Well the fact that there was 0.5 btc owned by them was already public, as they could have looked the same place I did. If the Dutch government for some reason was unaware of the bitcoin, this thread has made them aware.

In light of the above, BestMixer confirming receipt of the money they are owed will not leak any information to the government. As such there is no reason for them to not confirm this....unless it is not true.

Bullshit. I have never been credibly accused of trying to steal or misappropriate money.

If BestMixer has received its money it is owed, I would ask why Hhampuz has not asked them to publicly acknowledge the receipt of the money.

I would also note that if Hhampuz is fired by his clients, you stand to lose income as you are being paid by his clients via Hhampuz and they may not decide to continue advertising.

In regards to post 10, the post you quoted was deleted because it was off topic and low effort. If you see posts like that in the future, you should report it as being a low effort post with a paid sig.

Hey buddy, you actually joined another campaign that pays the same:

At $8500/btc, your campaign is paying a base rate of $0.2975/post, and stake is paying $0.30 per post. Your campaign is paying an additional $0.34/post for posts in the gambling section, up to 15 posts per week, while stake is paying 0.001 for 20 posts in gambling, or $0.425/post.

My question to you is, were you kicked from the stake campaign? Or did you actually join another campaign that pays the same, and leave this one because "pay rates are not reasonable anymore"?

His belief is they will eventually follow through, and your belief is they are a scam (which I agree with). I believe this based on the available facts and my experience with the bitcoin economy, and my experience spotting scams in the past. It is my opinion that there is less than a 1% chance that Norm MacDonald is not a scammer, and I would personally advise other people to not trust money to this person.

vb2005 is saying that he believes Norm MacDonald will eventually follow through. Although I strongly disagree with his conclusion, I respect his right to make this conclusion. vb2005 is not claiming to have actually received any mining equipment, nor is he verifying the miners actually exist. AFAICT, vb2005 is not making any misleading statements about Norm MacDonald's credibility/ability to be trusted. Anyone reading vb2005's posts can look at the facts and come to their own conclusions.

If Hhampuz's response is that he is following instructions from BestMixer to the "t", I cannot image his reputation taking any kind of hit. On the other hand, if hhampuz is doing something he shouldn't be doing including obfuscating where he is holding someone else's money without an explicit request from the person to do this, or taking the money for his own personal use, as I believe he is doing, then yes his reputation would be harmed.

I don't see any legitimate reason why Hhampuz would need to obfuscate where he is holding someone else's money.

I do see that the BitBlender campaign closed down yesterday and they posed that Hhampuz returned the excess money, but the BitBlender operators are also did not just have their business seized

I would consider a business relationship someone you either trade with on a regular basis, have an employee/employer relationship, or run a business with. A business relationship is one that either generates income for you, or provides you access to liquidity and/or capital. The extent of how much of your income you rely on this person for also matters, for example if you make $200 a month from your relationship with the person when you make several thousand dollars per month, your relationship might not be a huge conflict of interest, while a relationship that generates substantially all of your income would be a more clear conflict of interest.

If you give a couple of merit her and there to someone you are in business with, while giving 95%+ of the merit you send every month to others, it would probably not be a big deal, while giving a larger percentage, or a majority of the merit you send every month to someone you are in a business relationship with is probably not making a good use of the merit system, in my view.

If the extent of your relationship with the person is you follow eachothers blog, and you chat for a few hours a week, (and you upvote eachothers blogs, which would result in very little money for each of you), I don't have any concerns about you sending merit to the person, myself.

No, I have no affirmative reason to believe what he says, and as previously mentioned, I believe the miners being "sold" have specs that exceed current technology, and as such do not exist.

Just because I do not believe what he says, does not mean he is a scammer. There are three levels to trust, 1- positive, 2- neutral/zero, and 3- negative. Positive trust is when I observe something that leads me to believe the person is trustworthy, negative is when I observe something that leads me to believe the person is a scammer, and neutral/zero is when I neither believe him to be trustworthy, nor a scammer, and neutral/zero trust would generally mean I will ask the other person to send first to me, or that I would ask to use escrow if I was trading with the person.

If he were to change what he is saying to explicitly vouching for the what I believe to be fake miners, including saying that he received miners that match the description posted in the sales thread, then yes I would say vb2005 is a shill for Norm MacDonald, and it would be appropriate to tag him. Although I do have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight considering I did not have a chance to respond until after vb2005 posted that he was scammed, he did not end up claiming to have actually seen the working miners.

I have seen coinlocket$ make some conclusions about spammers being the same person that I disagree with (or at least, I disagree with the logic he uses), but I do think he has good intentions in using the logic he uses.

I cannot think of a dispute in which coinlocket$ was supporting one side in what I believe to be bad faith. If you have a specific example of him acting in bad faith, feel free to present it.

coinlocket$ said he quickly realized sending the merit was a mistake, and wanted to undue sending the merit before anyone had called out the sending of the merit, or the dox itself:
The merit system does not allow for a person to "unsend" a merit.

The posts should be objectively good, and have a decent amount of effort put into them.

If you know someone from another place, don’t have any relationship that might be perceived as a conflict of interest, such as a family, romantic, close personal, business or financial relationship, I don’t see any issues with giving merit.

If you have any of the above types of relationships, I would generally avoid giving merit yourself, especially to family members, romantic partners and those you have a close personal relationship with (such as a roommate). For other relationships described above I would generally shy away from giving merit to these people, but if you do, I would hold these people to a higher standard.  

I don’t see an issue with reporting any of the above posts to others and others can make their own judgment on if a post deserves merit.

I can test your service.
You are charging much less than other comparable shapeshift-like services. The two taker fees you would need to pay on an exchange would eat up the majority of your profit.

I might suggest using USDT, or another stablecoin for USD based checks -- a person can fund a USD checks only with the stablecoin, and they can only be redeemed for said stablecoin. Similarly, BTC and ETH checks could only be funded and redeemed with their respective currencies. This would remove any exchange rate risk from your business, and you would avoid inevitably having to charge higher fees. 

IMO, his "break" was an attempt to show that he is trying to be level headed so that he will not get blacklisted from DT1, nor excluded from DT. He waited to see that there was no credible push for him to be blacklisted/excluded, and left until people started arguing about something else, which did not take long.

For clarity, I do not believe Vod is level headed, and have not believed this for a long time.

If he is saying his misread the post, or did not fully understand the post, and does not have a history of this type of thing, nor have a history of blindly supporting a particular side in a dispute (in bad faith), I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I have no idea if he is telling the truth, but I am fairly confident that english is not his first language.

So, you must then disagree with my statement that any statement he makes on the matter would damage his reputation.

I take it by these meme that you believe anything hhampuz says will damage his reputation.

If the above is true, you must believe he is guilty. Yes?

What he is doing is clearly a scam. The thread you linked is full of people who are pointing this fact out.

If he wanted to giveaway money, he would not need people to pay him

This would be evidence that hhampuz is little more than a puppet of yours, which has been evident as of recently.

Regardless of the underlying reason why Hhampuz does not respond, the facts continue speaking for themselves.

I agree that what you describe is a dangerous mindset, and that you are not for/against any person.

I don't think not being for/against someone is enough to avoid getting the negative rating.

You should expect to receive some negative trust in the near future (not by me). This is the unfortunate reality of not siding with a particular group of people.

As mentioned, and acknowledged by you, there is evidence that Hhampuz has stolen from BestMixer, as noted in my OP.

Hhampuz has gotten many companies to hire him to find people to advertise, and Hhampuz is using many of the people now defending him to advertise on behalf of these companies. These people want the advertising money to continue flowing to them, and as such as strongly defending him.

Lauda thinks he can defend Hhampuz from having to respond by countering any negative rating he receives, and I would be unsurprised to see others do this too. Any countered rating will not change the underlying facts, which speak for themselves.

Kinda like what his friends are doing for him in this thread?

He does not have to give an explanation if he does not want to, but staying silent is not evidence of innocence. As it stands now, I believe the evidence points to Hhampuz stealing the money from BestMixer.

BTW, Hhampuz seems to think there is no danger to him running their advertising campaign: