You are confused. What theymos did was detrimental to lauda. He also used fact based logic not heavy handed “suggestions”.

I was not referring to you.

But to answer your question, if someone received the PM from theymos, they could have wiped their trust list as a protest against being pressured to exclude lauda from their trust list. It would be a way of showing they would rather not participate in the DT system than exclude lauda. <-- this would be how someone could support lauda.

After further consideration, I will drop the issue presently.

if anyone wishes to post something, feel free to PM me and I will unlock it for you.

I strongly disagree with your assessment (underlined), but I will stop pushing the issue. I would note that I did ask him about the issue prior to opening up my thread.

---

IMO, the best way to decide if someone should be accepted into a campaign is to check how good of posts they have been making recently, and how often others will respond to the person's posts.

The problem in the past was that certain people were using the trust system as a weapon, rather than a tool to warn others about scammers, or those who objectively will scam in the future, which affected these people's ability to conduct business, including to join a signature campaign.

I would presume theymos compiled a list of those he wanted to send the PM to, and part of the criteria would be based on who is associated with lauda and related alts (of lauda and of those associated with him).

If someone were to share say an office, or a home-office or a home with another person, it would probably be a pretty safe assumption to say they at least sometimes share an IP address. If they (sometimes) share an IP address, they might show up as a possible alt. I am however specifically saying he is not an alt of someone else that posted in the thread in question.

Anyway, perhaps you should ask suchmoon if there is any other reason why she might have wanted to lock the thread besides the alleged "off topic" posting

Gotcha. I hadn't seen that post. Thanks for clarifying that up

The subject of who was receiving the fact based argument and why they were part of the group receiving this is very much on topic.

I will both highlight this subject and allow others to continue posting in a non-censored manor about the topic you locked.

I am hesitant to give you merit when you have exactly one good post in your post history.

Wrong. The subject of why certain users did not receive the PM in question is exactly on topic. I realize it doesn't fit your narrative, and understand you don't want this specific topic highlighted.

You mean that Hhampuz stole money shortly after kicking me from his campaign?

Solution: don't steal money 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153678.msg51454349#msg51454349

Continued from above because Suchmoon censored the thread.

Most recently the Cookie Monster (o_e_l_e_o) complained that he didn’t receive a PM from theymos asking him to remove lauda from his trust list and exclude him.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153678.msg51452774#msg51452774

I hypothesized this was because some of his logged IP addresses match another forum user.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153678.msg51453907#msg51453907

Suchmoon did not like me saying this and called me a troll.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153678.msg51454132#msg51454132

She subsequently locked the thread preventing further discussion about the matter.

Substantially all of the original OP of the other thread.
Reopening since suchmoon continues to censor her thread.

at no point will both threads be open

Three of the four DT1 users who wiped their list are closely associated with Lauda, and likely did this to support lauda.

minifrij has previously told me that he doesn't want to be in DT at all:
reference.

No. The existence of the money is still known to the public. Once you disclose the existence of the money publicly, you lose the benefit of hiding its exact location. As previously stated, it would be trivial for BextMixer to later mix the money themselves once returned to them.

Hhampuz has other bills. The money could have been used to pay for his various living expenses so that his forum earnings could be used to solely repay the loan.

I don't think that makes sense. Maybe I should clarify, that this is not at all logical. BestMixer would not benefit to having the money hidden because the fact the money exists is still public.

With the money hidden from public view, his employer does not know if Hhampuz has any intention of repaying the excess money, and his former employer will need to take a risk to even ask for the money back. Further, mixing the coins can be trivially done by BestMixer themselves when the money is returned.

As I have previously stated, when dealing with other people's money, you should not get the benefit of the doubt. Hhampuz has not even bothered to respond to this thread in a meaningful way or otherwise, instead he has relied on various proxies to either try to derail the thread or to give ludicrous explanations. Nor has Hhampuz bothered to even confirm he will return the money to BestMixer promptly upon their request for him to do so. I would point out that it is pretty standard for the default response to a scam accusation is to leave negative trust until a response is given.

If Hhampuz does not know where to return the money to, he should keep it exactly where it was. If there is some reason why he needs to move the money, for example to move it to cold storage, he should provide public notice so the owner can be aware of the move, even if not logged in. If the owner has previously agreed to pay a minimum fee that Hhampuz intends on continuing to charge, he should similarly provide public notice so the owner has a way to be aware they need to ask for their money to be returned or else continue incurring these charges.

I get it, you don't like that I am calling out Hhampuz for stealing from BestMixer. If Hhampuz were to be labeled a scammer (rightfully so), your earnings from your signature campaign would likely stop. I am sure you don't like actual scammers, but when calling out a scammer means you lose out on income, you are more than willing to put pressure on the person to stop calling out the scammer.

This is not unlike how you described as selling an account as "borderline evil" and subsequently tried to sell your account for money.

I accounted for his FJ signature:
I am not sure why you believe he is getting paid more than 0.02/week. The majority of his posts are one liners that don't have any real insight, nor is any real effort put into his posts. I don't see why any reasonable person would even accept him into a signature campaign that isn't accepting anyone with a pulse.

---

The loan does give a motive for Hhampuz to steal from BestMixer, however proving the existence of the loan or that hhampuz would not otherwise be able to repay the loan is not necessary to prove that money was stolen from BestMixer. There remains blockchain evidence that Hhampuz stole money from the BestMixer signature campaign and moved it to chipmixer to hide where it went next.

The repayment txid was dfa7b822da1192bde63f71d881b3141aa33c1273ea85c6c3951c2b2c43c7bf3c. I know this because Darkstar_ previously had BTC at the repayment address and sent BTC from that address to a deposit address of an exchange/website. Darkstar_ has sent other BTC from known addresses of his to the same deposit address in the past. The transaction that repaid the loan was from known addresses belonging to Hhampuz.

Based on the above, the repayment amount was 0.55BTC and was done on June 7. The blockchain evidence supports the loan amount being 0.5BTC being taken out on May 10. This means Hhampuz paid 10% interest, or 0.05BTC in interest.

The reason why someone would take out a loan is because they want (or need) to pay for something that exceeds the amount of money they have (except for margin loans). There are some exceptions to this, however none would apply when interest, and certainly not 10% interest is being paid. The high price of BTC was ~$7,280, so Hhampuz took out a loan of about $3,640, or whatever that is in Euros. The low price on June 7 was around $7,800, so he paid $390 for the loan.

Hhampuz confirmed that he makes a living off of "reading posts", so he would need to use his income from the forum to repay the loan, plus pay his bills for the last month.

It is a safe assumption that without the loan, Hhampuz would not have had any personal BTC or personal fiat money unless he were to skip paying some bill/expense, because otherwise he would not have been willing to pay the nearly $400 for the privilege of taking out the loan. This is an assumption, but it would be illogical to say otherwise.

I documented above that Hhampuz has the following income from managing signature campaigns:
*0.0225BTC/week from managing the BitcoinCasino.com campaign
*0.02BTC/week from managing the PlayBetr campaign
*What appears to be an average of 0.055BTC/week from managing the LiveCoin campaign

A review of the BitBlender signature campaign thread reveals that campaign funds were being paid out of this wallet, which reflects payments to Hhampuz's known address in the amount of approximately 0.045BTC per week.

I reviewed his thread created, and was unable to locate any other campaigns he was running as of when he took out the loan.

Based on the above, I would say, he was making approximately 0.1425BTC per week managing signature campaigns. Although one campaign ended 3 weeks after Hhampuz took out the loan, and the BitcoinCasino.com signature campaign is now closed.

Based on the above, Hhampuz only made 0.525BTC managing signature campaigns in the 4 weeks prior to repaying the loan. He may earn an additional 0.08 per month wearing his paid signature, which would raise his total earnings to 0.605BTC.

The 0.55BTC he paid Darkstar_ made up just under 91% of his documented earnings, and the interest alone made up around 8% of his earnings. The argument that he made more than enough to repay the loan does not hold water because he needs to pay his living expenses during this time. 

lol. Good luck buddy. You will need it

This is utter and complete ridiculousness. It looks to me like you do not want certain people to get criticized, regardless of any harm these people cause to others, and regardless of their behavior or violation of generally accepted community standards.

Perhaps you could point out where anyone had said I was "mistaken" when minerjones backed out of multiple auctions. For reference, here is a 24 page thread in which everyone except the OP agreed it is unacceptable to back out of auctions.

If you believe the allegation that money was missing from what was being entrusted to lauda, minerjones and blazed, I would refer you to this, this, and this post.

It was very clearly explained that TMAN was misrepresenting the relationship between the current high bid at the time on his auction and the retail cost of what he was selling. TMAN was also part of an extortion attempt in which he placed harassing phone calls to his victims family. Owlcatz was also an accomplice to this extortion attempt.

I was very clear as to the evidence I had regarding lauda's pill addiction from the start of the thread.

Helping ponzis with their code is in fact supporting the ponzi. Other types of support for ponzis is frowned upon around here. Others have received negative trust for even participating in ponzis, which is less of giving support than helping fix its code.

I would be surprised if lauda is not currently blacklisted from DT1. I don't think he is the only one to have recently gotten blacklisted without personally requesting to be blacklisted.