... interestingly enough, TF has returned, and has apparently sent 6.3BTC to OgNasty.. NastyMining has recovered 6.51961 BTC as a result of our investment with user TradeFortress. This brings the current amount of BTC held by NastyMining to 16.7217181. NastyMining is also holding 112,306.66 Siacoin. wtf? |
|
|
|
th3 r3al hax0rs d0 n0t us3 cap1tals, and sh0uld als0 m1x numb3rs in the1r w0rds. gl3b, u sh0uld kn0w th1s. th3 r3al hax0rs d0 n0t us3 cap1tals, and sh0uld als0 m1x numb3rs in the1r w0rds. gl3b, u sh0uld kn0w th1s.
@n @nc13nt p0nd / @ frOg jump5 1n / th3 spl@sh 0f w@t3r <touché in 5 ..... 4 .... 3 ...> ... 2 ... 1 ... touché!  |
|
|
|
Bump.
@DT1 members, you should care about your minions and their actions. otherwise you would look guilty for their misbehavior.
Avoiding guilty behavior by expecting or requiring every DT1 member to care about every other DT1 member and their actions does not seem sustainable nor feasible. |
|
|
|
Amazing, and amusing. I'm in.  |
|
|
|
I do not think he should be getting a negative review on his wall.
Eh, yeah. I'm not sure why he got a negative trust from ibminer, either. I read this thread from the beginning, and if anyone is deserving--at least temporarily--of a neg, it's minerjones. Props to Yahoo62278 for trying to contact him, and let's hope this doesn't turn out ugly. Originally, nothing I had seen at that point in time really indicated minerjones was involved at all, so I was actually looking more into some sort of fake escrow scam posing as minerjones and swapping in another address on a quote, which would certainly be unique, considering who had the coupons and who was sending the funds... but that thought stemmed from the added concern with the aforementioned strange handwriting change from anonymousminer, most people do not change the way they write 7's and 8’s. This concern made me question whether the anonymousminer account was under the control of the same person that minerjones has known for a long time or whether it was under the control by the same person sending funds to the fake escrow and then coming on with a compromised account as a friend of minerjones and telling Kraven to send the coupons. Fast forward to after that feedback was left, after I received additional information/PMs, I realized minerjones' account was actually involved in the PMs… which was a little surprising for me. because the behavior is unusual for him to not respond, but at this point, I'd say a likely temporary feedback on minerjones is warranted (in case of the account being compromised, this notifies others and protects minerjones from potential further damage) but I’m optimistic that it will all be cleared up. However, anonymousminer & minerjones are not accounts I would personally trust right now, no offense… I realize there may be special circumstances minerjones may be going through so I’m not trying to be insensitive, but, based on the way other scamming/compromised escrows have went down, I am being hypersensitive… temporary feedback seems warranted and I don’t think damages anyone in the short term.
I have no problem removing feedback if this is cleared up.EDIT: Lesbian Cow's 24 hour comment made me re-think this last part  ... somewhere along the lines I had gotten the impression this was a longer timeframe he had been coming online and not responding. I can't really stand by a negative feedback this soon but I would not release any coupons until minerjones addresses the thread. |
|
|
|
|
Did you actually get a message directly from minerjones or did you get a quoted piece of text from Tekno2020 saying minerjones agreed?
|
|
|
|
I need to see a transaction from Tekno2020 showing he sent funds to minerjones, otherwise it didn't happen. According to their profile, Tekno2020 uses 31pDmi6PDdHFUT51MTzJNYacxYMZp2bi58I don't see any transactions recently showing funds going to minerjones and am not seeing a transaction worth near $2800. |
|
|
|
maybe if theymos change the default trust network for newbies from time to time it will be better ( idk if he is doing that already ) . IIRC there was some system that he was testing to randomly add users into one's DT network. If someone has a link they can bring it up but it basically made users pick and choose from a selection of users. recent comments: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2945878.msg30263135#msg30263135https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2945878.msg30265724#msg30265724original explanation: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=914641.0My fear with this type of semi-randomized system is that it would be abused on a larger scale and would just create smaller groups of centralized (farmed) trusted accounts. I feel like it increases the chances for newbies getting scammed and further cradles or helps hide scammers... there probably isn't ever going to be a perfect solution for decentralizing something like this trust system though. It's not perfect, but I like the trust system how it is at the moment, even though I do feel like there is a level of corruption that may be attainable and there are not enough current DT members expressing their opinions without fear, but I guess that's their choice. In the end, scammers have plenty of financial incentive to scam here (not to mention rules are setup somewhat in their favor), so they have plenty of stamina and motivation to keep going. Outside of those who have their own special interests, DT members don't really have any incentive to help others/newbies or to leave any feedback, and they generally have risks of putting their own neck (or their own reputation) on the line when they leave feedback to others, since DT-level feedback can be excessively over-analyzed, debated, etc. So it's not really a good balance in that sense.. |
|
|
|
My website was hacked after I made this thread, promoting Quickseller as an elite hacker.  Whomever did it, elite may be going a bit far considering sql injection is probably as common these days as winnuke was in the 90's  |
|
|
|
I am still waiting for the refund..  Did you get paid yet snakey? No friend i have not yet received the payment @DT members, what if atriz is on other account will that account too get the negative trust? What if someone from DT2 knows his new account and have told him to kick start a new from that account?? Will that other account of atriz and that DT2 member will be red painted? Thank you. Too many what if's... more variables are required to accurately calculate what course of action any DT2 member would or should potentially take.  However, as has been the case in the past, accounts that are proven alts of accounts that are red are generally left similar feedback. That being said, not every DT2 member follows that mindset, nor do they have to. Personally, even to theorize what I would do, I would need more information. |
|
|
|
I'll do my part in reporting some posts in Politics & Society, but it is pretty difficult to decide what gets reported and what not. Sticking with the obvious spam for now, but ideally, I'd also want to report some of the more 'gray-area' posts as well. Just one example of what I see as a gray-area: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3142740.0 (how do we move on from something?) To some people it might be easy, and it might be hard to others. How do we exactly move on from something? I guess this might be a legit question, but on the other hand it's clearly very low effort. Should be in off-topic perhaps or just removed? I don't know. I'd vote for it to go in the trash. It's just another one of those lazy one-liner threads attempting to masquerade as something meaningful, but it's so vague and pointless and the replies are equally so. I really think we should just make Politics and Society and Off topic like Serious Discussion and then these sorts of threads would stop because 99% of the threads in those two boards are only made for the activity/post count. In fact, I doubt we even really need Politics now we have got Serious Discussion. This example is vague because "something" isn't really defined in the topic (so this I'd probably say is worth trashing), but as a slightly revised example, if the thread title was "How do we move on from breaking up with a girlfriend/boyfriend", would this then be acceptable? It would be hard to distinguish whether a forum member is actually posting about this or just picking some random thing a person would need to move on from. The threads I've looked through so far appear to be started for the intent of padding post counts (which I believe merit may be slowing down) but when theymos says "without hampering the free exchange of ideas", I'm not sure there would be any choice but to leave a thread like the one I've mentioned. The replies may be easier to scrutinize, especially when there is an extreme repetition of the same idea/thought repeated by various accounts... but then do you go with the first poster who had a particular idea as sort of a first-come-first-serve basis of ideas towards the thread topic? Or do they get left as the N th example of "Take some time after your break-up, meet new people, and enjoy who you have in life." <- which could be seen as useful idea to the OP... but when it is repeated multiple times in various ways, it becomes painful to the reader. |
|
|
|
I looked at the post gap several months ago but had discovered aTriz was able to sign a message from a prior address after being questioned. Even though I do realize private keys can certainly be sold (and possibly stolen), this is pretty much the standard way to confirm the account is under control of the original owner. However, as I re-think this, the signed message was not dated and should not have been accepted as proof.. for all I know it could have been an old copy/paste signed message that the original owner could have sent to someone in 2013/14. The 2013/14 version was pretty active in trading, and a signed message like this could have easily been requested back then and may not have had a date. I may be overthinking this, but to be safe, aTriz, will you please sign another message from the address below, with today's date. Your funny. You might have noticed, I changed password before I start managing Campaigns and that was for my own safety. -----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hello, this is aTriz from Bitcoin talk, and I am proving my identity
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1LjT88X7Zu8BdbqJw8vfRa83NJuzYL9kqm
Hw35+F6xdwDBoAcqkC4Bj5h591kacAfr6liVsWyAhAVBHttHXgk+gNkiZ7kqGlUrw4eOIySKUgRsVX//6BXoRJQ=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Also, I'd like to point out this post, which was deleted at some point after 2016 (maybe whenever the new owner took over?): https://web.archive.org/web/20160412055259/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=135920;sa=showPosts;start=520About half way down the archived posts, you will see the old aTriz make a post in a Crypsty thread, signing it as "- Adam" In 2017, after this aTriz account was resurrected, an apparent dox happened on current aTriz which apparently claimed his name was Ke* Ma*. (I'm omitting since this is technically not "Investigations" but those who understand will know what name I am talking about). Another threat of this same dox happened with alia due to, according to aTriz, a paypal-to-btc transaction he did with alia (naiveness??) which he could never prove with a transaction and this is what apparently exposed his personal information (Ke* Ma*) to alia. I'm starting to think the account actually did change hands. |
|
|
|
We've got sex, religion and politics in this thread. Now we just need the Rock 'n' Roll Now I'm giving away my age.  EDIT: "Hound Dog" would have been more appropriate for this thread! But back on topic - digaran is delusional. Proof: Both of them were interested about what theymos thinks about Lauda. I could think of one person interested enough about what theymos thinks about Lauda a.k.a QS. I could think of one person who'd be willing to spend a lot of money to hurt the ~Cat.
Strong logic on linking me as a bought account by QuickSeller. /s
EDIT: I'm going to have this stuck in my head for the next 3-4 days. |
|
|
|
aTriz fucked up, and by the looks of things he is losing his way of making a living and having an army of people against him. He made a mistake which we can all see was a bad one, but I cant see any malice in any of his actions. As for the ICO's you cannot blame the managers, the forum or anyone other than the Owners of the ICO's and the greedy investors who have made this space a cesspool.
I disagree with no malice. Mainly because of the events leading up to this and the fact that aTriz calls out others for similar shady behaviors. Let me first say this situation is/was a tough one for me, probably the toughest I've faced on this forum. I had enough confidence in ALU to join the signature campaign several months ago (which I ended shortly after the alia debacle - personally, I just was not comfortable with aTriz's involvement there). This was the first paid signature I've ever wore (not including the NastyFans you get nothing signature, which interestingly enough, I later found out only got me put on public ignore lists, till this very day!  ). I realize others may not see their signature as them 'supporting' something but I'm not someone that would wear a signature of a project I don't support. When I contacted aTriz about the signature campaign he was posting about, I specifically told aTriz that I did not want to be part of anything shady and only wanted to be involved in advertising for a project that was legitimate. He assured me it was legitimate and pointed out what it was - ALU. I researched ALU a bit and, believe it or not, had some comfort seeing Lauda as part of it, and honestly liked the idea of it, thinking it might be a way to make ICOs less of a cesspool and a little more honest. I believed this because aTriz & Lauda were part of it (whom had both expressed disgust towards other ICOs doing bumping and other shady activities and have called out quite a few people and ICOs), so I don't think my belief was that far fetched, as I would have expected either one of these two people to have called "SCAM" as soon as someone was saying they raised 3 million dollars and they had really only raised ~10,000. Some examples for aTriz calling out scammers for shady behavior: https://archive.is/VLSzo (this specifically related to an ICO falsifying invested funds - aTriz is well aware this is scam behavior.) https://archive.is/JhHUa (calling out bumping) http://archive.is/sFeNG#selection-24257.0-24257.362 (calling out exchanges for manipulating numbers) Lauda needs no examples because Lauda constantly tags people for shady behavior like this. When I see aTriz making comments like this about other ICOs but then ignoring his own clients misbehavior as a "marketing strategy", I feel like there is malice here, and why I responded the way I did on this thread. The whole situation aggravates me and is just frustrating. |
|
|
|
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.
Ok but the founder of the company, without a CEO or other roles, is likely the one to make policies. The general problem discussing any of this is that I, nor you, know the behind-the-scenes structure of ALU so it is hard to say what policies existed, if any. Should there have been policies that existed for a group like ALU, sure, but I don't know if there was or wasn't and what they would be. 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. I agree that aTriz making posts in the ANN thread with "we" and "us" as if he is a part of their group is certainly misleading, and why I mentioned a potential disclaimer. And I'd agree everyone else should be held to the same standard. I still didn't see Lauda do any of this.. defending a business partner in this way, on the heels of him being called out for fraudulent behavior, doesn't seem scandalous to me. As for your comment: "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'm still not sure how you derive that Lauda is saying this? If anything, your comment should have read: "Lauda went as far as to say that everyone engages in this type of behavior ( posting content of an ICO without disassociating themselves from it) by saying that this is a global issue." Your version of the comment implies Lauda knows all fraudulent information being posted by other managers and that Lauda even has the capability to make such a comment about fraudulent information being posted by others. 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.
My response: I've looked at scam accusations and have found several purchased accounts accused of scams, several very likely to be sold by you in the past, I've linked you to these accounts through a source I have whom does not want to be identified for fear of retaliation. Verifiable? No. My words against yours? Maybe. That's what it's all about, isn't it, word play and influencing the reader? <- did I really have to add this last sentence explaining my fake response? or could I have left it out to sway readers and then argued with you on the validity? What would be your response if I had not disclosed this was a fake response? If it is "Well I would demand proof or evidence of your claims", then, practice what you preach.
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.
This issue is not as simple as you are trying to make it and goes well beyond basic economics. In order to explain it fully, I'd have to help [potential] scammers by revealing information I don't want to reveal on how to conduct scamming, which may very well be what you want me to do, but I will not. |
|
|
|
Just because a person makes a bad decision, does not make them intrinsically bad, or even a scammer for that matter.
Yes aTriz made a mistake by continuing to manage a campaign when he knew there was some shady business going on, but just this information, in and of itself is not necessarily evidence of a scam, at best this could simply be evidence of shady marketing tactics. To discount the dozens of other campaigns he has run successfully, and his attempts to make this right by personally refunding snakey shows that he is at least worthy of a second chance.
It's funny how quick to turn people are, yes aTriz was wrong to promote an ICO with the knowledge he had, but at that point nobody knew if the ICO was a scam. The fact is aTriz is no longer managing the campaign once it came to light indicates that he had no intention of promoting a proven scam, prior to this, it wasn't proven, so why is he being negged to death?
Wouldn't it have been more logical to tell aTriz how to make this right, rather than going this route?
Your trustworthy meter is going down. Did you not see my prior definitions of a scam? It's quite simple. It is fraud, anyone committing fraud for financial gain is scamming. aTriz knows what fraud is, he saw it, and went along with it. If you think aTriz is naive to what fraud is, here he is not too long ago saying how mad exchanges make him when they manipulate their numbers (fraud). http://archive.is/sFeNG#selection-24257.0-24257.362Not a far jump from what he allowed to go on. |
|
|
|
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. 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. 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.
I didn't feel a strong pushback after aTriz made his comments. It felt more like how Lauda would handle embarrassment or some sort of effort to avoid personal embarrassment. For me, it is a somewhat understandable behavior in the situation. 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. 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 never saw anything that said they would be handling campaigns "jointly" in either announcement threads I've seen, multiple contact points doesn't mean much. Also, indirectly benefiting from a scammer doesn't make someone guilty of scamming or even supporting the scammer if they did not know the person was a scammer. Again, I'd refer to other situations like Og/Pirate, but there are better examples where people have gotten tangled up with scammers and could be seen as indirectly benefiting, because 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. However, why am I responding to you, when you haven't responded to me? |
|
|
|
Gotcha! I knew it from the very start that it was a BIG JOKE. though Thymus is so smart and creative doing this stuff.  That was great I mean we all fooled by theymos and it's not impossible because we always take seriously whatever theymos implemented. I really thought this will be another requirements to rank up because actually that's too many to meet. He really catch us tho. theymos has been known to trick us on April Fool's day over the past few years. He's also been known to expel tricksters from our midst --> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=45298.0 (NOW THAT WAS FUNNY !!!). MY GOD MAN HOW CAN YOU LINK TO SUCH CRAZY POSTERS I CANT BELIEVE I JUST SPENT AT LEAST 7 MINUTES READING THROUGH THAT NONSENSE AND IM HAVING TROUBLE SEEING ANYTHING RIGHT NOW THE MOST HONEST FORUM MEMBER AWARD IN 2011 IN THE SIGNATURE LOL FREEMASONS HA HA AND THEN THEYMOS COMES IN WITH THE MASTER TROLL COMMENT ROFLMAO... ok I better stop before I get banned. That was funny though! I'd take pinkiepie over the shitposters any day |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
