Yes our own flag is a CLEAR example where there is NO link at all to STRONG EVIDENCE of financial loss or any instances that demonstrate there was a plan to set up another member for financial loss, or any kind of scenario where we had the opportunity or had intention to scam any member out of money or goods. The flag is bogus.

If the flags are NOT to highlight scammers and is just another form of FEEDBACK then what is the point of retaining the old trust system at all? just get rid of the old red tags and say the new lemons flag can be ANYTHING that another member "BELIEVES" or "suspects" could be a NEGATIVE instance.

Also the flag was created by a PROVEN liar and scammer who has CLEAR motive to try and use the new trust flags against our account for his own personal reasons.  The first 4 people to back the flag JUST HAPPENED to be the SAME four people we were arguing with most that day. Oh really??

Also this proven liar and scammmer has NO FLAG at all.

LOL the entire lemons flag is just subjective, speculative garbage. However that is fine so long as theymos does NOT start backtracking and allowing blatant abusers of the old system to start calling for more weight to be added to their new bogus flags and confuse the members into thinking (if they look into it) that these flags are again just subjective garbage that some form of mental gymnastics can ensure are given to anyone that does something they do not like or for whistle blowing on their observable instances of financially motivated wrong doing.

If you start allowing people to believe flags are not SPECIFICALLY related to FINANCIAL RISK then again the system will start to lose it's effectiveness.

If you can give a lemons flag for something "you believe" to be negative and "not directly " related to behaviors that demonstrate clear financial wrong doing then it becomes useless and carries a lot less weight.

Whether this is ABUSE of the lemons flag or if this intended to be the lemons flag is something we need to wait and see. If it need be NOTHING to do with instances of financial wrongdoing at all then the wording should be altered to something like, a member "considers" this person behavior demonstrate some NEGATIVE  traits that should "you " should consider before trading with them.

All easily to fake, or just a "pal" of yoggs. This looks shady.

The -12 is partly from the same bogus group of trust abusing scum all seemingly flocking to this post to say how awesome he is.

So someone does a small trade with you BRAND NEW ACCOUNT and turn full on yogg butt bunching feltcher that BRAND NEW ACCOUNT just HAPPENS to be following his NEW SCHEME to advertise here??  LOL yeah sounds legit.

Yogg of bitcointalk is a trust abusing piece of shit who supports a proven scammer.

THIS THREAD LOOKS SHADY

nigerianprince007 haha - use some imagination.

there is no HARD evidence required for any link to financial wrong doing at all for the lemons flag. So there is no point making any kind of extra warning for that. The only extra warning should be that the lemons flag should not be confused with a red scamming flag. Lemons flags likely means you have been trust abused by one of the dumb fucks that abused the old system so much we had to create a new one.

It seems the mental gymnastics of the trust abusers means anyone can get a lemons flag so that is hardly HARD EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL RISK.

Can't wait for the first turd to get black listed because atm we notice all kinds of bullshit reasons to give the lemons flag out, whilst real scammers are not getting any flags at all.

Perhaps for the higher level flags SO LONG AS theymos sticks to his word and blacklists trust that start trying to abuse those flags.

The plague that just keeps on presenting observable instances of scammers and their pals all colluding away to game things to their own ends. This NEW ACCOUNT looks like yoggs alt to us. Now just turns up out of nowhere, does a trade with yogg now makes some thread about how awesome yogg is and now ADVERTISING yoggs latest scheme. LOOKS SHADY.

Most people in this thread are KNOWN and RECOGNIZED supporters of a proven and observable liar and scammer lauda. Yogg is closely colluding in trust abuse with lauda.

Entire thread looks bogus and shady.

People should investigate and make up their own minds.

You were banned for cheating sig campaigns you dirt bag and had to beg a plead to be allowed back. Can you even present a post of yours worth more than laughing at?  garbage posting shit stain.

LFC bitcoin should be excluded from trust lists

This message confirms he is merely a bitch for others that are confirmed scammers and liars like lauda


Laudas Feltching Clown

How can such a pathetic dreg be on DT. A weasel and puppet.

In this instance it is gray, i don't like no collateral loans but if a senior member wishes to risk his account hero/legend for a very small loan then this could be viewed as leverage to get them to repay. I expect the account would be worth more if they sold it than this. Not that we support selling accounts either.

Really it should not be a red trust for hero to ask for such a tiny loan as non collateral - certainly NOT a flag now. It is the responsibility of the person loaning to do their own DD. We should not ask potentially innocent members to be paying for the greed and stupidity of others. You could view their rep and work to build the account as leverage to some degree.

We would advise being very very careful when dealing with yogg of bitcointalk. This person is seemingly closely aligned with some very shady people on this forum.  He also seemingly abusing the forums trust system with what appears to be an attempt to silence whistle blowing or questioning any shady and untrustworthy looking behavior of members that other people consider to be full on scammers.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5098315.0

We view yogg of bitcointalk as untrustworthy and would advise you doing your own thorough before trusting him in anyway.
We would not trust this person at all.

The fact some VERY NEW ACCOUNT just appears to do a "transaction" and then goes straight away to make a thread about yogg of bitcointalk claiming he is awesome... and now seems to be ADVERTISING yoggs new "sales thread" looks suspicious.

Be very careful to and do your own research. Then make up your own minds.

If you would like to see evidence of what we are referring to then just ask.

Typical low function dregs replies. Get destroyed and made to look like scam supporting shit stains who will say or claim they believe even the most far fetched irrelevant garbage that they demonstrated they did not really believe in 5 mins ago ... LOL

So now start worrying about other irrelevant things like who "we" are as if that makes any difference to the observable instances presented.

Now STFU unless you have anything relevant to say that can redeem the duplicitous obviously sneaky and pathetic idiot SS, who just posted in the most embarrassing example of an obvious gang sig spammer trying to form some kind of defense for an undeniable lying and scamming shit stain like lauda who it obviously colludes with. To read it over again is a pleasure.  It actually more fun than the snitchmoon self debunking examples. At least she does not try to move the goal posts around as much or redefine words to their opposite meanings LOL.

LOL it is funny notildah turns up to add some stupid comments. I mean perhaps SS thought to study the nutildahs guide to changing ones opinion to suit their agenda at the time.  Account selling is facilitating scamming and they are evil and deserve red trust...then actually I will sell my account for 0.3btc  LOL... then announce it was not sold and it never happened. Should have just said redefined "evil" to "good" and "scam facilitating" to "scam inhibiting" and deserves "red trust" to deserves "to be on DT" then all is good. LOL ask SS works great. Then tell everyone anyone who did not know that is an idiot  haahah

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

Have fun scum bags.

Sorry I hadn't noticed you had replied again.

We asked because we were curious. You have demonstrated clearly you are a gang supporter with a fragile mind.

Every element of your argument was destroyed, until you had to redefine words to try to cling on to some desperate defense. You look foolish. You demonstrated that your final redefinition of instamine is NOT EVEN YOUR TRUE OPINION (not that anyone else would have thought to redefine instamine to the OPPOSITE of what instamine means ... the left to what is really right).

Not that that is not silly and desperate enough, but YOUR first claim was : that people CAN ESTABLISH if there has been an instamine by looking at the block explorer (clearly you know intention is not part of what defines instamine) Makes you now just look dishonest and desperate. I mean does the block explorer tell if you if it was INTENTIONAL?   LOL i mean each point of your argument was crushed step by step, but now your final desperate attempt to redefine Instamine demostrates you don't even believe what you are claiming, just will bullshit readers to fit the gangs agenda. You are bogus.  I mean intent is IRRELEVENT as you KNOW.

Another good thing about this thread is although your entire specious and ever changing garbage defense of laudas clear lying and scamming is crushed and demonstrates your final "opposite of instamine" redefinition is not something you REALLY believe (even though it is irrelevant). So you outed yourself as a desperate protector of scammers and liars.

That the merit given to your "clinging to your own observably bogus dishonest defense" that you now say instamine CANNOT be determined by block explorer but you NEED TO KNOW THE REAL INTENTION lol  (so you can't have it both ways). Total shit post is given 10 merits by laudas dumb as poets ass feltcher and fellow FORTUNEJACK  sig spammer (like SS AND LAUDA) for presenting the worst defense even made on bitcointalk.

Merit system is bogus, DT members are bogus. Your opinions are highly suspect and observably foolish.

We will not be asking your opinion again since you have clearly demonstrated you are under your paymasters control.

Not strictly true. You WILL GET A HUGE BANNER AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE  saying more or less that you ARE PRESUMED A SCAMMER to persons up to member level and if you are not logged in.

So yes he just got branded a scammer pretty much.

thanks, yes.

Then since now people are saying it is just feedback, and lemons are back on the menu legitimately for the old trust work. Better to put this person may like lemons, and we can not demonstrate he is a scammer or he would have a flag,  but he probably DID whistleblow on a proven scammer who was on DT. In a nice big lemon shaped/colored banner.

Strange though when you get a flag (on the basis of some mental gymnastics a proven scammer got his proven bitches to back up that has nothing to do with scamming people out of money) you only get a lemons warning saying he may be dangerous.

Anyway all good the new system is a vast improvement a big step in the right direction for transparent fair rules applied equally to all memebers. Good intentions are the main thing.

I thought this is the entire point, that unless you are a proven scammer you will not get a big red flag at the top of the threads saying he is a scammer?

this is the old warning? i thought that was done away with?

we are seeing this and we are at member level now, no longer newbie

okay well what snitchmoon posted seems to explain it, but that seems counter productive since now people are claiming the old feedback system is just feedback and people are leaving red trust for reasons that HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH SCAMMING and saying it is fine now to do so.

Okay well, question answered, but the wording is inappropriate really.  Should be lemons colored at least now.

With our own flag (given on very shady and weak sauce grounds by a proven scammer and his friends) I can simply click our trust page and see the flag details and a choice to support of oppose. Of course we opposed it since we have never been involved with trading here or any other scenario where we could scam someone out of money.

However we see other members have RED type 1 warning flag and a THIS PERSON IS A SCAMMER warning at the top of their threads.

When clicking on their trust page we can see NO mention or details of the flag so how to oppose or support it or EVEN KNOW why they were given this warning flag?

For example we have never ANY evidence of thule scamming anyone but he has a scam flag warning on his account? we would  like to see the evidence that people are using to give him this red flag.

If there is no CONCRETE evidence of his scamming and these people are breaking the rules of the new system, do we report these people directly to theymos for blacklisting in PM or make a thread to set a precedent?

I mean it says CONCRETE  right so surely we can read for ourselves this CONCRETE example of scamming or attempting to scam?

How to view the flag details and the thread it is "apparently" based upon?

Not as yet, but I will try to remember to let you know when i do then you can come and oppose it.

The type 1 flag also seems strange some get a yellow some get a red message. The people with red seem to have no scamming behaviors that I can see. Where can I find out what thread is supposed to demonstrate concrete evidence of scamming for each flag. How to even find the flags for the red type 1 flags. I can only see the yellow ones? or perhaps it due to them using a different trust list. I wonder how to view without changing away from default.

Thule i dont think has ever scammed. He is accused of account selling which should be yellow at most right? how to see why he has a red flag? where to click on his account? maybe the flag is no longer active or something. I need to look more into the flags before i start bringing real scammers and those really dangerous to people in financial terms to task.

We need to make sure that we are complying with the rules. We think the new system is a huge step in the right direction so we just need to fully understand it before we put it to work.

That red pill is just kicking in. Good, keep taking those when ever you wish to enter into a reasonable debate in future.

If you feel they are losing their effect and you start wishing to redefine words or see those enjoying lemon tea as the same danger financially as those that have proven to scam , have extortion and shady escrow under their belts and blatant trust abuse then just seek our help. We are always here for you.

Even the most ardent dash liars admit it happened because it is undeniable,they just claim it was all one big mistake with subsequent intentional actions that accidentally compounded the first mistake ALWAYS in their favor. Yes that sounds like the sort of thing you would believe within 2 mins of research if it suits your agenda.

Yes deliberately compounding your mistake is not the best way to convince people it was a mistake . That's good you are learning now. Only offering to redress your 2 huge  "mistakes" after months of being pressured and having teams of scammers like lauda telling people it never happened (before deciding not to really redress anything) is again not the best way to convince people. Well, you may convince SS to convince himself via redefining words, if it fits his agenda... but not reasonable people.

I mean asking him to accept that the text book example of an instamine is an instamine is according to SS like asking him to say right is left. I mean he is not just altering the definition of an instamine here he is saying it is the opposite of an instamine LOL
If the devs just claim accident that means it never happened. Simple as that. It is the opposite of an instamine and does not have any of the implications an intentional instamine has. LOL

The more you consider what he is saying the more entertaining it is. Get rid of the spamming fortune jack sig for a start mr ex mod. I find most fortune jack sig wearers to be of the same scamming ilk or supporting them clearly via devious and lemon flavored means.

Good old SS - always game for a laugh.

Sorry that makes no more sense. An instamine does NOT NEED TO BE INTENTIONAL I am putting it in bold so that you give it attention. If I make a coin that chucks out half its entire minting in 5 mins by accident, or I do it on purpose it is an instamined coin. If I  fix it so that only I the dev can mine and nobody else can that is still an instamine but it is really a captive instamine. It does not stop being an instamine.

The we need to consider this accident. Most devs who make an ACCIDENT relaunch it to rectify the mistake. Did they relaunch to rectify the mistake? NO they did not. They thought they would MAGNIFY the mistake and slash away 75% of the original minting to MAGNIFY their mistake. Who GAINED BY THIS MISTAKE = THEY DID,  who gained by not restarting it again THEY DID, who gained by slashing the remaining minting THEY DID.... LOL all those accidents whooops...  When they were called on this this over and over and over by a real legend what did they do?? well the developer then said okay I will compensate the miners by giving a 2 000 000 000 dollar (now) air drop. Why well it obvious because no instamine happened. I will just give you 2 000 000 000 usd for no reason.

Now all of that you are willing to suddenly believe in 2 mins of researching LOL  is irrelevant since that huge instamine coin emission took place if it was an accident or NOT.

You are still spewing nonsense. Please see how foolish and desperate you appear now trying to redefine instamine. I guess you can say there is intentional instamine, there is accidental instamine ....the result is still instamine. Get it now?



When people BENEFIT from an accident and they have opportunity to go back and fix the accident but they DO NOT. Then I doubt it was an accident and they are sorry.

When people later change the rules again to benefit MORE from the original accident then I really really really really doubt it was an accident and they are sorry.

When they change the rules again to take another 10% benefits from their loot gained in the accident. Then i would have to be full on crazy to believe it was an accident and they are sorry. You are ready to accept that in 2 mins of research lol ...oh really?

Kind of like me accidentally feeding you lemons after I have taken out life insurance on you. Then to make really sure I accidentally inject lemon juice into your blood stream and increase the life insurance amount further. Then later I bury you in a lemon lined coffin and bury you in the lemon groves on my property and claim the insurance.  Then i just redefine lemons and your name and tell myself none of it ever happened.  When people ask where is SS i tell them it is my opinion you never existed in the form they are trying to force me to accept lol. I don't accept the definition of SS that you are trying to force on me any longer. haha

Seems to me you are always willing to say or believe anything that suits you and the gang of lauda puppets and feltchers.

hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha your post is full on false bullshit and deranged stupidity. Your 2 mins of research you cobbled together to hold together your destroyed argument is desperation.  Take your time and your medication and then accept you can not just redefine right as left to suit you and your pals.

1. even if it they were fair game and were all mined in 5 mins THAT IS AN INSTAMINE
2. THEY WERE NOT FAIR GAME - READ THE LINK

can you not read or just pretending you can not read?  here let me quote it here for you.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4593601#msg4593601
Edufield said the github version was not updated, nobody could compile and only Edufield was able to mine until that time. It is 5.09 am and Edufield instamined alone 1153 block at 500 DRK + 60 block at reward 277 = 593120 DRK for him alone in about 1 hour.

Lol - I just noticed i was getting 500 coins per micro second but everyone else was mining too LOL
Lol _ I just noticed nobody else could mine and i have huge amounts of coins ....should i restart the launch because people are screaming they can not mine at me ... FUCK NO I will slash away 75% OF THE REST OF THE MINTING hahah no we did not reduce the minting by 75%, reduce no longer means that you take it away... we added 75% extra to the minting because adding means taking it away now. Hope that is clear. SS says it is totally reasonable and he came to the same conclusion.


WHY WOULD THEY OFFER A 2 000 000 000  dollar compensation air drop bozo??? after such pressure about the instamine?

It is undeniable. Stop looking like a person that will say anything however far fetched and retarded to support liars and scammers.

I am SS. When i get destroyed in debate and my points debunked i then wish to redefine the meaning of words so that I can still keep posting foolish nonsense.

I think it is safe to confirm you are a gang member. Nobody else would try and deny it was a lie. I mean I had previously put down your stupidity to being unhinged or slightly weird. But you would have to be a full retard to try and now attempt to change the definition of an instamine after the other parts of your argument fell apart one by one.

Yeah let's pretend it happened by accident when it could have been restarted and pretend it was an accident they decided to reduce the rest of the minting by 75%. Then just pretend it never happened.

Scammers can just say I did not scam. Then just change the definition of scamming to one that suits them better so they really did not scam in their opinion. Then if it is just an opinion then you can not be held financially responsible for it anyway. Ask SS he will confirm.

Seems you are willing to accept anything however unlikely it seems when it suits your agenda or that of your pay master lauda, but one needs 100% iron clad proof before you will need to change the definition of WORDS to debunk their argument. I see.

Looks suspicious to me. Perhaps everything you say needs to be treated with extreme caution. I mean if you are this crazy and believe you can redefine WORDS to suit your purpose then that is almost terrifying. hahaha

I don't say you're a scammer but wow you must be really deranged to believe even a small proportion of what you type here.

Quick scam gang, poor merit on salty for redefining words after his other points were gradually eroded away with reason and logic.

Read again
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=560138.msg7535561#msg7535561

so now you see your prior argument got debunked Entirely. You try a new angle.  

You are trying to redefine what instamine means?  

Because you say you drove over the person you had just taken life insurance out on by ACCIDENT, then that means it didn't really happen? you didn't drive over them?

Instamine is instamine  SS.  Sorry if you choose now all of a sudden to believe it was all an accident and then they just decided to MAGNIFY that accident by slashing 75% of the remaining minting away LOL and then develop a scheme for taking another 10% from new miners. RATHER THAN restart the launch like other projects who had an ACCIDENT.

Yeah they just offered a 2 000 000 000 USD compensation offer because there was NO instamine.  Instamine has nothing to do with intent you could not mean to have it happen, so you restart it again like other devs. You could instamine without scamming just say I have developed an coin where all coins will be mined within 1 minute of launch.

With this level of twisting you just look more of a secret gang supporter with each message. Just don't pretend to be neutral SS. Just say I will say anything to prevent lauda looking bad.

Willing to believe anything or grasp at anything at face value within moments of reading it just to try and deny the undeniable. You want to believe it was all a big MISTAKE that they MAGNIFIED on PURPOSE hahahahah or you want to believe it was intentional ... it does not change it was instamined at all.

Best guy was this one https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4594096#msg4594096

for years after was denying any instamine premine just because he got his hands on some. People will say anything for money.

Yes everyone is familiar with the excuses and bullshit there it was all an accident. WHICH IS IRRELEVENT

That does not deny there was a captive instamine it simply states it was all an accident. So instead of restarting it again like the other projects they decided instead to REDUCE the remaining minting by 75% and add masternodes to ensure new miners had to give MORE to the masternode holders. LOL nobody believes it was an accident anyway not that it alters the fact it happened

This is irrelevant. There was a captive instamine it is undeniable but they claim all and accident and just thought we would slash the rest of the minting away.  Hence why our friend the true legend and others who joined pressured the core dev to offer HUGE AIRDROP because it was proven without doubt it took place.

Can you stick to the points of yours I am debunking rather than throwing in red herrings that actually mean nothing in terms of lauda lying and scamming.

Please answer my previous points.

Do not run away this time let's thrash it out.

Which part is just my opinion and not an observable instance? the EXACT EXAMPLE

It is not merely an opinion. Else anything can just be  called and opinion and not an observable lie. THEY SAID THEY WERE ON THE LAUNCH AND THERE WAS NO INSTAMINE. That is a lie, are lies just opinions? That undeniable.

I read the packet mix and knew there were lemons in there. It was not my opinion there were no lemons I was lying to you by saying I read it and that it said no lemons... to scam you into buying by cake slices.

I told you I read the packet mix and there was no lemons for sure. That is not an merely an opinion.

 there is no denying it is a lie for financial gain. It is scamming.

You are looking more and more like you will say anything to try and twist out of it.

You are jumping from one false claim to another.  If this financially motivated lying is not one for a flag, then nobody can have a flag.

Are you pretending to not understand because it seems impossible for any semi intelligent person NOT to understand to this degree.

Instamine is NOT a scam. Although it leaves the project open to market making and collusion which is dangerous. (although they the devs lied and said it would be a fair launch with no premine/instamine so the project scammed miners who rented rigs anyway but we are not focusing on the projects part of the scam, they later offered a 2 000 000 000 compensation.)

Putting lemon extract in the cake mix is not a scam on the part of the factory that produced it. (this is irrelevant since we are dealing with ONLY our part of the scamming in the cake scenario)

Me LYING TO YOU saying I have read the packet mix and I can tell you for sure there is no lemon extract  ,so that I can sell you my cake slices IS A SCAM. Just because I say tough shit SS, you should have picked up the packet and read it yourself, do not mean I DID NOT SCAM YOU?

How is this difficult to understand?

The second thing you said is even more strange.

Both scenarios you pose are related to financially dangerous behaviors . Someone enjoying a slice of lemon in their drink is not a sensible comparison.  It is not REASONABLE to believe they pose anyone a direct threat financially. There is no direct financially motivated wrongdoing in anyway to enjoying a drink of lemon tea.

I view your attempted argument as suspicious.

You have never supported any action against these people whatever they have done. You are willing to just "forget and discount" the many strong cases people have brought against them for extorting and shady escrowing. This latest example of you saying lauda is not responsible for his lies for direct financial gain and that is NO danger at all to members ....because it is you say they "could" have investigated for themselves is again bogus and totally insane. You are part of that the "same" sig campaign that we not a high concentration of scammers or their supporters are wearing. You vanish previously when your points are clearly debunked and say you are not interested in adopting a different opinion. Now when red trust finally means nothing you say his actions are now worthy of red trust but no flags.

If you deliberately lie to people in order to financially benefit from them being mislead - you scammed them. It is impossible to deny. 
It is impossible to twist out of it.