REQUEST FOR ATTENTION OF: All betking.io Signature Campaign Participants

[Bitcoin_Arena]

The evidence is more than good enough, so red tags and/or red flags can be left on the profiles by you or any member.

Correction: "red flags" (I assume you mean type 2 or 3) should only be created by actual victims of the scammer.
See the Flag creation page:

[type 1]   Due to various concrete red flags, I believe that anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money. (This flag will only be shown to guests/newbies.)
[type 2]   This user violated a casual or implied agreement with me, resulting in damages.
[type 3]   This user violated a written contract with me, resulting in damages.

I  meant type 1 flags. Only that I didn't specify the type of flag and ended up looking like I was generalizing.

What do you think if one opened type 1 flags against all accounts wearing the betking signature, which is a known scam? Is it in order, or is it too harsh when it comes to trust flag usage?

[DireWolfM14]

Risk is perfectly fine, as long as the willing participants are given awareness.

I was under the impression that a welcome message - an introduction to the trust system + scammer indifference - could bring about that awareness and could be a very simple and non-restrictive measure. I don't think your liberty is going to be compromised with a few extra hand movements as a guest. It is not unreasonable to request a landing page for guest users.

I have nothing against a welcome message, nor a guest landing page.  As I've said before; I think it's a good idea.  I don't expect it to solve the scammer problem on this forum (I don't believe you do either,) but sure, it could prevent a few scams here and there, and it couldn't hurt either way.

And no, it would have no affect on my liberty.  I only brought that up because I've gotten the impression that you would be supportive of more extreme measures to prevent scams.  Perhaps I misinterpreted something you wrote in the past to get that impression.

Are you able to leverage people's comments in accordance to their actual content via research, or do you place some bias on their site-based reputation? Similarly to as if someone were to trust a member based on rank, the expectation of some local reputation system is perfectly reasonable. Yet, who do you actually trust? Sure, staff can be trusted to some degree, but apparently even DefaultTrust is a bad measure of trust due to the legacy of past exit scams: I would even grant that someone new, having read through enough of the forum, would rather trade (and post) elsewhere unless they wanted to scam others.

I don't claim to be Joe Sixpack as I tend to believe I'm more skeptical than most (raising three daughters will do that to a man.)  I've been using and visiting forums for a long time, many that focus on subjects in which I'm well versed and experienced, such as BMW motorcycles, Ford trucks, and American rifles.  I've seen so many posts by users who claim to be experts only to find them spreading the most preposterous bullshit as if it's fact.  I don't pay attention to site specific reputation or reviews.  I assume everyone is full of shit until proven otherwise.

Which other forums do you visit to where the rules are inaccessible unless you go to their forum discussion board located at the bottom of the front page, view an "Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules" buried within SIX sticky threads, and go all the way to rule 19 to find out that scams are not moderated? This is an excessive scavenger hunt.  In fact, unless you count an warning to use escrow as a direct "scams aren't going to be removed and we're not going to do anything about them" message, then there's almost nothing said about forum policy.

I'm not arguing with you about that, I think we're closer aligned on this issues than not.  My argument is that there are plenty of warning signs in existence already to help newbies and guests avoid scams.  There's nothing wrong with adding one more.  Just don't get your hopes up, because odds are it'll be as ineffective as the current "Red Flags."

Was it a programming issue, integrating a DefaultTrust rating as a guest view of trust (preferably with some description/links to explanations)? DefaultTrust is good enough for registered users, after all, and the only difference is a few minutes!

Or, is it instead a fundamental problem?

I can't say for sure, I'm not an alt of theymos (or satoshi for that matter.)  I always figured it had more to do members' privacy than anything else.

[Quickseller]

Wait a minute!How many people do you think wander into large forums with the expectation, "I need to be on my guard or else I will be scammed, because the forum allows scammers to stay here."

The internet is full of scammers and scams. Even if you receive a phone call from a random number, there is a good chance it is a scammer calling.

Scams are not limited to this forum, and people need to use their own good judgement in order to judge if something or someone is a scam.

You can make someone type a message saying they understand someone they are dealing with is a scammer, and you wouldn't be telling them anything they don't already know.

If there is a case of a specific warning not being obvious to someone giving scrutiny, this should be addressed. But blanket, generic warnings is probably unnecessary and may result in someone missing a specific warning about a potential scammer.

There is an adage that says "a fool and his money are soon parted" and this likely applies to many victims of scams on this forum.

[SFR10]

@JollyGood
It looks like Betking finally gave up that ridiculous campaign and "announced ^[yesterday]" it's done and dusted.
^{- Having said that, a lot of them are still wearing those signatures, and since almost all of them are considered as a bunch of throwaway or parked accounts, then there's a big chance that at least half of them would keep wearing it [unintentionally] for the meantime.}

[actmyname]

Scams are not limited to this forum, and people need to use their own good judgement in order to judge if something or someone is a scam.

This is true.

If there is a case of a specific warning not being obvious to someone giving scrutiny, this should be addressed. But blanket, generic warnings is probably unnecessary and may result in someone missing a specific warning about a potential scammer.

Is there some reason why telling new users that scams are not moderated/bannable on this forum is unnecessary? This is not redundant information. Something along the lines of, "WE DO NOT MODERATE SCAMS! SCAMMERS ARE ALLOWED HERE!"

How about any indication of where the forum rules may be located? As far as I'm concerned, you're just tossed into the snake pit and told that you're surrounded by Full, Sr, Hero, and Legendary members. Thankfully, since people are given the proper tools to learn about the forum, they should take full responsibility for their foolish actions.

Hello I asked for Windows keys and a lot of scammers talk to me I will provide screen shots I hope they get ban

BAN this scammer

I think ban is appropriate here or at least a red tag from some respectable members.

ban this guy so I feel good, Feeling of being scammed is very frustrating

hope moderators and admins may look into this issue and make this guy ban here
already bhw forum banned this guy, i dont know why admins not taking this seriously  , ellse a lot of members will get scammed by this guy Naober
hope admins/moderators solve this issue as soon as possible

Any Mod reading this, please ban him and investigate this issue, I believe this is the same person

Your casino should be banned on bitcointalk so others don't get scammed.

why is not banned yet|?

I cant believe this guy is not banned/deleted from bitcointalk yet !

The concept of not banning a scammer because "he will just come back" seems just very weird to me.

but I will not stop she is scammer I will proof it and will ban her account

My question here is:
1. Are scammers really welcomed in the forum to stay for long.
2. Other than having a RT (red trust) as a penalty, is there no other ways this scammers issues can be addressed for them not to return to the forum again.

I think bounty manager euclideum need to be permanent banned from bitcointalk community. [..] Banned his profile permanently as fast as possible.

"I don't understand why bitcointalk.mod still give you the right to post here  Undecided this is very confusing! Is like they support your action." [..] I'm just saying why nobody ban him?

Please ban this man.

Are there any chances to ban them here? At least their fake accounts?

Why are such scammers not getting banned, despite multiple scam reports and proofs?

I supported the flag they cannot do it here they will get tagged reported and eventually get ban, but they keep doing it here thinking that they are going to get away with it, they keep recycling this thing when will they give up.

So the moment they are get caught and reported, they get banned. So it going to be a tough fight for all of us, but we can't just let these criminals run amok here.

It's funny that his account still works to scam everyone. Nobody here banned him?

Additional Notes: Broke ass i hope he gets banned asap

I have done many trades online on forums, I just did not really know how to proper check someone's account on this forum as I'm not that much on it, its really confusing for the new user. If it was a higher amount, I would of had used escrow for sure.

I wonder why this guy not banned here yet. HE IS SCAMMER DO NOT DEAL WITH HIM

people who are helping scammers like promoters, hyip sellers like you should also get tagged ban from this forum, you are all in one in making investors losing their hard earned money.

Why does a scammer with such a reputation keep posting links to auto purchases? newbies can easily fall for this trick, delete all his topics or block him, there have already been a lot of complaints related to him!
are you moderators here?

Pls ban that scammer or need my money back

Does anybody know what can be done , apart from a flag on their profile to get these bookies BANNED FOREVER from these forums?

Please BAN the User and delete the seller posts

Welp, I fell for this guy's scam. Attaching all the proof I have. Please ban the user if possible.

why this guy didnt got ban ? you said he have a lot negative feedback

Can some Bitcointalk Moderation help me even ban him from here if he is going to act the way he tried to do yesterday with me

I will request to Moderator. banned this scammer from this Forum

I'm not asking for the banning of scammers. Though, some people are... and their confusion could be easily cleared with a simple message, don't you think?

[LoyceV]

I  meant type 1 flags.

Those are yellow, hence my confusion.

What do you think if one opened type 1 flags against all accounts wearing the betking signature, which is a known scam? Is it in order, or is it too harsh when it comes to trust flag usage?

I don't think it's very useful. The threads they create aren't the main problem, and a guest/Newbie warning banner above their threads only applies for the small percentage of their posts that create a new topic.

[Pmalek]

The campaign only lasted for 10 days. Maybe they didn't expect such a backlash from the community and decided to cut it short. Looking at all those accounts who participated, there are many high ranked individuals that we would think should know better. All are now painted in red and useless except for similar activities such a scam campaigns and different AMLs. People can fall very low when they smell the opportunity to make some quick money.   

[LoyceV]

The campaign only lasted for 10 days. Maybe they didn't expect such a backlash from the community and decided to cut it short.

More likely: they got free advertising, they'll never pay, and some still wear the signature until now.

[DaveF]

Wait a minute!How many people do you think wander into large forums with the expectation, "I need to be on my guard or else I will be scammed, because the forum allows scammers to stay here."

The problem is not that, it's  how many people do we loose because of the lack of scam moderation who come in, take a look / get the info the need at the time and then leave never to come back again since there are so many scams here that it just looks like a cesspool and it's not worth their time to have to sort through it.

I *know* and I would like to make this perfectly clear that is *know* not "I heard" or "I think" of but *know* 2 people, who are very into BTC and work extensively with it who will not come to this forum because of the crap here. Both have very successful crypto businesses but avoid this place because of theymos's hands off we don't regulate scams attitude and letting the conspiracy people run around in P&S. Having a free and open forum is good, but thinking that we don't loose useful people because of it is just naive.

There are also a lot of projects that don't come here because of it too.

Is the forum better or worse because of that is tough to say. All I CAN say is that it causes some of us the get help elsewhere which drives other people to get help elsewhere which takes away from the userbase and information available here.

-Dave

[Pmalek]

More likely: they got free advertising, they'll never pay, and some still wear the signature until now.

Actually, it turns out that they did get paid, but I understand your point and it could have easily gone the other way. It wouldn't be the first time that someone scams signature campaign participants.

These transaction IDs were posted by their admin:
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/142fb82c5351dc97c84b073990108f03e2f932951dcb3686054e4bac81c884b5
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/499115b1e095c38a137a76759945979e12a63244958fbc22bc5a9dddd7e17cf9

I compared some random addresses in the spreadsheet to the blockchain info real quick and it seems correct.

[DaveF]

More likely: they got free advertising, they'll never pay, and some still wear the signature until now.

Actually, it turns out that they did get paid, but I understand your point and it could have easily gone the other way. It wouldn't be the first time that someone scams signature campaign participants.

These transaction IDs were posted by their admin:
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/142fb82c5351dc97c84b073990108f03e2f932951dcb3686054e4bac81c884b5
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/499115b1e095c38a137a76759945979e12a63244958fbc22bc5a9dddd7e17cf9

I compared some random addresses in the spreadsheet to the blockchain info real quick and it seems correct.

No reason why they would not, it's not a lot of money and it lets them go back and say, "look we pay our people, wear our sig next time and get paid too"

And, that is part of the problem here. There are no repercussions for massive negative trust unless you are selling stuff, and even then if you agree to escrow will people care?
If the deal is good enough, and there is no negative trust saying that they stole money, people will trade. Not as many, but enough.

-Dave

[Quickseller]

No reason why they would not, it's not a lot of money and it lets them go back and say, "look we pay our people, wear our sig next time and get paid too"

And, that is part of the problem here. There are no repercussions for massive negative trust unless you are selling stuff, and even then if you agree to escrow will people care?
If the deal is good enough, and there is no negative trust saying that they stole money, people will trade. Not as many, but enough.

-Dave

There is the moral issue.

IMO, a simple PM explaining they are advertising a scam, and why doing so is wrong would be much more effective in stopping betking's ability to advertise via signatures than negative trust. It might not outright stop it, but would curtail it.

If there is a case of a specific warning not being obvious to someone giving scrutiny, this should be addressed. But blanket, generic warnings is probably unnecessary and may result in someone missing a specific warning about a potential scammer.

Is there some reason why telling new users that scams are not moderated/bannable on this forum is unnecessary? This is not redundant information. Something along the lines of, "WE DO NOT MODERATE SCAMS! SCAMMERS ARE ALLOWED HERE!"

There is a warning message on all Long Term (lending) offers, and securities threads. It would probably be a good idea to add a generic similar warning to other marketplace sections of the forum.

How about any indication of where the forum rules may be located?

The majority of the forum rules are really just codifying what should be common sense for most people. It take a lot to get into trouble for breaking the rules, so if you break a rule as a new user, you will suffer no real consequences if you were unaware of the rule, and are alerted to the rule, unless you are posting malware or plagiarizing, but again rules related to both are just codifying common sense.

[AB de Royse777]

Scams are not limited to this forum, and people need to use their own good judgement in order to judge if something or someone is a scam.

Pegasus company now just need your phone number to hack you. They will not send you and email, a text message with any link. They will not ask you to click any link. They will just give you a call, and you even do not need to receive the call. Once they call, you are automatically connected to their server, and they can control your device. Now, imagine how far they have gone.

Here is the betking.io signature campaign thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5353071.0

So, they are basically paying the same shills those were hired by Adkinsbet and 1xbit (I guess). At least, a comment left on my service thread indicates this suspension 100% LOL

I advise everyone to stay away from royse777. This user has corrupt connections on the forum, abuses his DT status and cannot be trusted. Do not do business with him, you will be scammed!

[LoyceV]

And, that is part of the problem here. There are no repercussions for massive negative trust

I'd say the image of the user wearing a signature reflects on the image of the service in their signature. That's why some signature campaigns have special criteria for highly trusted users, and I've seen campaigns with special arrangements for Staff members. With negative feedback, I assume viewers are less likely to trust the advertised service. Except for the boards that don't show Trust, unfortunately, and except for guests on all boards. But it's something at least

[DaveF]

And, that is part of the problem here. There are no repercussions for massive negative trust

I'd say the image of the user wearing a signature reflects on the image of the service in their signature. That's why some signature campaigns have special criteria for highly trusted users, and I've seen campaigns with special arrangements for Staff members. With negative feedback, I assume viewers are less likely to trust the advertised service. Except for the boards that don't show Trust, unfortunately, and except for guests on all boards. But it's something at least

For the campaigns yes, there might be some repercussions. I am talking about the users. Give them a good enough deal, there are a lot of people who will still trade with you.
And as we can see there are still a ton of scammy campaigns, including casinos and tokens that will still pay you if you wear their sig.

Since the board is not going to change it's something we can try to fight, but for the most part are probably just going to have to live with.

-Dave

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Scams are not limited to this forum, and people need to use their own good judgement in order to judge if something or someone is a scam.

No, of course they're not--but 1) Scams aren't moderated on this forum, which is unlike many other forums, and 2) There are probably way more scammers concentrated into the whole of bitcointalk than a random sampling of 10 forums put together (though I don't have data on that, of course).  Newbies do need to be warned in my opinion, because they could easily click on a signature like that of a Betking campaign participant and get scammed.

I do agree that people are responsible for themselves and should be wary in the land of bitcoin as a general rule, but giving them a heads-up about possible scams is a neighborly thing to do.

It looks like Betking finally gave up that ridiculous campaign and "announced ^[yesterday]" it's done and dusted.
^{- Having said that, a lot of them are still wearing those signatures, and since almost all of them are considered as a bunch of throwaway or parked accounts, then there's a big chance that at least half of them would keep wearing it [unintentionally] for the meantime.}

Yay! And *groan*.  I'm not so sure how many accounts are going to be parked, but hopefully it's a small enough number such that their posts get buried under time and a mountain of other posts until the next opportunity for them to awaken comes around.