Requesting-Vod be prevented deleting posts Self Modded thread/Removed from DT

[Quickseller]

You think a site should be forced to pay for something at a price they did not agree to prior to the fact? Note that I previously backed dooglus's actions however after further consideration I have change my viewpoint on the matter.

Dooglus asked for a fair amount considering the severity if the bug he found! I don't see anything wrong in this.

So if you are driving around in your car and I see a safety problem with your car, I should ask you for 1BTC to tell you what is wrong with it (without you ever agreeing to pay this or any amount) and when you don't pay up, I should call you a scammer?

[1714191569]

1714191569

[1714191569]

1714191569

[1714191569]

1714191569

[Vod]

I'm just going to leave this here since Meta doesn't show trust scores.

This is Quickscammer now, according to the default community:



I've accomplished what I wanted to - QS is now ostracized from the community.

I won't be pushing it any further. 

[Sarthak]

You think a site should be forced to pay for something at a price they did not agree to prior to the fact? Note that I previously backed dooglus's actions however after further consideration I have change my viewpoint on the matter.

Dooglus asked for a fair amount considering the severity if the bug he found! I don't see anything wrong in this.

So if you are driving around in your car and I see a safety problem with your car, I should ask you for 1BTC to tell you what is wrong with it (without you ever agreeing to pay this or any amount) and when you don't pay up, I should call you a scammer?

From wikipedia:

A bug bounty program is a deal offered by many website and software developers by which individuals can receive recognition and compensation for reporting bugs, especially those pertaining to exploits and vulnerabilities.

FYI, The bug was a critical one. Dooglus wasn't a thief so he reported it to the owner of the site and asked for a 1BTC bounty. He could have withdrawn 2 BTC but didn't. There was a deal between them. The BalloonBit owner credited his account with the Bitcoins but never processed his withdraw. What's wrong with putting a -ve trust if the balloonbit owner didn't fulfill his part of the deal?

[Quickseller]

You think a site should be forced to pay for something at a price they did not agree to prior to the fact? Note that I previously backed dooglus's actions however after further consideration I have change my viewpoint on the matter.

Dooglus asked for a fair amount considering the severity if the bug he found! I don't see anything wrong in this.

So if you are driving around in your car and I see a safety problem with your car, I should ask you for 1BTC to tell you what is wrong with it (without you ever agreeing to pay this or any amount) and when you don't pay up, I should call you a scammer?

From wikipedia:

A bug bounty program is a deal offered by many website and software developers by which individuals can receive recognition and compensation for reporting bugs, especially those pertaining to exploits and vulnerabilities.

FYI, The bug was a critical one. Dooglus wasn't a thief so he reported it to the owner of the site and asked for a 1BTC bounty. He could have withdrawn 2 BTC but didn't. There was a deal between them. The BalloonBit owner credited his account with the Bitcoins but never processed his withdraw. What's wrong with putting a -ve trust if the balloonbit owner didn't fulfill his part of the deal?

Did the site have any kind of bug bounty program? I did not see any one published anywhere.

[Sarthak]

Did the site have any kind of bug bounty program? I did not see any one published anywhere.

I don't see anything wrong in reporting a bug and asking for a bounty if the site "doesn't" have a bug bounty program. It's not that a site without a bug bounty program isn't vulnerable, is it?

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Did the site have any kind of bug bounty program? I did not see any one published anywhere.

I don't see anything wrong in reporting a bug and asking for a bounty if the site "doesn't" have a bug bounty program. It's not that a site without a bug bounty program isn't vulnerable, is it?

There's nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong with leaving negative trust if someone does not pay you a bounty (when they have no bug bounty program).

[Quickseller]

Did the site have any kind of bug bounty program? I did not see any one published anywhere.

I don't see anything wrong in reporting a bug and asking for a bounty if the site "doesn't" have a bug bounty program. It's not that a site without a bug bounty program isn't vulnerable, is it?

So they don't have a bug bounty program, therefore they never agreed to pay any kind of bug bounty. While it might be reasonable to ask for a bug bounty, however not paying one certainly does not make them a scammer.

[Sarthak]

There's nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong with leaving negative trust if someone does not pay you a bounty (when they have no bug bounty program).

You're mistaken. I agree the site didn't have a bug bounty program but you can clearly see that they had a deal! Dooglus reported the vulnerability but the owner of Balloonbit didn't fulfill his part of the deal by crediting Dooglus' acoount but at the same time, not processing the withdraw.

[Sarthak]

What are you talking about?

therefore they never agreed to pay any kind of bug bounty.

They did agree and they did credit Dooglus' account at their site but they never processed the transaction.

While it might be reasonable to ask for a bug bounty, however not paying one certainly does not make them a scammer.

Come on, they run a casino! If they can't complete their part in a small deal, how can you expect such kind of people to run legitimate casinos?

[Quickseller]

There's nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong with leaving negative trust if someone does not pay you a bounty (when they have no bug bounty program).

You're mistaken. I agree the site didn't have a bug bounty program but you can clearly see that they had a deal! Dooglus reported the vulnerability but the owner of Balloonbit didn't fulfill his part of the deal by crediting Dooglus' acoount but at the same time, not processing the withdraw.

I don't think it was clear they had a deal. I would say quite the opposite.

[Quickseller]

What are you talking about?

therefore they never agreed to pay any kind of bug bounty.

They did agree and they did credit Dooglus' account at their site but they never processed the transaction.

While it might be reasonable to ask for a bug bounty, however not paying one certainly does not make them a scammer.

Come on, they run a casino! If they can't complete their part in a small deal, how can you expect such kind of people to run legitimate casinos?

what deal are you talking about lol

[Sarthak]

what deal are you talking about lol

Please read the whole thread.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=869272.msg9783924#msg9783924

[dooglus]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=132677
It seems that dooglus sent retaliatory feedback to the above person because he felt dooglus's website was less then honest

If he had expressed such a feeling that would have been OK. But he didn't say he felt that my site was less than honest, he claimed it was scammy. It isn't. He said I am a deceptive person. I'm not. He was lying about me and my site, so I left feedback saying not to trust him.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=292423
He left the above person negative trust for recommending a scam site

The guy was shilling for a known Ponzi, saying they were a good investment. Would you trust someone who did that? I wouldn't.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=371960
He left negative trust because they "post FUD and one liners"

Check the reference. He was working through the sub-forum posting single-line crap in every thread just to bump his post count. The forum is overrun by people posting crap just so they can join signature ad campaigns. This guy was a particularly ugly example of that, adding nothing of value.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=397258
His negative rating on the above person starts that he refused to pay a 1 BTC bounty for a bug, and then continues that the site he runs is a scam

Well, that's because he refused to pay me the amount we had already agreed upon, and because his site was a scam... He was offering bets that he was unable to pay out.

These are just a few examples that did not take any kind of extensive research.

Someone should take a look at some of the feedback you've left. I'm sure there's actual real cause for concern in there.

His trust list is composed of those who are already on DT and a few that echo his sentiments towards a few sites that he thinks are a scam (the fact that the site is a scam is irrelevant), so I think others can make their own conclusions about these people on his trust list. Oh and they also have zero trading history

I don't think I have anyone who is already on the DefaultTrust list in my trust list. I tend to add people whose judgement I trust. Those will be people who I mostly agree with. Well spotted.

I don't think it was clear they had a deal. I would say quite the opposite.

We had a deal. We arranged it via private messages. I think I posted the private messages on the thread in question, but I can post them here if necessary.

Edit: my trust list:



I don't think any of those accounts are on the DefaultTrust list are they?

Edit2: I just checked. DefaultTrust has 13 accounts in its trust list:

Code:

BadBear
DeaDTerra
dooglus
dserrano5
escrow.ms
HostFat
Maged
OgNasty
OldScammerTag
philipma1957
SaltySpitoon
theymos
Tomatocage

I have none of those in my trust list, but I do have DefaultTrust in my trust list, so indirectly I have them all.

[Quickseller]

what deal are you talking about lol

Please read the whole thread.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=869272.msg9783924#msg9783924

I think I'll pass. And I think we are talking about two different instances. You had said that dooglus removed his negative trust after crypto-games paid the non-existent bug bounty that they did not agree to prior to the bug being reported. I cannot see any way that is possibly the right thing to do. And I cannot see how that is anything other then selling trust.

[dooglus]

I think we are talking about two different instances. You had said that dooglus removed his negative trust after crypto-games paid the non-existent bug bounty that they did not agree to prior to the bug being reported. I cannot see any way that is possibly the right thing to do. And I cannot see how that is anything other then selling trust.

Maybe you should make it clear what you are talking about.

I'm pretty sure you have your facts wrong:

  I didn't find a bug at crypto-games, someone else did; I was merely acting as an "escrow" for the bug.
  (that means I was an independent third party, in case you're unclear on that point)

  I neither left nor removed negative trust for crypto-games. When I remove negative trust I replace it with neutral trust so a record stands but it no longer counts against the account.

  I didn't sell trust.

I understand that you're mad because I didn't remove Vod from my trust list, but stomping your feet and making things up to try to get me into trouble isn't going to work for you.

[Sarthak]

I think we are talking about two different instances. You had said that dooglus removed his negative trust after crypto-games paid the non-existent bug bounty that they did not agree to prior to the bug being reported. I cannot see any way that is possibly the right thing to do. And I cannot see how that is anything other then selling trust.

Maybe you should make it clear what you are talking about.

I'm pretty sure you have your facts wrong:

  I didn't find a bug at crypto-games, someone else did; I was merely acting as an "escrow" for the bug.
  (that means I was an independent third party, in case you're unclear on that point)

  I neither left nor removed negative trust for crypto-games. When I remove negative trust I replace it with neutral trust so a record stands but it no longer counts against the account.

  I didn't sell trust.

I understand that you're mad because I didn't remove Vod from my trust list, but stomping your feet and making things up to try to get me into trouble isn't going to work for you.

I wish there was a 'like' button in the thread. I would 'like' this reply 100 times (Especially the last line)
Anyways since Vod has already left this thread and he is certainly not going to get removed from the DT, i guess this thread must be closed and the ongoing drama should be stopped.

[Quickseller]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=132677
It seems that dooglus sent retaliatory feedback to the above person because he felt dooglus's website was less then honest

If he had expressed such a feeling that would have been OK. But he didn't say he felt that my site was less than honest, he claimed it was scammy. It isn't. He said I am a deceptive person. I'm not. He was lying about me and my site, so I left feedback saying not to trust him.

Of course not. Anyone who makes those kinds of claims is automatically a scammer and should not be trusted.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=292423
He left the above person negative trust for recommending a scam site

The guy was shilling for a known Ponzi, saying they were a good investment. Would you trust someone who did that? I wouldn't.

I wouldn't trust someone who was endorsing multiple sites that stole over a million dollars each either, especially when it would not be unreasonable to conclude that such theft was enabled by such endorsements.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=371960
He left negative trust because they "post FUD and one liners"

Check the reference. He was working through the sub-forum posting single-line crap in every thread just to bump his post count. The forum is overrun by people posting crap just so they can join signature ad campaigns. This guy was a particularly ugly example of that, adding nothing of value.

Right. Because everyone who is not able to write to your standards is a scammer.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=397258
His negative rating on the above person starts that he refused to pay a 1 BTC bounty for a bug, and then continues that the site he runs is a scam

Well, that's because he refused to pay me the amount we had already agreed upon, and because his site was a scam... He was offering bets that he was unable to pay out.

hmmm.

These are just a few examples that did not take any kind of extensive research.

Someone should take a look at some of the feedback you've left. I'm sure there's actual real cause for concern in there.

Lol.

His trust list is composed of those who are already on DT and a few that echo his sentiments towards a few sites that he thinks are a scam (the fact that the site is a scam is irrelevant), so I think others can make their own conclusions about these people on his trust list. Oh and they also have zero trading history

I don't think I have anyone who is already on the DefaultTrust list in my trust list. I tend to add people whose judgement I trust. Those will be people who I mostly agree with. Well spotted.

Edit: my trust list:



I don't think any of those accounts are on the DefaultTrust list are they?

Yes?

[Quickseller]

I think we are talking about two different instances. You had said that dooglus removed his negative trust after crypto-games paid the non-existent bug bounty that they did not agree to prior to the bug being reported. I cannot see any way that is possibly the right thing to do. And I cannot see how that is anything other then selling trust.

Maybe you should make it clear what you are talking about.

I'm pretty sure you have your facts wrong:

  I didn't find a bug at crypto-games, someone else did; I was merely acting as an "escrow" for the bug.
  (that means I was an independent third party, in case you're unclear on that point)

Wasn't that person asking for 1BTC for himself and .5BTC for you for a separate bug? If that is the case, I don't think that would make you very neutral.

  I neither left nor removed negative trust for crypto-games. When I remove negative trust I replace it with neutral trust so a record stands but it no longer counts against the account.

Slark had implied otherwise above. My mistake.

  I didn't sell trust.

Except when you want a scammer to show as being trusted and give them a reputation loan.

I understand that you're mad because I didn't remove Vod from my trust list, but stomping your feet and making things up to try to get me into trouble isn't going to work for you.

Vod will likely get removed from DT with or without your assistance, more likely without.

I am just pointing out problems with your trust and trust list.

[poeEDgar]

Vod will likely get removed from DT with or without your assistance, more likely without.

What kind of power do you think you have here, exactly? Why would anyone take you seriously? You're a dishonest fraud. You're only embarrassing yourself by continuing to make waves about it.

[dooglus]

I didn't sell trust.

Except when you want a scammer to show as being trusted and give them a reputation loan.

You keep bringing up the same issues over and over.

You were claiming that tsp couldn't be trusted with any amount of money. I tested this theory. It turned out he could be trusted with 1 BTC and I left trust reflecting that.

I didn't sell anything. That would imply that I somehow received payment. I didn't.

I am just pointing out problems with your trust and trust list.

Not very effectively, but thanks for trying. More people should be held accountable for the trust feedback they leave.