Should people who promote ponzis in their signature be given a negative trust?

[XinXan]

^

*cough*

Bitcoin Forum > Economy > Marketplace > Gambling > Investor-based games

Why would thermos do that?!

Scams are not moderated, the section was put in place after the ponzis made the rest of the gambling section useless.

Edit:
The rule(s) for a sub section are essentially "have enough threads/posts to make it a dominant topic in an existing section". E.g. blockchain.info might get a seperate section if the support posts are too much for the service discussion section.

Might "8ball of Meth and Rusty AK47 Gift Set" get a separate section if the support posts are too much for the goods section?

If not, why

...I think Investor based is a useful sub forum. ...

As useful as any ghetto, i suppose. The problem's the public face of Bitcoin is now a ghetto.
Grills are laughing.

The sub forum was made to gather all ponzi scams in one place so people know that those ''games'' there are definitely ponzi and if someone tries to promote a ponzi somewhere else the thread will get moved to the investor based games. There is no way to stop ponzies from showing up, if mods deleted them people would just promote them without telling people they are ponzies so we would actually create more scams.

For the time being, I'll overlook the likelihood of you posting just for the sake of getting a few satoshi from your 'provably fair casino' sig, and explain to you why every forum on the internet doesn't have a subforum dedicated to ponzis, illegal gambling, or selling shitty drugs, rusty AKs and child porn.
You ready?
Here we go:
Because, surprisingly, yes, yes, you can stop those things. In fact, it is the duty of the forum operator to stop such things.
Even 4chan stops such things, why can't thermos?

I will explain you something, theymos is the owner and he can do whatever the fuck he wants and if you don't agree you can leave, no one is forcing you to stay here. Maybe other forums do not have a sub forum dedicated to ponzis BUT I'm sure they have people promoting ponzis secretly trying to make them look legit, how is the admin supposed to stop those ponzis? You can't until you know for sure it's a ponzi, instead with the sub forum, ponzi operators come clean and just by posting their site, system, there they are admiting it's a ponzi, people know the risks.

[1714948403]

1714948403

[1714948403]

1714948403

[1714948403]

1714948403

[1714948403]

1714948403

[1714948403]

1714948403

[onemorexmr]

I will explain you something, theymos is the owner and he can do whatever the fuck he wants and if you don't agree you can leave, no one is forcing you to stay here.

correct

You can't until you know for sure it's a ponzi, instead with the sub forum, ponzi operators come clean and just by posting their site, system, there they are admiting it's a ponzi, people know the risks.

OP was originally about sigads.
i do like that ponzis have their own section but this is not true for sigads.

so i'd like to see something like a trust rating for sigads (eg a link redirect where you see the trust rating of the link before you'll get redirect there or a rule that sig-links are only allowed to start with http://bitcointalk.org)

[Deluxee]

^

*cough*

Bitcoin Forum > Economy > Marketplace > Gambling > Investor-based games

Why would thermos do that?!

Scams are not moderated, the section was put in place after the ponzis made the rest of the gambling section useless.

Edit:
The rule(s) for a sub section are essentially "have enough threads/posts to make it a dominant topic in an existing section". E.g. blockchain.info might get a seperate section if the support posts are too much for the service discussion section.

Might "8ball of Meth and Rusty AK47 Gift Set" get a separate section if the support posts are too much for the goods section?

If not, why

...I think Investor based is a useful sub forum. ...

As useful as any ghetto, i suppose. The problem's the public face of Bitcoin is now a ghetto.
Grills are laughing.

The sub forum was made to gather all ponzi scams in one place so people know that those ''games'' there are definitely ponzi and if someone tries to promote a ponzi somewhere else the thread will get moved to the investor based games. There is no way to stop ponzies from showing up, if mods deleted them people would just promote them without telling people they are ponzies so we would actually create more scams.

For the time being, I'll overlook the likelihood of you posting just for the sake of getting a few satoshi from your 'provably fair casino' sig, and explain to you why every forum on the internet doesn't have a subforum dedicated to ponzis, illegal gambling, or selling shitty drugs, rusty AKs and child porn.
You ready?
Here we go:
Because, surprisingly, yes, yes, you can stop those things. In fact, it is the duty of the forum operator to stop such things.
Even 4chan stops such things, why can't thermos?

I will explain you something, theymos is the owner <snip>

Not this again.
Thermos is not the owner, he doesn't even claim to be. He is no more the owner of bitcointalk than Stalin was the owner of Russia or Hitler was the owner of Germany.
Stop parroting shit you've heard other say & spreading misinformation.
If still not clear:
Shit came together in such a way as to enable thermos to control bitcointalk, Stalin to control Russia, and Hitler to control Germany. This doesn't make any of them "owners."

[InvoKing]

Not this again.
Thermos is not the owner, he doesn't even claim to be. He is no more the owner of bitcointalk than Stalin was the owner of Russia or Hitler was the owner of Germany.
Stop parroting shit you've heard other say & spreading misinformation.
If still not clear:
Shit came together in such a way as to enable thermos to control bitcointalk, Stalin to control Russia, and Hitler to control Germany. This doesn't make any of them "owners."

I don't understand what is the problem that some users have with theymos. No one forced you to like him nor the way bitcointalk works nor to post in r/bitcoin, just create your owns and share the ideas that you like between you
Back to the topic, i voted yes if the guy is fully aware and got a warning before the NT.

Edit:

What does my liking/disliking thermos have to do with him not being the owner of this forum?
Do you read before typing, or are the few satoshis you make from posting just too sweet?

I have a lollipop (bought from the satoshi i made in the sig campaign, maybe?) that I planned to give to fw... but for some reasons i changed my mind... Wanna take it son? It is free.
Btw if you focus on my words again you will notice that ''you'' refer to ''some users'' mentioned above not specifically to you son.

[Emitdama]

You can give them a negative trust. But 6 weeks after they remove the signature, you should remove the negative rating.

[shorena]

You can give them a negative trust. But 6 weeks after they remove the signature, you should remove the negative rating.

Why 6 weeks?

[everaja]

Should people who promote ponzis in their signature be given a negative trust?

No.

March 01, 2011, 02:02:27 AM Silk Road: anonymous marketplace. Feedback requested

This topic was briefly removed due to the "illegal trading" policy, but I decided that since you're not actually selling drugs in this thread, it's OK. (Maybe some other moderator/admin will disagree with my later decision, though.) Sorry about that.

I remember when silk Road Poped Out as it was known that it is not good to ecosystem according to Law still Theymos let the Thread of Silk Road here , all reason was that the site was not selling any kind of drugs or weapons or Hiring assassinates here on this forum but they were doing that via external site , this forum let that site flourish until enforced by Law with caution under it.

---snip--- The only solution is for Web users to be constantly vigilant.

another way to feel the situation is Bluefilms , they are illegal and are a matter of shame if you watch it in front of your Parents or family , but do you quit it , even blue film sites have a caution before it let users enter it.
All i know people have to use their conscience to determine.
anyways if a DT member feel it other way and takes it to his words , then he might give a negative trust to the user wearing the signature , i think older DT members who have been here since old days wont do it because they know the inner(whats going on).

[winspiral]

You can give them a negative trust. But 6 weeks after they remove the signature, you should remove the negative rating.

Why 6 weeks?

because 6 weeks is the time after i removed my link...supposed ponzi (lol)

[Deluxee]

Not this again.
Thermos is not the owner, he doesn't even claim to be. He is no more the owner of bitcointalk than Stalin was the owner of Russia or Hitler was the owner of Germany.
Stop parroting shit you've heard other say & spreading misinformation.
If still not clear:
Shit came together in such a way as to enable thermos to control bitcointalk, Stalin to control Russia, and Hitler to control Germany. This doesn't make any of them "owners."

I don't understand what is the problem that some users have with theymos. No one forced you to like him nor the way bitcointalk works nor to post in r/bitcoin, just create your owns and share the ideas that you like between you
Back to the topic, i voted yes if the guy is fully aware and got a warning before the NT.

What does my liking/disliking thermos have to do with him not being the owner of this forum?
Do you read before typing, or are the few satoshis you make from posting just too sweet?

[Magnesium Coin]

Definitely hon !

Why the hell will anyone try to sign up a contract for promoting obvious ponzis?

Well, they should have looked this thread first before making an useless decision > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615953.0

In my opinion, they should be given negative trust forever and not just their period of promoting ponzis. That's what negative trusts are for I guess.

[shorena]

Here is another campaign for a ponzi -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1322129.0

46 BTC Total would be required every 7 days to pay all participants at max posts, I doubt they will come up with that much for escrow.

[Shield]

Here is another campaign for a ponzi -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1322129.0

46 BTC Total would be required every 7 days to pay all participants at max posts, I doubt they will come up with that much for escrow.

If they had that much money why would they make a website to scam others

[Heutenamos]

I dont see any reason to give people negative rating for their signature.I dont think anyone on the forum is going to help/promote the ponzi's in any way and they themselves hate that but greed is in human nature and they want to enroll in those high paying campaigns regardless of the design and link in their signature.

However,there is nothing that can change this mindset because jealousy is so obvious.

[winspiral]

if one trusts negative point each time a signature is not at good tast...one will only see negative trusted...
people who see dice games or lottery or trading places or what ever has to see with cash could then be negative trusted.

Why not trust negative as well people who promote faucets because they promote waist of time?

[Vod]

If someone promotes a ponzi in their signature, I'd send them a PM first informing them of that.  If they refused to remove the signature, yes I would give them negative trust.

People who promote/run ponzis can get negative trust without warning - they know they are trying to steal from people.

[winspiral]

If someone promotes a ponzi in their signature, I'd send them a PM first informing them of that.  If they refused to remove the signature, yes I would give them negative trust.

People who promote/run ponzis can get negative trust without warning - they know they are trying to steal from people.

And people who give negative trust for non-ponzi are honnored ...is this right?

[fuathan]

Yes. We need to get rid of Ponzis if we want to build a trust worthy environment for bitcoin.

Posted From bitcointalk.org Android App

[lemipawa]

I don't think it's necessary to tag those who"unknowingly" promotes a ponzi. If the site is known to be or an obvious ponzi and the one who promotes it knows about it, then that user needs to be tagged. But for someone who doesn't know that it's a ponzi and just found out that it is, better give the user time to repent and remove the sig. It's like recommending a trusted escrow then escrow turned to scam, do we go after the one who recommended the escrow?

[excword]

It should be better to stop signature campaigns in bitcointalk that promotes ponzi schemes.

[mexxer-2]

I don't think it's necessary to tag those who"unknowingly" promotes a ponzi. If the site is known to be or an obvious ponzi and the one who promotes it knows about it, then that user needs to be tagged. But for someone who doesn't know that it's a ponzi and just found out that it is, better give the user time to repent and remove the sig. It's like recommending a trusted escrow then escrow turned to scam, do we go after the one who recommended the escrow?

True, thats the reason why participants for campaigns like Cloudmining.website , oremine and many others weren't given a negative trust. However , 12coins and doublebot(with the former being more of a trouble due to the high rates it offers I guess) re clearly ponzis which cannot sustain the scheme and will certainly scam. The participants were given a warning in the first page of both campaigns.