^ apparently it is OK to advertise "bitconnect" for people who can be trusted with funds  Let me make this clear so my words aren't twisted again.
Having ponzis in your signature is bad and shouldn't be done.
But it's still not a crime and worthy of a tag.
Actually, this statement is not correct. Do better research next time. is this characterization as a ponzi based on the idea that the promised returns are unrealistic?
In my opinion this is sophisticated scam scheme. Hypothetically, they release 1,000,0000 fake tokens for investment purposes and set price 50 sat each and promise 10% more tokens on investment. As token is fake and it doesn't really have supply (they can "print" as many tokens they want), 10% more fake tokens each day is possible and not so unrealistic in this scenario, they are basically adding more numbers (of course, after some time, that number will certainly become 10 xxx) So, they sell all their million "numbers" for 50btc, raise each investment by 10% more "numbers" and then let users dump on each others those "numbers" until whole scheme collapse, then they start new scheme with new name. Every scheme they make will collapse:  It is interesting to point that they claim to be cryptocurrency stock exchange:  ...while x10 is what exactly?  Except it is fake, we can discuss is it ponzi, pump and dump or whatever it is, but final line is - it is scam. Even if I stayed in the campaign I would still be more credible&trustworthy than 99.9% of this forum. Proven. This is true. And that makes it so much worse: a trusted user promoting a ponzi scam is much more likely to make people spend their money on X10 than a red-trusted user who doesn't have + 20 in his profile. Exactly. Who remembers Arbitao arbitrage scam and someone saying something within lines "yahoo is managing campaign, yahoo is very trusted user therefore Arbitao is not scam"? |
|
|
|
@Vod & @marlboroza
Thanks, you two are doing more to discredit your own accusations than I ever could. Keep it up.
If you want to talk about accounts Vod and marlboroza create new thread.
As I said, I have no idea what you are talking about: I highly suspect this user is an alt of one of the usual members that is involved in a lot of this drama
Are you trying to say that nullius is your alt account?  as they mysteriously appeared after very long periods of inactivity with a change in language, demeanor, and suddenly hold all the same opinions of the people listed above.
1) when that long period of inactivity happened? 2) what has changed in their language? 3) what has changed in their behavior? 4) users are not allowed to hold the same opinions or something? Please ~nullius as they have no idea how the trust system should be used and are clearly just being used to game the system with alts.
Provide evidence of "CLEARLY being used to game system with alts" for exclusion purposes. |
|
|
|
Counter for counter, that's new for sure. Counter to counters by figmentofmyass, BayAreaCoins, and eddie13. [...] The feedback provided by by Lauda, Vod, and marlboroza is factually based[...]
As I stated before I highly suspect this user is an alt of one of the usual members that is involved in a lot of this drama as they mysteriously appeared after very long periods of inactivity with a change in language, demeanor, and suddenly hold all the same opinions of the people listed above.
Please ~nullius as they have no idea how the trust system should be used and are clearly just being used to game the system with alts.
Ok, so you want nullius to be excluded because you think they are alt account of one of accounts above and by simply elimination of users who tagged you VS users who countered tag, you are saying that either Vod, Lauda or me used alt account nullius to game system. Well, nullius is not my alt for sure, so you are talking about Lauda or Vod, unless you are talking about someone else. Your topic is very confusing. Who is nullius? Please provide more information for this request. |
|
|
|
i don't think someone can give 100% assurance of profits in betting. there will be losses also in this game. There is no game, they say it is a game but all they will probably do is pass money from one investard to another.
I said "probably" because it is either ponzi scheme (which will pay until it collapse and stop paying) or they will take everyone's money and run away - either way, it is scam. |
|
|
|
Why did you create 2 accounts in the first play?
Conversation from screenshot is two years old, whatever was the reason and assuming screenshot is legit, FJ told them they can continue playing using account onemanarmy. Sometime their security team provides evidence that you broke their TOS, maybe you should email them asking for evidence. I am sure there can be no smoke without fire.
Lol, what evidence? You will never get that from them. Sometimes they do make mistake and ban customers because of "multiaccounting" which never happened  . I am actually curious why OP is not allowed to withdraw funds, was it because of that account from screenshot or they have more accounts (of course, if anything in topic is true, I don't see any proofs)? all bitcoin casino's need to IP ban OP
I wouldn't go that far, IP ban sucks, especially if you have shitty ISP provider with half of IP's blacklisted  |
|
|
|
Techshare is sounding more and more Like cryptocunter. Abuse abuse, teams etc etc
mobs... I guess, when reading tec's posts, users should go trough few links first. Lol, somehow I missed this part: How much longer is everyone going to tolerate the use of the system designed to prevent fraud as a tool to silence criticism?
Complains about abuse, spreads false agenda across the boards, lies that someone has tried to silence him using trust and at the same time: Uses moderator as a weapon to silence user because user said something TECSHARE didn't likeDig dirt and use trust as a weapon because someone said something they didn't like And at the same time: Punishing people for their speech, no matter how abhorrent you find it, is ALWAYS the tool of totalitarians. I am a free speech absolutist.
I need to update my post with this info for reference purposes. This person is obviously crazy and should be tagged. I just don't see where I abused trust, but OK. |
|
|
|
~
That topic is about "is he" or " is he not", not " why you". You have to understand that. If you want to talk about not related things, we can talk about this, but not in that thread and not in this thread and not in threads where you are usually doing it, for example this one. Why is it so hard to understand that moderator will (sometimes) remove off topic reply? You got your answer, so lock topic. |
|
|
|
Your declaration of it being "off topic" is just an effort to silence criticism of the behavior of you and your pals.
So you reported post because you didn't like it? Actually it is very much the subject of the topic.
And my post is "on topic", as it is explained above. Two of my posts are removed because of you troll, so how is that selectively then? |
|
|
|
Bounty menadžer je napisao u nekim od svojih prethodnih postova da mu je bitno prisustvo u lokalnih forumima a traži i kvalitetnog člana koji piše dobre postove u Gambling forumu. Kako sam kaže takvog još uvijek nije našao pa postoji šansa da opet pregleda aplikacije i onih koji su odbijeni u prva dva kruga.
Bit će još promjena i najavljenih odlazaka, "otkaza", marlboroza možda zna više o tome jer je nešto nabacio u tom smjeru.
Ne znam ništa, samo čitam što piše i "pretpostavljam". |
|
|
|
~
Don't insult my intelligence is my last post in this thread. |
|
|
|
Whole topic is going around circumstantial evidence, some users mentioned suchmoon's feedback "alt account of well known scammer" (or whatever it is there) and stuff, so, followed by the same philosophy, I made assumption that when you say " Sold account. Most likely an alt of a more well known member. Abusing trust system." you refer to "most likely alt of quickseller", which is directly related to topic then. For example, if you can't directly connect A -> B then maybe you can A -> C and B -> C which will connect A -> B then. I don't see why is that off topic! You reported my post because it beats every argument and/or criticism you have made in that thread! On the other hand:  Your post is indeed off topic, "how someone handles something" is not subject of that topic... |
|
|
|
Also the posting of an identical wallet alone, by itself, is definitely not a robust way of ascertaining whether 2 accounts are the same person,
if that were the case, someone could make an account right now, post one of your wallets and try to get you banned; you and all the intelligent members of this forum would agree, this is not a smart way to jump to conclusions about anything...
I completely agree that no one should jump to conclusions. I was trying to explain to forum member Blacknavy that his connections which they made about account otto_diesel and 50+alt accounts here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219960.msg53689508#msg53689508 is circumstantial evidence, but my is via address they both used. Also check latest connection(at the bottom of edited topic) and DT manipulation. And this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219960.msg53700443#msg53700443, where they posted some PM's saying account Aceeakell asked someone to make them DT1 member (I don't speak Turkish and I don't know if that PM is real or fake) is not proof of any kind. I mean, proof of connection, just some random user sending PM's to other users to make them DT1. |
|
|
|
Are you sure that you’ve read carefully? That is why it is necessary to have a DT1 member in the local forum. Actually, proofs that I sent here enough.
And yet "you" did literally nothing.
And now, I know there is a problem here about trust system, and many people don’t want to say their idea because they are afraid of getting negative trust like you sent me one.
I will place negative to every user who supports defamation and extortion campaign against service and their employers. There is more then enough evidence of defamation by now. |
|
|
|
We? You should stop fucking following those self-proclaimed "influence people". You got your own brain so use it.
You already know English isn't my native language, right? What I want to say is that you must have your opinion and use your brain, don't go and follow people like everything they say is truth and only valid opinion. I don't know what filmsy means, everything is clear i think.
Ok. Lets just say that connection you linked "someone" called not good. |
|
|
|
My question was based on the presumption that the person was a seller, not buyer. The problem would be that Dammitt may have posted blockchain linked addresses, sold one or more of the accounts in question, and Dammitt was subsequently banned.
I just noticed someting: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213992.msg53702373#msg53702373They sent me negative rating, it is visible from their feedback, they are original owner therefore evading ban. Both accounts (which are evading ban) included account Vispilio to their trust network, if not ban, they should have their DT voting powers removed. |
|
|
|
I don't even know where most of people I communicate with come from (except marlboroza, who's a cowboy from Texas obviously)
 "Smoke that cigar and lets do some wide net shotgunning, Billy"Many inactive accounts woke up after the Chipmixer campaign announcement and at the same time some accounts tried to ruin Vispilio's reputation.
Although we couldn't agree with Vispilio, this reason was enough I to support Vispilio.
We? You should stop fucking following those self-proclaimed "influence people". You got your own brain so use it. proofs were provided by you.
My blockchain evidence has been debunked and called flimsy connection. Your proof on the other hand is circumstantial, so what's your point, except that you are now calling my connection...not flimsy? |
|
|
|
I generally don't find it right for so many people who from the Turkish local forum to get negative trust.
It really doesn't matter. Analogy - if 1000 people rob a bank, 1000 people are bank robbers, you can't say 1000 people robbed bank and only 1 is bank robber and others are fine. Also, if 999 people are bank robbers and one isn't, you can't say that one person who didn't do it did it. You have to get this "Turks", "my people" "against Turks" etc out of your head. By doing that, you are creating stereotype, and that is really bad. No one here cares from where you are coming from. There are some good people and there are some bad people just like everywhere else. Whenever we try to do something good, some of us suffer because of the hostile behaviour from other global DT members.
Read above. "we" and "global DT members" don't exist here. We are all individuals, this is forum after all. I have no idea why you agreed with Vispilio's extortion thread. Btw, report PM threats to moderator.
Back to topic, you said: Aceeakell (alt account of Otto_diesel) tried to abuse the trust system. Do you have any proof to back up your claim that Aceeakell = Otto_diesel? |
|
|
|
I would say an exclusion is more than enough based on how you perceive their judgement, but if you stick solely with Default trust then I can understand not deviating from that.
Nah, I don't do that exclusion/inclusion thingy. That's what I believe would be best in this situation, as you clearly want to leave the feedback.
Actually, I should have done what TECSHARE suggested: It's entirely legitimate to give someone a new positive rating just to negate a negative rating. (In this case you should explicitly respond to the negative rating you're negating.) It is not legitimate to keep deleting and reposting negative ratings to put the system back into "this guy just turned scammer!" mode. People who do that shouldn't be trusted.
 Great. Now if only Lauda and Vod would follow suit, that would be great. I am not holding my breath though.
It is not really great, I think your trolling is very dangerous. Over and out. |
|
|
|
That's why we wanted to be the default trust member in the Turkish local forum
And yet "you" did literally nothing. but you constantly slander, you constantly defame us!
After all this bullshit, we don't even have a DT1 member because of your greedy behaviours.
That is simple not true. All flags created by timelord are opposed by many members. I can't speak for others, just for myself, but I guess this is my greedy behavior:  Actually, dannybrown is the only member I voted for.  You just don't make any sense, you have made assumption for I don't know what reason and convinced yourself it is true. Well it isn't. Tell me one good reason why I was trolled back then when I exposed account which you are accusing now! Edit: I just finish reading lauda's thread, looks like mutual accusation. I have no clue why you are changing behaviors. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
