsec. Maybe you should spend some of that time you did on ICO bumping on reading books and getting educated. Just a thought. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
|
|
|
I don't think anyone else other than you would go that low to threaten to publish the Doxx over it, and still just got be in the fear of getting some exclusions nothing else. You use your power for deceptive purposes and that is well documented all over THIS forum and in this thread itself.
You can try spinning it as a threat - murder even for all I care (QFR). If I wanted to publish your DOXX it would be irrevocably published all over the internet within about 30 - 60 seconds give or take based on latency. I am not interested in your DOXX and no longer hold any information about you.[1] I would not be surprised if somebody "anonymously" published it now though (investigation section, pastebins and more). These people would think they are smarter than the forum participants and try to blame it on me. You are drived by your hunger of power and use it to silence peoples here under it. A genuine person judging me would see me being changed from my past mistakes.
How dare I not forgive you, I must be evil. Sigh.
[1] As much as you would like to think otherwise, you are unimportant and I plan not to waste my time securing the storage of your information.  The actual fence is much higher,
and it works both ways.That is a statute of the most famous ancient Greek ἑταίρᾱν, the cultural equivalent of a classical gaṇikā. (I will be pleased if anybody can correct my inconsistent declensions here.)But it is irrelevant to Lauda. |
|
|
|
Aren't you guys amuse to these people. They are the ones who sends negative trust ratings to bounty cheaters who uses alt accounts but they were also doing it.
Therefore, please none of that "rules for thee and no rules for me" progressive liberal nonsense that labels same actions differently depending on the author or target. You know this is true and is happening on this forum, and so do I.
It is this principle, sadly very commonly found around here.. |
|
|
|
I'm not complaining about anyone here. Tbh, LoyceV is one of the most level-headed people in the forum and I trust him to an extent.
Sorry, auto-correct failure: The word was comparing! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
