===►Maidak scammed me 400$ BTC,this time is for sure===►

[SebastianJu]

What I completely dislike in this forum is when everyone - especially those on the default trust list - jump in to leave negative feedback for deals they have absolutely nothing to do with.
In my opinion, this is also some kind of abuse of power. I don't want to attack anyone here; I just want to leave my opinion.

The only ones leaving negative feedback here should be those who were involved in the trades, and no one else. There is no need for some sort of altruistic Samaritans jumping in on any situation possible.
This makes the reputation system flawed, misleading and a direct invitation for abuse. Actually, there should be an option to hide the trust data of any user, and it should be hidden by default.

Also, the default list should not exist. There should be some other way to define if a user's rating matters or not.

Maidak? I'm actually surprised to read another forum user claiming the same ridiculous opinion that maidak, a legendary scammer on bitcointalk that scammed k of thousands USD should have no red trust rating, no zero trust rating but instead a nice green trust rating.

Well, i wonder if you thought that through. If you did and you still demanded that then i wonder what kind of person you are. You would help scammers all the way to proceed scamming it seems.

I will assume that you did NOT think this through.

And which abuse? Warning because a persons scammed? That is abuse? If real abuse is happening then threads are opened and people drop from default trust list. It's working for the most part.

[1714071675]

1714071675

[1714071675]

1714071675

[1714071675]

1714071675

[SebastianJu]

Ummm who was giving a loan to whom?

Maidak was one of the most trusted escrows around and was often looked to for trades in the thousands of dollars.

How exactly are people supposed to do due dilligance without some kind of reputation system when some opinions are more heavily weighed then others and users can create an unlimited number of accounts, and trades can easily be faked?

Panthers52, Perhaps I was misunderstood (or perhaps I misunderstood something myself).  My point was that once Maidak had scammed, the people who were scammed would have added their rating and their references and any further traders with Maidak who were responsible sane people would do due dilligence before loaning to him and would have seen his recent breach of trust and thought twice about it.  As I understood hillariousandco's argument, he seemed to be suggesting that unless everyone on (or jockeying to be on) default trust mindlessly apes the ratings of everyone else, Maidak would still be scamming today.  I see that argument as flawed.

Most often times, people who advocate for the weakening of the trust system are either scammers or have plans to scam in the future.

Kind Regards
Panthers52

Evidence for this?

People have used this kind of unsupported reasoning in the past, but that doesn't make it any more valid now than it was then.  Criticism of the implementation of the trust system is not equal to "trying to weaken" the trust system.  I don't think it's fair to say that because I have an issue with the trust-abuse I've seen on this forum that that amounts to evidence that I'm planning to scam anyone.  This kind of reasoning is called "ad hominem" because it attempts to undermine the person giving an argument rather than addressing the argument.

Cheers!

Yeah... the trust system is not perfect and as long as members on default trust did not do something really wrong, they will stay on default trust. It is a system, though not a perfect one. If a better system can be suggested go on.

And it wouldn't have mattered when only some people not on default trust would have rated him negative. What a potential user would have done would have been checking his trust... very green. Then maybe check trust page... all green too. That already would convince practically everyone that he is no scammer when all established members say so.

Only a very small percent would have opened the non default feedback, or would have known about that link at all. And then they would have to go through a massive list of feedback.

Sorry but that would definitely NOT work.

[SebastianJu]

I think it is very strange that dooglus is in the business of selling trust to scammers. How much interest did you give him for that loan? IMO someone on default trust should not be selling trust and they should be removed once it is exposed they are selling trust. Maybe it is that dooglus has no ethical issues with exploiting sites with vulnerabilities/bugs in them. 

I tried to find what you are referring to but i could not find a thread or accusation against dooglus that he might be involved into trust selling. I really can't imagine that. Dooglus is very trusted. He held 10 of thousands k bitcoins on just-dice and paid them all back when he stopped allowing bitcoins on just-dice.

What are you referring to?

[Quickseller]

It looks like Maidak's OTC profile has a rating from someone who claims that Maidak owes him $10,000. I am not sure how reputable that person is. The rating was sent to Maidak's profile on August 17 (roughly a week ago)

Hm... might have been enough to clear his reputation on bitcointalk.org with that amount of money. This didn't happen yet so i wonder what happened with that amount of money.

Or was the one giving that rating one of the scammed ones on here?

Anyway... seeing that gives not much hope.

The rating is from 10 days ago although clicking on that person's profile shows that he has not authenticated in 43 days so I am not sure exactly what happened or when it happened.

Maybe someone who knows more about OTC can give more information about that rating.

[allyouracid]

What I completely dislike in this forum is when everyone - especially those on the default trust list - jump in to leave negative feedback for deals they have absolutely nothing to do with.
In my opinion, this is also some kind of abuse of power. I don't want to attack anyone here; I just want to leave my opinion.

The only ones leaving negative feedback here should be those who were involved in the trades, and no one else. There is no need for some sort of altruistic Samaritans jumping in on any situation possible.
This makes the reputation system flawed, misleading and a direct invitation for abuse. Actually, there should be an option to hide the trust data of any user, and it should be hidden by default.

Also, the default list should not exist. There should be some other way to define if a user's rating matters or not.

Maidak? I'm actually surprised to read another forum user claiming the same ridiculous opinion that maidak, a legendary scammer on bitcointalk that scammed k of thousands USD should have no red trust rating, no zero trust rating but instead a nice green trust rating.

Well, i wonder if you thought that through. If you did and you still demanded that then i wonder what kind of person you are. You would help scammers all the way to proceed scamming it seems.

I will assume that you did NOT think this through.

First off, I'm a person trying to build my opinion based on logic. And I'm able to reconsider if reasonable arguments (those beyond "you are ridiculous" - hilariousandco, you would do me a big favor if you restrain from bringing the discussion down to this level) are brought to the table. I consider this a good property.

Well, one thing I obviously did not think through might be the fact that if only those who were involved in the trades gave negative feedback, his overall feedback would still be green, giving a wrong impression to potential trade partners. hilariousandco pointet that out already, I think.
Nevertheless the system, as it is, leaves margin for errors and abuse (who is to decide whom to trust, whom to mark as scammer etc?), but I think at the end of the day, there is no such thing as a perfect implementation of a trust system, and best which can be done is to make it as good as possible and keep good track of who is being trusted.

And which abuse? Warning because a persons scammed? That is abuse? If real abuse is happening then threads are opened and people drop from default trust list. It's working for the most part.

There were already some threads of users who felt treated wrongly. I read their stories and came to the conclusion that in some cases, the negative reputation was unjustified. I hope that I don't have to go searching for those threads, as I only sporadically read the BCT forums over a long period of time, and I'm not sure if I could find them.
But there we are again at the point of no system being perfect. As I cannot come up with a better solution, it might probably be best to stick with "sometimes, it fails, but in many cases, it is helpful".

While it still feels somewhat wrong to me when people not involved in any trades make feedback about the users involved in said trades, I understand your point that in my version, he'd still have green feedback, giving a false impression about his trustworthiness.
As the idea of this forum is to let things regulate themselves as much as possible, I should maybe think of those giving feedback in such cases being part of the self-regulatory system.

What I completely dislike in this forum is when everyone - especially those on the default trust list - jump in to leave negative feedback for deals they have absolutely nothing to do with.
In my opinion, this is also some kind of abuse of power. I don't want to attack anyone here; I just want to leave my opinion.

The only ones leaving negative feedback here should be those who were involved in the trades, and no one else. There is no need for some sort of altruistic Samaritans jumping in on any situation possible.
This makes the reputation system flawed, misleading and a direct invitation for abuse. Actually, there should be an option to hide the trust data of any user, and it should be hidden by default.

Also, the default list should not exist. There should be some other way to define if a user's rating matters or not.

I love it when newbies chime in with their opinion. It's adorable.

Even though I'm not exactly new to this board, I consider this a compliment. :*

[SebastianJu]

What I completely dislike in this forum is when everyone - especially those on the default trust list - jump in to leave negative feedback for deals they have absolutely nothing to do with.
In my opinion, this is also some kind of abuse of power. I don't want to attack anyone here; I just want to leave my opinion.

The only ones leaving negative feedback here should be those who were involved in the trades, and no one else. There is no need for some sort of altruistic Samaritans jumping in on any situation possible.
This makes the reputation system flawed, misleading and a direct invitation for abuse. Actually, there should be an option to hide the trust data of any user, and it should be hidden by default.

Also, the default list should not exist. There should be some other way to define if a user's rating matters or not.

Maidak? I'm actually surprised to read another forum user claiming the same ridiculous opinion that maidak, a legendary scammer on bitcointalk that scammed k of thousands USD should have no red trust rating, no zero trust rating but instead a nice green trust rating.

Well, i wonder if you thought that through. If you did and you still demanded that then i wonder what kind of person you are. You would help scammers all the way to proceed scamming it seems.

I will assume that you did NOT think this through.

First off, I'm a person trying to build my opinion based on logic. And I'm able to reconsider if reasonable arguments (those beyond "you are ridiculous" - hilariousandco, you would do me a big favor if you restrain from bringing the discussion down to this level) are brought to the table. I consider this a good property.

Well, one thing I obviously did not think through might be the fact that if only those who were involved in the trades gave negative feedback, his overall feedback would still be green, giving a wrong impression to potential trade partners. hilariousandco pointet that out already, I think.
Nevertheless the system, as it is, leaves margin for errors and abuse (who is to decide whom to trust, whom to mark as scammer etc?), but I think at the end of the day, there is no such thing as a perfect implementation of a trust system, and best which can be done is to make it as good as possible and keep good track of who is being trusted.

And which abuse? Warning because a persons scammed? That is abuse? If real abuse is happening then threads are opened and people drop from default trust list. It's working for the most part.

There were already some threads of users who felt treated wrongly. I read their stories and came to the conclusion that in some cases, the negative reputation was unjustified. I hope that I don't have to go searching for those threads, as I only sporadically read the BCT forums over a long period of time, and I'm not sure if I could find them.
But there we are again at the point of no system being perfect. As I cannot come up with a better solution, it might probably be best to stick with "sometimes, it fails, but in many cases, it is helpful".

While it still feels somewhat wrong to me when people not involved in any trades make feedback about the users involved in said trades, I understand your point that in my version, he'd still have green feedback, giving a false impression about his trustworthiness.
As the idea of this forum is to let things regulate themselves as much as possible, I should maybe think of those giving feedback in such cases being part of the self-regulatory system.

What I completely dislike in this forum is when everyone - especially those on the default trust list - jump in to leave negative feedback for deals they have absolutely nothing to do with.
In my opinion, this is also some kind of abuse of power. I don't want to attack anyone here; I just want to leave my opinion.

The only ones leaving negative feedback here should be those who were involved in the trades, and no one else. There is no need for some sort of altruistic Samaritans jumping in on any situation possible.
This makes the reputation system flawed, misleading and a direct invitation for abuse. Actually, there should be an option to hide the trust data of any user, and it should be hidden by default.

Also, the default list should not exist. There should be some other way to define if a user's rating matters or not.

I love it when newbies chime in with their opinion. It's adorable.

Even though I'm not exactly new to this board, I consider this a compliment. :*

Great that you can overthink your opinion. It shows grandeur to be able to do so. Many are not capable of that.

Saying that... you are right, the trust system surely is not perfect. But till now i did not see a proposal that would work better. There are proposals that would be a better system but it would not work because it would need work by every member. And that work surely won't be done.

[Panthers52]

What I completely dislike in this forum is when everyone - especially those on the default trust list - jump in to leave negative feedback for deals they have absolutely nothing to do with.
In my opinion, this is also some kind of abuse of power. I don't want to attack anyone here; I just want to leave my opinion.

The only ones leaving negative feedback here should be those who were involved in the trades, and no one else. There is no need for some sort of altruistic Samaritans jumping in on any situation possible.
This makes the reputation system flawed, misleading and a direct invitation for abuse. Actually, there should be an option to hide the trust data of any user, and it should be hidden by default.

Also, the default list should not exist. There should be some other way to define if a user's rating matters or not.

Maidak? I'm actually surprised to read another forum user claiming the same ridiculous opinion that maidak, a legendary scammer on bitcointalk that scammed k of thousands USD should have no red trust rating, no zero trust rating but instead a nice green trust rating.

Well, i wonder if you thought that through. If you did and you still demanded that then i wonder what kind of person you are. You would help scammers all the way to proceed scamming it seems.

I will assume that you did NOT think this through.

First off, I'm a person trying to build my opinion based on logic. And I'm able to reconsider if reasonable arguments (those beyond "you are ridiculous" - hilariousandco, you would do me a big favor if you restrain from bringing the discussion down to this level) are brought to the table. I consider this a good property.

Well, one thing I obviously did not think through might be the fact that if only those who were involved in the trades gave negative feedback, his overall feedback would still be green, giving a wrong impression to potential trade partners. hilariousandco pointet that out already, I think.
Nevertheless the system, as it is, leaves margin for errors and abuse (who is to decide whom to trust, whom to mark as scammer etc?), but I think at the end of the day, there is no such thing as a perfect implementation of a trust system, and best which can be done is to make it as good as possible and keep good track of who is being trusted.

And which abuse? Warning because a persons scammed? That is abuse? If real abuse is happening then threads are opened and people drop from default trust list. It's working for the most part.

There were already some threads of users who felt treated wrongly. I read their stories and came to the conclusion that in some cases, the negative reputation was unjustified. I hope that I don't have to go searching for those threads, as I only sporadically read the BCT forums over a long period of time, and I'm not sure if I could find them.
But there we are again at the point of no system being perfect. As I cannot come up with a better solution, it might probably be best to stick with "sometimes, it fails, but in many cases, it is helpful".

While it still feels somewhat wrong to me when people not involved in any trades make feedback about the users involved in said trades, I understand your point that in my version, he'd still have green feedback, giving a false impression about his trustworthiness.
As the idea of this forum is to let things regulate themselves as much as possible, I should maybe think of those giving feedback in such cases being part of the self-regulatory system.

What I completely dislike in this forum is when everyone - especially those on the default trust list - jump in to leave negative feedback for deals they have absolutely nothing to do with.
In my opinion, this is also some kind of abuse of power. I don't want to attack anyone here; I just want to leave my opinion.

The only ones leaving negative feedback here should be those who were involved in the trades, and no one else. There is no need for some sort of altruistic Samaritans jumping in on any situation possible.
This makes the reputation system flawed, misleading and a direct invitation for abuse. Actually, there should be an option to hide the trust data of any user, and it should be hidden by default.

Also, the default list should not exist. There should be some other way to define if a user's rating matters or not.

I love it when newbies chime in with their opinion. It's adorable.

Even though I'm not exactly new to this board, I consider this a compliment. :*

He was saying that you don't know what you are talking about. I am not sure how or why someone would take that as a compliment.

Maybe that is just how people who argue for weaknesses in the trust system think

[allyouracid]

What kind of thing do you have with me and weakening the trust system?
I suggest stopping that stereotyped thinking and reading my posts again; if you still don't understand what I'm saying, I'll be happy to explain to you what I'm talking about. And what sarcasm is, too.

[FFrankie]

No one bothered to say that I sent Maidak almost 4k and it took him around 2-3weeks ish to deliver the BTC. But after I made a scam accusation he payed me back pretty quickly BUT one month before this topic was made, sometime in early may, I sent him 250$ and he was supposed to send me 1 BTC but he never did. I never bothered to say anything on the forum because I figured if he didnt run with 4k why would he with 250. But he did.

[SebastianJu]

No one bothered to say that I sent Maidak almost 4k and it took him around 2-3weeks ish to deliver the BTC. But after I made a scam accusation he payed me back pretty quickly BUT one month before this topic was made, sometime in early may, I sent him 250$ and he was supposed to send me 1 BTC but he never did. I never bothered to say anything on the forum because I figured if he didnt run with 4k why would he with 250. But he did.

It looked like he filled up his debts by asking for debts from other users. Like sending coins or funds from "his partners". Though those partners then had the same problem. Running after their money.

I really don't know how he could allow his financial problems intervene with his business. That is not acceptabled but his status let it run for some time.

[Phildo]

No one bothered to say that I sent Maidak almost 4k and it took him around 2-3weeks ish to deliver the BTC. But after I made a scam accusation he payed me back pretty quickly BUT one month before this topic was made, sometime in early may, I sent him 250$ and he was supposed to send me 1 BTC but he never did. I never bothered to say anything on the forum because I figured if he didnt run with 4k why would he with 250. But he did.

It looked like he filled up his debts by asking for debts from other users. Like sending coins or funds from "his partners". Though those partners then had the same problem. Running after their money.

I really don't know how he could allow his financial problems intervene with his business. That is not acceptabled but his status let it run for some time.

Because it appears that his business was scamtastic. When someone bought 4k worth of BTC from him, he didn't actually have 4k worth of BTC, he took the 4k, and held onto it until he could buy enough BTC to pay the original person, hopefully for less than 4k.

Like the scammers who just borrowed from one person to pay back another loan, it works great until people stop lending you money and playing along, and then they just run away with whatever they are left holding at the end.

[FFrankie]

I hate to revive a dead thread but I figured I would update everyone it looks like derrik goon has really gone MIA. The phone number I had for him stopped working a while ago and if you call his google voice number it just rings and rings.

According to

http://odrc.drc.ohio.gov/OffenderSearch/Search.aspx

and

https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/

he is not in federal prison or jail in ohio,

however he did deactivate his facebook within the last few days which is why I am posting this. he reactived and I messaged him and he seems to want to pay back his debts and he even paid me back in monetary terms,

I was keeping in touch with him kinda since he owes me 1 BTC (but really like $250 at the time he scammed it)

If anyone as his address I would love to write him!!!

[Quickseller]

I hate to revive a dead thread but I figured I would update everyone it looks like derrik goon has really gone MIA. The phone number I had for him stopped working a while ago and if you call his google voice number it just rings and rings.

I suspect that he probably got new phone number(s), and changed(?) his google voice number to forward to a number that he no longer uses. This is not uncommon behavior for deadbeat debtors.

Maidak had opened several threads with business proposals that involved him potentially being entrusted with very large amounts of other people's money all not long before he was called out on being a scammer, so there is little doubt in my mind that that he was planning a long con exit scam.   

[FFrankie]

I hate to revive a dead thread but I figured I would update everyone it looks like derrik goon has really gone MIA. The phone number I had for him stopped working a while ago and if you call his google voice number it just rings and rings.

I suspect that he probably got new phone number(s), and changed(?) his google voice number to forward to a number that he no longer uses. This is not uncommon behavior for deadbeat debtors.

Maidak had opened several threads with business proposals that involved him potentially being entrusted with very large amounts of other people's money all not long before he was called out on being a scammer, so there is little doubt in my mind that that he was planning a long con exit scam.  

MAIDAK PAID ME BACK IN FULL ABOUT FIVE MINUTES AGO

I have been talking to him and he wants to pay all of his debts.

https://insight.bitpay.com/tx/a624c3e600d21e719cec435a9a64c62b3e897422dd821b3e5106500e425b19e2

The transaction where he gave me 0.14 btc
Looks like he has at least 0.26 btc to pay back others

[SebastianJu]

Wow... seldom to hear something like that happening. Maybe labcoin, activemining and and and can step forward also please?

[Maidak]

Wow... seldom to hear something like that happening. Maybe labcoin, activemining and and and can step forward also please?

yeah wasn't scamming anyone.. trolls.

[xypos]

Wow... seldom to hear something like that happening. Maybe labcoin, activemining and and and can step forward also please?

Yeah it's rare but I will be sure everyone is paid back. Long story short I personally hit a rock bottom point in my life and never intended to taint the online status that took me several years to build. Shvbd if you end up reading this send me a PM with contact information.

Wow, that's amazing to hear.

I have never seen anyone that has came up with the funds and the balls to repay someone after all these years. You are truly the first to do this, and thank you for making the community better here at bitcointalk.

shdvb let us know when you are repaid please Hopefully this ends well for everyone.

[shdvb]

HI I just got to read this a few years later and Pmed you just now @maidak.

HAve you lost a good supplier of bitcoin miners?I have heard that Firedcat in China is lost.

[TheButterZone]

Maidak is selling their account now. Has everyone been made whole? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5324236.0 https://web.archive.org/web/20210407205142/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5324236.0

[Maidak]

Has everyone been made whole?

They would be shvbd refuses to change his feedback because I was a competitor in the past to him as far as the crypto to fiat trading goes.