You seem to have RUN AWAY from our last challenge? go back and complete it. At this time it is clear you are unable to refute the observable instances in the hhampuz thread. Making your trust abuse look like you are trying to help cover up wrong doing by your friends.
You are looking untrustworthy.

You can not claim it is unfair to present observable instances of clear wrongdoing because it spoils the persons reputation LOL

Who put you on DT you ignorant pleb? looks like a terrible selection.

Therefore us presenting observable instances that are independently verifiable and asking for hhampuz to say if he KNEW about this and STILL decided to employ them is in NO WAY untrustworthy. Are you clear moron?

NOW we see you ran away from that thread without answering those challenges to demonstrate the observable events never took place , you come here.

What do we see you doing here on this thread?

AGAIN you are trying to claim that observable instances of nutildah stating HE HIMSELF believes it is EVIL to sell your account and that HE HIMSELF believes it facilitates SCAMMING.... NOW later decides he will willingly be EVIL and FACILITATE SCAMMING  for 0.3btc.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134507.msg50719875#msg50719875

You are AGAIN here claiming that this is all just an "accusation" and that it is unfairly damaging his reputation and that we are damaging the board by presenting observable instances of clear wrong doing?

LOL and you are a DT?  wtf are you doing on DT?  image all those others facilitating scams willingly or even scamming that may have their reputations damaged if you bring it up  LOL

Get this idiot off of DT at once.

Scammers and those willing to facilitate scamming for 0.3BTC spoil their OWN reputations.

You seem to have NO ISSUE trying to ruin our reputation for simply presenting observable instances you seem to want to remain HIDDEN?? by trust abusing our account. Now you will sadly be reminded of this observable instance whenever we choose.


@bob123


This kind of logic does not work out. It simply puts you and nutildah in an trap from which there is no escape.

The only TRUE part of your post is that YES nobody knows if the sale went through really or not. This does not matter though.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134507.msg50719875#msg50719875


1. The sale did NOT go through so the original account holder is Nutildah. Sadly nutildah though by his own words has demonstrated that he WILL act EVIL and WILL facilitate scamming willingly for 0.3 BTC  = Very untrustworthy direct financial implications.

or

2. The account sale DID go through. So now we have an UNKNOWN actor going around with a legend badge asking for 0.02btc loans. Who knows what the threshold is for pulling a scam? Perhaps not that high.
The problem is for scenario 2 - It is claiming it IS THE ORIGINAL NUTILDAH. = If want to accept scenario 2 you MUST ACCEPT THIS IS AN UNDENIABLE LIE. You can not have it BOTH WAYS. It is IMPOSSIBLE.

You see the trap is there. There is no getting out of it.  Either way it is impossible to claim this person is trustworthy. IT is not possible to deny this.

We can not PROVE it IS or it is NOT nutildah. That would be impossible. However either scenario 1 or scenario 2 both = UNTRUSTWORTHY.

You method also fails ALL other account sellers. You must wait for them to demonstrate they are UNTRUSTWORTHY to be treating each member equally. Either that or you will need to in a few months REVIEW ALL accounts and see if they have acted in a trustworthy manner and remove your red.  Also you would need a very rigid definition of what Trustworthy is to be applied equally to all accounts.


You can not just adapt the rules as you go along. OR if you do then all members should be treated in the same way and given the same opportunities.

I don't think we should be side tracked by speculating on "other " motives either way. People do not need an EXTRA motivation/incentive to take 0.5 btc  "for free".  Give most people here an opportunity to take 0.5 btc that is not theirs if the opportunity is there and you will see that it gets taken as could be the case here.

Saying well hhampuz "should" have the funds to repay another loan without this 0.5 BTC does not mean he is not guilty of what the initial post asserts. WHY are we allowing campaign managers in these positions that even need to take out loans? this looks like needless risk and temptation. Bring in some wealthy people who do it fairly and transparently for some "extra" non essential income. Less temptation to scam or game the entire thing and ensures fairer treatment for all those that apply for the campaign.

We understand users not being banned when there is not clear evidence of scamming. However when MANY people have been clearly robbed by places like yobit that switch off their wallets for months or years to create their own markets and trap peoples coins into markets that nose dive immediately now is terrible.

The board is allowing places like this to suck people in that will certainly be fleeced of their btc.

It is bad for the entire movement. Especially new traders that may be immediately put off by their initial experience with such an exchange.

They should be blacklisted until they change their MO.

People should do their own DD for individuals but when it is a large(ish) exchange that looks semi pro it already looks credible and they can bring huge sig campaigns here then it drowns out the warnings that exist.

Until they stop turning off their wallets even for projects that have up to date working ones and leaving them offline for months or years then it must be blacklisted from this board. It is a trap for anyone that trades there waiting to happen.

Did anyone ever verify if the nutildah account sale had a password change?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134507.msg50719875#msg50719875

this one seems to be escaping the attention of the account sale hunters.

How about the I.P. did that change during the months of it being on sale to the claim from that account later it was never sold?

Can you really flag accounts up for sale ? what if months later that account posts a message it is no longer up for sale?  that could mean it was never sold right?

Lol thanks that was amusing. Please no more off topic derailing. Better to deal with on topic relevant observable instances of account sales here.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134507.msg50719875#msg50719875

There you have it then.

You can NOT flag or red trust account sellers who offer their accounts for sale. Because a year later that account may just post this account is no longer for sale and tell you it never sold.

Or accounts sellers can just tell the new users to post that message and job done.... no red trust.

Nutildah or notildah just told you all - so that's how it is.

We were not against notildah, he simply started attacking us first and siding with scammers and liars. We did not give one shit about nutildah... come to think of it we still do not. Some 3rd world broke down bum begging for 0.02btc loans lately is worthy only of pitty of course. Still it's a great CV for a DT and merit source.

Well then you have demonstrated EXACTLY WHY you can NOT be a merit source. Your post clearly demonstrates you are low functioning.

Watch how I will pull you apart in public here as a lesson to other low functioning dregs of your type.  You simply do not have the capacity to allocate merit to posts of value.

1. Present the observable instances that are FALSE  and tell me how YOU can prove they ARE FALSE. These instances are not opinions these are events that took place.  We have presented clearly an observable instance that demonstrates lying and scamming and several other instances that provide a strong case with regard clear financially motivated wrong doing.  That is not slinging mud and opinions they are clear instances that are independently verifiable.   Prove them ALL to be FALSE. If you can not then you are WRONG.

2. We are ASKING.. HHampuz if HE KNOWINGLY is employing these types of people in his campaigns. (subsequent to this HHampuz ADMITTED that he would NOT be transparent about this rules for employing or refusing to employ people for sig campaigns that he controls on behalf of projects - which as we explained leaves him wide open and his projects wide open to a lot of valid criticism and questions). That is a question we wanted answered. Your opinion of the intention means nothing noob trash. If he was knowingly employing these types of people then he WAS if he was NOT then he could answer on thread. If he could refute the observable instances then he was free to do that too.

3. Any other "OPINIONS" you have reached are your own problem. Screaming "defamation and lies" is actually simply FALSE ACCUSATIONS on your part.  Only someone as dumb as yourself can not see that. Well done moron.

4. Now you further dig yourself further in to a corner by claiming. WE HAVE BEEN PROVEN dishonest MULTIPLE times.  PRESENT 1 instance of being PROVEN dishonest. PROOF is what we want to see. Not your opinion of others speculations.

You see what is "clear to you" means NOTHING.  Failure to see that is exactly why you are not fit to be a merit source. What is the point of having low functioning ass kissing fools like 1miua giving out merit? you simply do NOT have the capacity to recognize a post of value.

What you are suggesting is this.

That a person like hhmapuz who's actions are lately

1. refusing to be transparent in his campaign selection process (seems very shady)
2. supporting the dox  and placing at risk the forum treasurer and the boards funds.
3. it appears that he may be stealing btc from his campaign projects

should not be asked QUESTIONS based on observable instances?  Observable instances you are saying are clearly incorrect but NOBODY tried to refute or deny took place? Instances that several senior members believe are dishonest and shady and some that are undeniable evidence of lying and scamming?

The person asking the questions is "dishonest" LOL

How can this poor confused dumb piece of ass feltching dirt be a merit source? Boot this fool off DT also.

Noob trash who didn't find out about btc until last year have no place as merit sources/dt. Who knows what you may find out about next... "The wheel" LOL . The board is surely not this hard up that we need noob trash that are also heavily retarded in positions of trust handing out merit.

I wonder where your "merit " all came from CHIPMIXER SIG SPAMMER?

Remove your sig and then we may believe you are here as a real enthusiast not just some euro skank begging for btc crumbs because you were too dumb to notice btc 9 yrs earlier LOL

You missed this one?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1622642.5

Notice how they run when you ask for proof?  LOL

Same for 1miau who is not fit to be a merit source nor fit to lick our boots.

Both vanish when you ask from some PROOF of their false claims.

Present the LIES you slobbering imbecile. You need PROOF not just you "claim" I am lying.

1miau is a "NOTHING BURGER" he is a non achieving piece of dirt like you. BRING your own largest achievement here or 1miau so we can compare it to something a TRUE legend has done here and laugh at you both.

1maui or whatever his shit stain trust abusing name is.. is  NOT FIT TO BE A MERIT SOURCE. Like yourself he has observable issues differentiating between Observable instances and lies. How can such a fool be ready to be a merit source. Likely because you are both retarded euro trash feltching dregs.

What you likely mean in 1miau has licked more ass and feltched more dirt than most people do in several life times if they are unlucky. The idiot is pure brown nosing dirt.

ANOTHER --CHIPMIXER SIG SPAMMER - WHAT A SHOCK.  Simply here to spam for his btc dust - that is all. Take it's sig away and see how  it vanishes.

What a fucking moron you OBSERVABLY are, feltching slobbering piece of euro trash.

Present the LIE that was contained within the reference in YOUR feedback that demonstrated we were lying

This type of bullshit claim of yours demonstrates CLEARY you are not fit for merit source. You are simply part of the trust abusing shit stain team on this board.

Now present the PROOF you have that we were lying in the REFERENCE you gave for your feedback or admit you're a dumb fuck spouting LIES of your own.#

Got it fool?

This Lafu issue just adds weight to our claims you are too stupid to be a merit source. How is asking him if he thinks we should believe that he did not have knowledge cryptopia were about to vanish with everyones money a LIE, 1, how can it be a lie if it is a question ? and 2, how can YOU PROVE if it were a statement that it was not true?

This is why idiots and ass feltching noob euro trash  like 1maui should not be merit sources. They simply do not have the capacity to even comprehend the true meaning of  a post? How will they apply merit with any accuracy?

How does noob garbage like this get on DT and start applying for merit source a year after it found out about btc? lol where were you before that under some rock ? bit slow off the (deutch) mark pal?

LOL who is this idiot lafu? oh yes, the person that expects us to believe he wasn't an insider on the cryptopia exit scam?  You were pushing that exchange hard and yes your judgement and indeed word looks dubious far more than our own. Lafu we are laffing at u.

This confused off topic garbage you are spewing is only confusing for you. The NEW trust flag system is fine although the lemons flag seems to range what "some people" want to believe you "may " do in the "future" right up to "proven scamming" . The merit system is meaningless garbage.

Now to go back on topic. 1miau needs to explain his trust abuse comments because they are observably INCORRECT. They are as we just presented them above. Since right now he looks dishonest or stupid, actually both. These are not the qualities to look for with new merit sources.

Now shhhh and get back to pushing exchanges that exit scam, dirt bag.

just to confirm

those that have syscoin wallet.dat files from sys 2 will be able to open that dat or extract the priv key and use that on the sys 4. This is not a coin swap situation?

1miau is observably either:

1. stupid

or

2. dishonest.

or

3. Unable to comprehend English to a standard where he could apply merit to the correct posts.



We notice he left FAKE negative feedback on our account.

The feedback is OBSERVABLY INCORRECT. We asked Hhampuz to answer some valid and important questions. We provided the observable instances which provided a STRONG case as a basis for each of the VALID QUESTIONS, those instances were not disputed or refuted by either HHampuz or any other person on that thread.

If this fool 1miau believes presenting observable instances and asking questions about them (when they are dealing with the finances of project and members) makes you a scammer, then he is either a moron or dishonest or as we say incapable of comprehending English to a standard required of a merit source.  Those observable instances still stand and NONE of them have been debunked and some are undeniable evidence of wrong doing.

Hhampuz answered that - he did not knowingly hire some of those members as they were hired directly by the project. However he did REFUSE to be transparent regarding the standards and thresholds for his hiring and firing members on his sig campaigns. We believe this is not how campaign managers should behave. All members should be in a transparent and equal manner.

We strongly oppose his merit source application. The noob seems to have appeared from nowhere and has suddenly arrived on DT and now asking for merit source too?

No thanks.

I mean if idiots like 1miau say " we will not believe a word you say" when you have only presented observable instances and asked questions relating to them?? then what sort of miscreant are we dealing with. How can it be trusted to allocate merit?? that's his basis for this comment? LOL

Merit is poorly named. Should just be renamed "likes"

It seems that merit was initially brought in to prevent bots and account farmers powering up their accounts. This it was reasonably well equipped for.

Sadly people seemed to have placed some other FAKE value to these scores and tied them to TRUST or VALUE or MERIT.

Merit is currently quite a meaningless metric. It seems pointless to worry about who gives it out before first setting up some strict enforceable criteria for giving merit. Until all posts are reviewed and all run through the same criteria then the score is meaningless. It is actually the most misleading and damaging aspect of the entire forum.

1. decouple it from rank after full member
2. come down a lot harder on people giving merit to garbage that gets debunked or has been debunked already on that thread. Remove them from merit source.
3. Set up some strict criteria that sets a threshold that must be met to give merit.
4.Max merit per post range from 1-3, good, Vgood, excellent...giving merit of 50 per post - sometimes for complete garbage destroys the entire system.

The "sources" don't make that much difference so long as each post gets the merit is deserves as matched against a strict criteria that ensures it is a valuable post in terms of reaching the optimal solution/outcome.

Best thing would be some AI that could be run over posts that are submitted to a "merit worthy" pool. Where anyone including the poster can submit the posts but with each post deemed "non merit worthy" then their ability to submit to that pool is reduced. That point is not likely anytime soon, so for now merit sources could review that pool. Also even though you apply merit to the post it should not be visible to other members for a delayed period, I see a lot of lemmings merit behavior as the thread develops.

To be fair a real meritocracy is only possible if the VERY smartest people are merit sources. Else how they will decide which posts of a thread are the most valuable in terms of reaching the optimal solution?  We have merit sources like Tman? issuing merit to posts that are observably the lowest value posts in a thread so you may as well just rename "merit" to "garbage" for now. Who cares who doles out the garbage? it is still meaningless garbage for now.

No the collusion is clear.


1. merits cycled between THE SAME handful of individuals
2. THE SAME individuals include each other on DT
3. THE SAME individuals exclude almost the same people on DT
4. yogg, lauda, tman, owlcatz, hhampuz, and other shit stains all trust abusing as a group
5. ALL seem to be part of 2 or 3 of THE SAME sig campaigns

To deny there is clear indication of a colluding group here is ludicrous and only someone as low functioning as you or perhaps even a low life form like Tman could be led to believe your garbage.

The rest of your post is as laughable as your claim there is no collusion. I mean it is pure fantasy and the spew of a desperate and retarded fool, you have no clue of what we have been able or unable to achieve, those claims look desperate and foolish.

Hope that cleared that up for you, and any other person that wishes to look into it for themselves mr scammer supporter yogg of bitcointalk, you trust abusing feltching puppet.

You're here for the love of gaining bitcoin dust. You're a low functioning dreg that has no capacity to produce valuable output. Don't big yourself up. You were trying to cheat the sig campaign.

You are now spewing out speculative accusations as some kind of faux rebuttal to my valid, observable and independently verifiable criticisms of your scumbag scamming friends and their supporters.

A possible alt of yogg or a possible friend of yogg or someone  BRAND NEW ACCOUNT acting in a very suspicious manner now advertising YOGG the trust abusing scammer supporter of bitcointalks latest scheme?? OH REALLY??

We are not the alt of anyone. We are here to present observable instances and push for the introduction of fair transparent rules that are applied equally to all members.

Quoting for future reference. Thanks for confirmation of your understanding of the type 1 flag.

The thing is here though, that your OWN opinion of YOURSELF is that you are EVIL and willing to FACILITATE SCAMS FOR 0.3BTC?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134507.msg50719875#msg50719875

Why are you not opening a flag on yourself rather than appearing on every other persons flag thread trying to support the fact they have a flag for perhaps far less EVIL and scam facilitating behaviors.

Thanks for bumping this thread moron.

You have served multiple purposes here.

1. Demonstrating that merit is often given the observably incorrect and bogus crap and is mostly just a political tool used by "merit sources/ DT members " to entrench each other in power, and use that power to collude and ensure the best sig spots and other financial rev streams go to them.

2. The far superior posts that make solid and valuable points (crushing beyond any doubt bogus and specious weak arguments) are starved of merit if they do not support the system controllers agenda.

3. That merit sources should not be the lowest form of sub human intelligence on the board like TMAN. A miscreant so devoid of any useful qualities even confessed he had never made a post he could present that demonstrated it was worthy of merit other than some swearing or other moronic behavior that his "pals" feel qualify as entertaining at a gutter level.

4. Bumping the thread that clearly shows that you and your pal lauda are clearly dirt bags that should be the ones wearing huge warning banners.


thanks Tman , now please some more "poetry" if you have some time.

What you doing today Tman? getting your pals to auction your stuff whilst you pretend its not yours and bullshitting people trying to pump the price up?  or phoning peoples parents and trying to extort them?

When did this board get so desperate we need people this stupid and this financially high risk to the board to be our merit sources and positions of " TRUST" lol.

Get them all out. Start with fortunejack's entire sig spamming set of low functioning scum.  Come on Theymos they will never exclude each other, their collusion ensures they keep their top paid sig spots, just get that ban/blacklist hammer out and start beating some scammer ass with it. 


To make this relevant so it is not vanished into the void. We will be questioning  if his own highly probable extortion attempt along with his auction stunt qualify him for a lemons flag along with his scamming mate lauda?

Yes that is all very true.

If you can not present some instance of financially motivated wrong doing or even a reasonable scenario where that member looks to have been "preparing" or "setting up" people for a scam then it is nonsense to have a specific FINANCIAL WARNING on their account.

The LINK to behaviors that demonstrated the member was even setting up a scenario for POTENTIAL scamming should be a MINIMUM for a specific warning of that type.

Don't mention you like lemon cake because those sorts of people are certainly "possible" future scammers.

We promised not to start complaining about the flag "SYSTEM" in its proposed form. However if greater FINANCIAL RISK weightings are applied to things that are not meeting even the minimum "LINK" threshold then that will be bogus.

Also Theymos already allowed lauda to abuse and did not get blacklisted so if this blacklisting for clear abuse is not enforced then again that is not going to be worth all the work of creating a TRANSPARENT SET OF FAIR RULES THAT ARE APPLIED TO EVERYONE EQUALLY.

If it stays as it is now and remains lemon colored with the # of neutral color then that is fine. If you start implying these people are scammers with red colors and any greater weight at all then it is simply opening the system up to MORE abuse again.

If you can prove someone HAS scammed - give them a high level flag and present the proof.

If you can demonstrate someone has reasonably lured or created a scenario which is a know tactic to scam people out of money then give them a lemons flag.

If you just don't like them because they keep presenting instances from your own past that demonstrates you are a scammer then tough luck. You should not have tried to scam.

If they have never done anything or even been in a scenario where you can demonstrate they scammed people out of money or even have plausibly been "trying" or "planning" to scam people out of money that is not a flag related issue. Or you risk making reducing the proven or potential SCAMMING YOU OUT OF MONEY warning flags are meant to be.

Anyway all fine for now, still a HUGE improvement, but no increasing the FINANCIAL RISK WARNING of the lemons flag.

Excuse the CAPITALS but it helps the casual reader place extra attention where we really want it to go.