r1s2g3 is missing the point, as usual for low brow ass kissing members.


The pharmacist is a confirmed supporter of lauda. He is also a sneaky greedy racist trolling sig spamming sock puppet hugeblackwoman. He openly admits he does not have the capacity to understand if lauda is a scammer, but will support him regardless because he is an ass kisser.

So his own opinion on this is cast in doubt also. There is not point relying on the opinions of those that are observably untrustworthy or their supporters who by their support are untrustworthy as well.

Their observable double standards and trust abuse will come to an end, or it will just mean the entire board will turn into a war zone.

Report away newbie dog. I suspect many of your superiors (other scammers and their ass kissers) have tried this angle of silencing us previously. Cryptohunter may well have been silenced, the true legend rest in peace, but we are not the same person. We shall not be banned on such weak and desperate grounds.

So you are just building your merit garbage score, to spam for higher rates of crumbs elsewhere? I see. Be a good little 3rd world dog and don't continue to break my local rules to spam your speculations and nonsense that is off topic.

Yes it is worrying, is it not, that DT's, ALL OF THEM seem either dirty or complicit. Imagine the entire DT not 1 of them dares to or cares to take note of all the observable instances in the past histories of these untrustworthy scammers, liars and do the RIGHT THING.

This boards free speech is being crushed daily. You can not even present observable events without getting red trust.

Merit and DT are the very WORST things that have happened to bitcoin via this board.  The entire communities free speech is vulnerable to this garbage.

I am just waiting for these observably untrustworthy "gang" to pull off something large enough to get the attention of some real law enforcement, and it be clearly demonstrated that their TRUST positions were leveraged to enable such a large scale scam. Then the shit will hit the fan.

It is there in black and white, that this group is untrustworthy. The evidence has been presented many times. I hope all those historically sticking up for, and protecting them here, get the same punishment. I mean a  prison cell will be an upgrade from some of their living standards, but others will not be so keen.

All those including them into the trust system will be culpable.

There should be whistle blower rewards. Not punishment.

These dirty turds are always here to claim they require "the right" to give red trust for ANY REASON they see fit. They are terrified of being given a strict set of guidelines they can NOT abuse.

They can NOT change the past. It is all recorded and historically will be examined. Time is on our side.

Nulitad? do you mean that scam enabling account seller DT member Nutildah?


Off topic. irrelevant nobody newbie sig spamming troll coinlocket$. Why are you mentioning the account seller and scam enabling member Nutildah on my thread? I am surely not a scam enabler like them. Please do not make such accusations.

 Please take heed of my local rules. I do not think your broken down 3rd world grasp of the English language can be taken as conclusive analysis of identical post styles. Although, we have already stated we are doing our "uttermost" to post in a style that the true legend would recognize as his own impressive and comprehensive presentation whilst he for whatever reason is prevented from continuing his fight for fair and equal treatment for all members.

This derailing must stop, or mods must be held accountable for allowing it to continue. I will be report all posts not made by those we specifically permitted in the initial post.

Well unless cobra, theymos or cyrus are spamming yobit sigs or pumping yobit, then I think it is safe to leave the OP as it is. Also for your information you can not adapt local rules after the intial post is submitted.

Did you post this in the wrong thread? please delete it and put it in the correct thread.

Nutildah the hypocritical scam facilitator in his own words wants me to believe what he is telling me now to defend his own skin? this person would obviously say or do anything for some btc crumbs. Yeah my opinion changed when I wanted to sell my own account. Oh really now?

Lauda just gets more flagrant about his double standards.

This openly demonstrates the deep problems the trust system has. We have those NOTILDAH OR NUTILDAH that knowingly wish to increase the probability of people getting scammed by selling their account... after stating selling accounts leaves people more vulnerable to getting scammed and wanting others red trusted for selling their accounts.

Then we have those even worse like  LAUDA who will tell lies to scam people, and is a probable extortionist and trust abuser who says NO OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE that can be presented will cause him to red tag his hypocritical scam enabling pal.

However he will tag you for presenting observable events from his own past.

The DT crew. Dirty Turds 1.

You Lauda accuse the OP of spreading false information?  when you yourself lied on many occasions regarding the xcoin/dark instamine claiming you were on the launch and there was no instamine. This is actually scamming also since you were claiming this to entice investors under false premise and were a self confessed holder of that project . So yes if we have a trust system then if it should include those that lie for financial gain like yourself, then you should certainly have  a red tag. Please red tag lauda for telling lies for financial gain or unfair advantage. If you wish to see the evidence then you may request it and I will present it for the 100th time.

We will not permit observable liars and scammers to lecture and punish others for far lesser crimes.

This thread is like a honey pot for observable dirt bags and their supporters. This could work out very nicely.

Hi fortunejack spammer. Are you here to protect your scamming and lying pals too? I thought only Huge Black Woman AKA the smarmacist was dumb enough to be first to protect them on every thread. Great to see the other usual suspects all lining up to be demonstrably untrustworthy with them.

This thread is going to serve too many ends.

Nice to see you littering my thread off topic nonsense that will be deleted on the grounds of breaking my local rules and being off topic. Low value junk, like the rest of your low brow output from that last few years.

Why speculate on off topic nonsense whilst blinding us with your sig spamming? your dreams of owning a bitcoin are clouding your already limited newbie judgement.

Sorry folks, but I notice a lot of off topic noise (from sig spammers) and some dreams of silencing the truth, that will be shattered publicly time and time again.
The truth will not be silenced. Most people use local rules to prevent the truth being heard. I use local rules to ensure the truth is not covered in a veneer of scam enabling dirt from observable scammers and their friends.

Moderators who openly support proven scammers and liars positions on DT can not be trusted. Their bias has already been openly observed to flood over into their previous posts. Relying on their judgement for which local rules the will enforce is not something I would care for. However, any clear double standards or bias from them will be called out on the rep section and broadly debated in meta at length. If local rules are clear then there is no reason to uphold them for one member and not uphold them for another member.

If we are now saying local rules do not mean anything in meta that that is fine. However, it must be so for all members. I notice the very CLEAR local rules in my own thread are being flagrantly broken.

Fair and equal treatment for all members will be the goal.

This is turning out to be another great thread.

This newbie just turned into another chipmixer shill and sig spammer . Has no clue how the trust and merits systems operate or their implications for free speech.

SS is here breaking my local rules. Creating extreme and silly straw men and insisting that leaving red trust for persons who say they like lemons is a legitimate use of the trust system.  Seems to be changing his opinion on local rules. I can't see how I can be any clearer. This is not people with x y z in their surname. This is a clear debate I wish to have with people (only)that can enforce some simple rules to prevent observable scammers and liars using red trust to silence whistle blowers who mention their previous untrustworthy deeds, and crushing the free speech of everyone else on this board. How long has SS been spamming gambling sigs? the same gambling project as the core scam team are wearing I notice?

The others breaking my local rules are known supporters of the very DT scamming abusers that I refer to, plus the observable liar, scammer, trust abuser, probable extortionist who also looks to have possibly misappropriated escrow funds he was entrust with. This person now in a position of trust on this board? great C.V.

All evidence in the form of observable events will provided, when the admin I permitted to post arrive to examine this claim.

WRONG.  SS a mod for 6 years clearly stated that breaking local rules will mean your posts get deleted.

Tman an authority on this forum I believe also stated that local rules if broken will result in your posts being deleted. He successfully used local rules to remove cryptohunters posts which he had banned in the local rules. LoyceV the robovac AI here also started the local rules gold rush.

Steamtyme does not understand there is no self moderated "option" available in meta. It seems unlikely someone would forget to make it self moderated while typing out local rules  well, there are some here in meta who clearly could get that confused.

We possibly agree but only in part. Our reasons were:

The board full well knows this same evidence has been presented many times before. We were giving hhampuz a chance to say that he is not knowingly employing such persons and move straight to a thread for the sponsor. He has not given us a definite "no" answer.  However, he has confirmed that the sponsor is FULLY aware. They will need to explain their own actions in the next thread. Hhampuz seemed to know precisely to who we were referring to with no need of any further immediate evidence.

We need "concrete" evidence to start an investigation thread or we get red trust? how will anyone discuss "possible" infractions or possible scams if you need "concrete" evidence to start it is not permitted to release it in stages after the initial post?  If any DT brings an investigation thread without "concrete" evidence at the start must they too receive red trust? That is not what you are saying but it is what others are claiming in their red trust source links.

We accept presenting "concrete" evidence at the very start is MORE compelling and initially convincing. It is not more reliable. If the evidence presented at ANY point is observable then it is completely reliable. The evidence can not be cast in doubt due to the stage it is released in that case.

We in each stage of the initial post raised questions. We decided to release the evidence in stages so that any rebuttals or refutations could be clearly dealt with without confusion in some order.

So to recap - the extortion we believe is probable but we are open to debate, the lying and scamming is observable and undeniable, the trust abuse is clear to us on lauda's part, the previous trust abuse is self confessed on tmans part, the escrow debacle is not yet examined since there does not seem enough detail to make a full judgement but looks rather worrying. We may start an entire thread just on that very topic.

There have been 0 attempts to deny, excuse or refute the evidence by any of the persons involved. They have had time to leave multiple red tags in order to silence these observable events being examined.

Red trust is not a weapon to be used by liars and scammers to silence whistle blowers.

This argument, that you need to list all of the evidence right away, or else the evidence is in some way less valuable, seems unreasonable. If that is what you are saying. That is only possibly correct in terms of the initial post. In the context of the entire thread then a gradual release to allow ordered discussion and debate is a better way to go. In our humble opinion.

You are clearly missing the point.

Trust is about trust. Intention is a large part of this. Red trusting relating to account sales is all on topic. Your reasoning here relating to this entire subject is being examined. Stop trying to push that away by claiming it is off topic.

The nutildah account clearly said that they believed account sales were contributing to scammers gaining trust and were firmly against it in 2014. They were advocating the punishment of account sellers on those grounds. They firmly stated that selling accounts left members vulnerable to scammers.

In 2016 they decided to sell their account believing it would lead to people possibly getting scammed but not caring one shit. It is unknown whether the account sale went through or not.

How can you reason this initial poster is less trust worthy that your lunch time buddy nutildah who knowingly increased the probability of people getting scammed here?  He is by his own reasoning increasing the probability of people getting scammed here?

Please tackle this specific reason. Your reasoning seems unreliable and untrustworthy in itself. You would knowingly be pals with someone by their own reasoning wanted to increase peoples chances of getting scammed here?

Is that right? because that seems to be what you are saying. That to me is the type of reasoning the board should be made vulnerable too.

You had previously seemed semi impartial, this time you are clearly being biased.

You would trust someone who by their own statement would for their own financial gain knowingly increase the risk of people getting scammed here? these people you want to meet for beers?

Explain how this is a side issue? this is a directly related incident. This is building a case that your red is not valid unless you are ready to apply red to ALL account sellers.

Nutildah clearly stated account sales are allowing scammers greater possibility of pulling scam. He then either tried to sell or did sell the account. Nobody knows. This is knowingly increasing the probability of scamming on this board.

The initial poster has demonstrated nothing like this level of untrustworthy behavior.

You are simply trying to divert away from an On Topic debate about your red trust.  Explain why you find the nutildah account MORE trustworthy than the initial poster. I await you explanation.  Time past is a cop out.

You are employing double standards to favor your DT pals. That is clear.

I will use this specific case as double standards if you do not explain why you find this members actions more untrustworthy than nutildahs.

Please do not use that language towards me. Remain civil.

We are discussing trust. If you recognize in 2014 that selling your account leaves members vulnerable to scamming then decide to sell your account then by your own argument you are untrustworthy. Nutildah deserves red trust far more than this person.

I will see to it that he is tagged or that every other persons tag is removed for buying and selling accounts.

He argued that selling your account makes you untrustworthy before he went right ahead and decided to sell his own account.  If he strongly believed selling accounts leaves members open to scamming and went ahead and contributed to the probability of people being scammed.

We know that you will often protect know scammers and are untrustworthy sneaky and greedy yourself Huge Black Woman. You used that alt to troll racist sig spam for btc crumbs.


@ Steamtyme

I hope you will be red flagging the nutildah account or I will call you on double standards here. Read my above post for details.

If your post is not deleted then there should be a good explanation of why. I notice other persons (not DT members) not complying with the local rules are deleted. I am reporting it now. I will see what happens.

Please stop spamming your signature at every given chance. Or remove it. All of these huge mixing, gambling sigs in meta that are being worn by the DT members are blinding.

Local rules - only the most senior admin may comment on this thread.  

Only Cobra, Cyrus and Theymos may reply. Satoshi can chime in, if he feels strongly about the situation, which I expect he would.

Red trust is clearly being used by certain DT members as a weapon to silence whistle blowers and crush free speech here in general.

If anyone mentions the prior observable wrong doing of certain DT members they are immediately given red trust to silence them.
One needs to only say they will encourage others to review those DT's post histories and you will get red trust.
If one complains and tell the DT members they are not allowed to give red trust for presenting facts regarding them or their friends wrong doing. They they say " I can, I will, and I just have". Their abuse is brazen and open.

This is 100% perverting the very reason for having default trust.

I can bring clear observable evidence to demonstrate what I am claiming is true and taking place on this forum.

What are you going to do about this situation?  It seems a core of about 5 or 6 DT are doing this, but the entire DT system is full of others that will do NOTHING about this kind of abuse and will actually condone it.

There are numerous instances of clear double standards and corrupt behavior.

The implications for free speech here are quite bleak. It seems irresponsible to allow individuals that have been demonstrated untrustworthy on numerous occasions to be given leverage on this board to gain trust of the most vulnerable and silence any whistle blowers. Since their past untrustworthy behaviors are clearly observable there can be no sensible and responsible reason to let them continue in these positions of trust that leaves the entire board vulnerable to their actions.

Why are these people not blacklisted from the trust system?

At the very least bring them in line with a clear RULE. Red trust to be issued for proven scams and scammers or those you can present a STRONG case are about to scam or have scammed. All other red trust must be removed and those breaking this rule will be black listed?

What is so difficult about issuing this command to save the board from this abusive and corrupt bunch of DT members that have grasped control of the trust system?

Other members seem to have recognized this a while back

only DT members are allowed to sell and buy accounts on here, did you not know this?

this DT member nutildah is lecturing others here in 2014 on why they should NOT sell their accounts admits that selling accounts leaves other member vulnerable to getting scammed....

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=789658.msg9062680#msg9062680

then decides to sell their own account in 2016 so just 100% goes against everything they were saying.... and does not give a toss if people get scammed?? prime DT material I'm sure.

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


his DT friends do not seem to feel this account needs a red tag??

a/ because he listed it for sale for months not caring if people get scammed.
b/ we don't even know it it was sold and the person just claimed it was no longer for sale. So it could certainly have been sold.

If you did something wrong then they should red tag that account also

They red tag people on "suspicion" like justiceforyou a vip member or even if they " think" you are an alt of someone.  

They only require PROOF beyond what is reasonably possible on an anonymous forum when it is one of them being examined.

It is like dealing with persons that suffered serious brain trauma. Please read the initial post. Hhampuz does not need to defend his part in any extortion, scamming, lying, or anything else. He needs to make it clear if he is or is not hiring, sponsoring those individuals that are either guilty or were implicated in those types of behaviors. Hhampuz said he did not hire lauda. He did not say whether he has recruited any of the other people mentioned in this thread or not.
Actmyname seems to be claiming the evidence provided is not compelling enough for the initial post to be valid. We disagree. The evidence of lying and scamming is clear. The evidence for the extortion is compelling. The evidence for trust abuse is there is black and white and has been presented many times. You can not red trust a person for saying they will encourage others to review your post history.

You may not red trust a person for asking a set of questions that then are publicly examined and compelling evidence is provided which demonstrate those questions are valid and warranted.

Considering the DTs so keen to say the questions were defaming and untrue I see 0 denial or refutation coming from them. Looks like primarily a bunch of DTs all colluding to protect one another and their sponsor by using red trust as a weapon to silence whistle blowing or even public analysis of observable events.


Read the OP there is no reason to find Hhampuz name  on that thread.

Better than fighting for free speech on this forum?
You have never bothered reading or looking into the evidence that other core DT1 members are liars, scammers, extortionists ?? but you have got time to trawl the entire board looking for small time crooks?

This is a very strange attitude for a DT member to publicly announce.