Onus & Remedy in Scam Accusation Threads

[usagi]

Dear Scam Accusation Forum Connoisseurs;

As many of you are no doubt aware there are quite a few -- for lack of a better term -- pathetic -- scam accusations floating around. I'd like to make this post to raise the general level of awareness of what makes a good -- and bad -- scam accusation, and how to tell the difference.

First, as a user, you must use critical thinking and evaluate whether or not a scam accusation has merit. Here is a guideline; if a scam accusation fails any one of these points, it does not have merit:

1. There must be a clear victim.
If no one and nobody was affected by what you think is a scam, there is no scam -- period. An example is someone saying something like "I will sell you a bitcoin for $500". No one has taken the offer, been misled, or coerced into anything -- therefore it is not a scam. It would be different if said post claimed bitcoins were worth $500, that would be fraud. But in the absence of a victim -- i.e. someone who was defrauded or lied to -- there is no scam.


2. The ability to justify damages must be present for any scam accusation to have merit.
This is similar to the above, but it separates the mere act of lying from actually scamming. Example: If I told you I was from France (and that was a lie) that is not in and of itself scamming. If you then perform some action which causes you to lose money as a result of what I said, that's not damages either. I may very well have been from france; I did not cajole you into doing anything, so I did not damage you. The concept of damages is tied to that of the victim; first, there must be a victim, then damages must be established. Inability to do this means no scam took place.

On the other hand if I told you I was from France as justification for, or to convince you to perform a secondary action (such as, claiming that a black hole bitcoin address is my payment address in order to cause someone damages) then it's clear that there is a victim, and that the lie I told was for the purpose of creating a victim and then, secondarily, causing damages to that victim.


3. A remedy must be present for any scam accusation.
There are two kinds of remedy, as I understand the term. One is the remedy which must be present before the proposed scam can occur -- it is the "line" which one crosses. A great example is an asset issuer transferring shares he does not own to himself, using those shares to affect a vote, and then returning the shares. There was a clear remedy in that case -- he didn't have to do that. He made a choice. The actual "scam" is easy to be identified. There's no question on what happened. OTOH, if someone bought a car, and someone else stole that car, it's not the fault of the buyer (from an insurance standpoint, for example). Or if mining bonds crash, any random asset issuer is not to blame for market factors outside of their control.

The second kind of remedy which must be present is a kind of direct remedy the accused can perform after the fact to have the scammer tag removed. If this is not able to be proposed, then it's probably unfair/without merit to give someone a scammer tag.

We're not talking about someone with an incurable psychosis who committs mass murder -- we're talking about a bitcoin or dollar value assigned in damages. So the very least of a remedy which must be present is the complete repayment (plus interest where applicable) of damages. Each case would be different. In the case of fraud, where someone is intentionally deceived for financial gain (i.e. trashing someone's rep or company and then investing in it when it crashes), said person may also be requested to issue retractions, apologies, and repay damages amounting to that which is reasonably assumed to have been lost via lost business contracts, inability to operate normally, etc.


I know this is a little technical but the concepts of VICTIM, DAMAGES and REMEDY are extremely important. If we are going to parade ourselves around as judges, we have to be fair. If we cannot remain fair and impartial and are going to go on a witch hunt, we need to at least admit that's what we are doing -- treating people unfairly and just causing trouble.

In any scam accusation thread the Onus is ALWAYS on the accuser to provide sufficient evidence. We must adhere to "innocent until proven guilty", lest we become a ship of fools jumping at the slightest sound.

[usagi]

Sticky requested!

[vampire]

1) Wrong. First there are victimless crimes, second you broke the law of USA (by selling illegal securities).
2) Wrong. One step of fraud is a lie. Look it up.
3) Returning money is remedy for you.

I said that you're fraudster already.

Fuck your sticky thief, there should be a sticky about your lying and scamming ass.

[usagi]

1) Wrong. First there are victimless crimes, second [snip -- thread hijack attempt]
2) Wrong. One step of fraud is a lie. Look it up.
3) Returning money [snip -- thread hijack attempt]

I said that you... [snip -- thread hijack attempt]

Fuck your sticky [snip -- thread hijack attempt]

Your post is a great example of why people should ignore scam accusations which do not meet the three criteria I've set out. What you have said is, essentially, a complete waste of everyone's time. You say "return the money" what money, and to whom? I'm already processing claims -- just like everyone else. So it's not clear why you believe I am not doing that, what money you think I owe, and who I need to return it to. That is why what you say has no merit. It is impossible to satisfy what you have said, either with evidence, damages, or remedy.

For what it's worth, you did in fact raise at least one valid point -- one step of fraud is a lie. However, you have also raised this point several times before. Each time someone new seems to come along and point out that "one step is not a flight of stairs" -- just because someone lied does not mean they committed fraud. Think:

A chicken is a bird. (true)
A bird is a chicken. (false)

You have said
Fraud implies someone told a lie. (true)
Telling a lie implies someone committed fraud. (false)

I know you passionately believe what you think is true. But that alone does not mean you are right. In fact, the passion by which you pursue your case tends to make people think you are not being logical. Try calming down and presenting some evidence instead of just blindly accusing people of committing crimes. There's at least 200 other people who issued securities on GLBSE, and another what, 50-100 on MPEX and other sites as well? Why single me out? Maybe you need to take a walk. You don't have community support on that one.

[vampire]

I'm not talking about law -- which is not the question here. If you want to discuss law, you would have to admit that, since you've accused me of a crime without providing evidence, I am now able to sue you for defamation and/or malicious criminal libel. I will also report your post because it is an off-topic attempt to hijack this thread.

I already proved that you had lied. It's a FACT. You took folk's monies based on a lie.

Fact: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1367800#msg1367800

You refused to provide any remedy, which only reinforces that it was done on purpose, i.e. fraud.

I know you passionately believe what you think is true. But that alone does not mean you are right. In fact, the passion by which you pursue your case tends to make people think you are not being logical. Try calming down and presenting some evidence instead of just blindly accusing people of committing crimes. There's at least 200 other people who issued securities on GLBSE, and another what, 50-100 on MPEX and other sites as well? Why single me out? Maybe you need to take a walk. You don't have community support on that one.

You are a pathological liar. There is plenty of evidence of that, Mr. Oliver/Ms. Serena.

Why one takes few years of college of unix admin, but ends up as a "teacher"?

edit:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud

5 steps of fraud

(1) a false statement of a material fact - Proven
(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue

This one is a little harder to prove, but as the same page says:

The relationship between parties can make a difference in determining whether a statement is fraudulent. A misleading statement is more likely to be fraudulent when one party has superior knowledge in a transaction, and knows that the other is relying on that knowledge, than when the two parties possess equal knowledge. For example, if the seller of a car with a bad engine tells the buyer the car is in excellent running condition, a court is more likely to find fraud if the seller is an auto mechanic as opposed to a sales trainee. Misleading statements are most likely to be fraudulent where one party exploits a position of trust and confidence, or a fiduciary relationship. Fiduciary relationships include those between attorneys and clients, physicians and patients, stockbrokers and clients, and the officers and partners of a corporation and its stockholders.

(3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim - the intent is clear to sell your worthless shares to victims. Proven.
(4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement - Proven
(5) injury to the alleged victim as a result - Proven

[usagi]

I already proved that you had lied. It's a FACT. You took folk's monies based on a lie.
Fact: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1367800#msg1367800

In the proof you link above, you are complaining that the data I pulled off GLBSE wasn't to your liking -- that I was using either MAX or AVERAGE or something. This is a meaningless complaint -- the fact I was pulling data off GLBSE at all was in an attempt to satisfy earlier demands for transparency. Everyone was made fully aware of what we held and it's value in several different ways. Shareholder motions were run on how to value the assets. You cannot show damages and you have no case. Please stop trying to hijack my threads. Go e-mail BCB with whatever proof you think you have.

You refused to provide any remedy, which only reinforces that it was done on purpose, i.e. fraud.

I will respond to this as a case study of what onus means in a scam accusation thread. The onus is on you to propose victim, damages and a remedy. You claim I victimized all shareholders. Okay, you are claiming there is a victim. So what money did they lose? You are saying they lost money as a direct result of me stating that I was pulling data off the GLBSE? And advertised the exact formula directly on the spreadsheet? Ok so how much money did they lose as a direct result of that? Nothing? Then there are no damages, no remedy, and no scam. See how simple those three rules are?

You are a pathological liar. There is plenty of evidence of that, Mr. Oliver/Ms. Serena.
Why one takes few years of college of unix admin, but ends up as a "teacher"?

More money. I also went to university FWIW, and minored in Chinese/East Asian Studies. I also am a wookie who lives on Endor. This does not make sense -- therefore you have no case. Get it? It has no bearing. Stop.

Again, stop trying to hijack this thread. If you have any proof whatsoever, please PM/e-mail BCB, who is graciously trying to work this out for the benefit of the community. At least, stop spamming every thread you can with "usagi therefore scammer" Your campaign against me does not belong in this thread.

[BCB]

Vampire,

Please pm me with any evidence.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133823.msg1424892#msg1424892

Thanks.

[Deprived]

Dear Scam Accusation Forum Connoisseurs;

As many of you are no doubt aware there are quite a few -- for lack of a better term -- pathetic -- scam accusations floating around. I'd like to make this post to raise the general level of awareness of what makes a good -- and bad -- scam accusation, and how to tell the difference.

First, as a user, you must use critical thinking and evaluate whether or not a scam accusation has merit. Here is a guideline; if a scam accusation fails any one of these points, it does not have merit:

1. There must be a clear victim.
If no one and nobody was affected by what you think is a scam, there is no scam -- period. An example is someone saying something like "I will sell you a bitcoin for $500". No one has taken the offer, been misled, or coerced into anything -- therefore it is not a scam. It would be different if said post claimed bitcoins were worth $500, that would be fraud. But in the absence of a victim -- i.e. someone who was defrauded or lied to -- there is no scam.


2. The ability to justify damages must be present for any scam accusation to have merit.
This is similar to the above, but it separates the mere act of lying from actually scamming. Example: If I told you I was from France (and that was a lie) that is not in and of itself scamming. If you then perform some action which causes you to lose money as a result of what I said, that's not damages either. I may very well have been from france; I did not cajole you into doing anything, so I did not damage you. The concept of damages is tied to that of the victim; first, there must be a victim, then damages must be established. Inability to do this means no scam took place.

On the other hand if I told you I was from France as justification for, or to convince you to perform a secondary action (such as, claiming that a black hole bitcoin address is my payment address in order to cause someone damages) then it's clear that there is a victim, and that the lie I told was for the purpose of creating a victim and then, secondarily, causing damages to that victim.


3. A remedy must be present for any scam accusation.
There are two kinds of remedy, as I understand the term. One is the remedy which must be present before the proposed scam can occur -- it is the "line" which one crosses. A great example is an asset issuer transferring shares he does not own to himself, using those shares to affect a vote, and then returning the shares. There was a clear remedy in that case -- he didn't have to do that. He made a choice. The actual "scam" is easy to be identified. There's no question on what happened. OTOH, if someone bought a car, and someone else stole that car, it's not the fault of the buyer (from an insurance standpoint, for example). Or if mining bonds crash, any random asset issuer is not to blame for market factors outside of their control.

The second kind of remedy which must be present is a kind of direct remedy the accused can perform after the fact to have the scammer tag removed. If this is not able to be proposed, then it's probably unfair/without merit to give someone a scammer tag.

We're not talking about someone with an incurable psychosis who committs mass murder -- we're talking about a bitcoin or dollar value assigned in damages. So the very least of a remedy which must be present is the complete repayment (plus interest where applicable) of damages. Each case would be different. In the case of fraud, where someone is intentionally deceived for financial gain (i.e. trashing someone's rep or company and then investing in it when it crashes), said person may also be requested to issue retractions, apologies, and repay damages amounting to that which is reasonably assumed to have been lost via lost business contracts, inability to operate normally, etc.


I know this is a little technical but the concepts of VICTIM, DAMAGES and REMEDY are extremely important. If we are going to parade ourselves around as judges, we have to be fair. If we cannot remain fair and impartial and are going to go on a witch hunt, we need to at least admit that's what we are doing -- treating people unfairly and just causing trouble.

In any scam accusation thread the Onus is ALWAYS on the accuser to provide sufficient evidence. We must adhere to "innocent until proven guilty", lest we become a ship of fools jumping at the slightest sound.

I agree with some of what you're saying - but there's some specific issues I think you're wrong on.

There's also a more general issue - we need to be clear which of the following we're discussing.

1.  What evidence is needed to show that person X has scammed someone.
2.  What evidence is needed to show that person X is a scammer (they can be a bad scammer who fails to actually cause loss but clearly tried to).
3.  What evidence is needed for someone to be awarded a scammer tag.

#3 is not necessarily the same as either #1 or #2.

Your definition seems to apply more to #1 than to #2 - i.e. you seem to believe an unsuccesful scammer is not a scammer.

A scam is (the most relevant definition) a fraudulent business scheme.  A scammer is someone who perpetuates a scam.  There is no need for them to actually manage to successfully scam someone for them to be a scammer.  If they operate a business scheme which is fraudulent in nature then, irrespective of whether they actually defraud anyone, they are - by definition - a scammer.  The only requirement is for them to perpetuate the scheme - not to actually manage to profit or cause loss to victims.

But the real problem is that the mods/admins use a criteria that doesn't relate to the definition of scammer.  The tag is given out where someone has broken a contract but never actually operated a fraudulent scheme.  I don't disagree with that - but you need to understand that scammers (according to definition) are only a subset of the people who could be awarded the tag.  And what we REALLY need before going into any detailed discussion along the lines you propose is a clear definition from admin/mods of what categories of behaviour WILL get a tag and which won't.

Here's a few of the sort of things which aren't necessarily scams/scammers but have arisen. NONE of these are meant to refer to you - though all are vaguely based on actual threads which have occurred here.  ("You" on the below refers to the individual(s) in question.

1.  Breaking a contract entered into because of legal advice that to do otherwise would be illegal.
2.  Entering into a contract then later requiring the other parties to incur extra costs exceeding the value of the contract or you won't deliver on your end of the deal - because you claim it would be illegal for you to honour the contract without them incurring those costs.
3.  Agreeing a contract, which you wrote in a manner intended to deceive the other party to it, then interpreting some portion of it in a manner totally contrary to the apparent intent of the contract and how everyone else reading the contract interpreted it so as to have no obligations from it.
4.  Taking a loan (or investment) from another member then being unable to repay due to circumstances that were clearly unforeseen and out of your control. (i.e. it's accepted by everyone that  something totally unexpected happened).
5.  Taking a loan (or investment) from another member then being unable to repay due to circumstances that you claim were unforeseen and out of your control but where it's impossible for anyone else to determine whether or not that it is the case. (i.e. you claim something totally unexpected happened but it's not possible to verify whether it actually did occur and/or whether you expected it to occur).

For each of the above who thinks each is a scammer and who thinks each should get a scammer tag?  Assume in all cases that people lost BTC as a result.

#3 is the only one who actually 'honoured' his contract.

#s 1 and 2 amd 5 MAY be scammers by dictionary definition and #3 definitely is. #4 definitely isn't.

I suspect a lot of people would give #5 a scammer tag but not #4 - which totally removes any presumption of innocence as the ONLY difference between them is whether they can prove that something unexpected happened.

Bottom line - it isn't as simple as you claim.  And it's impossible to give guidelines without information about what categories of behaviour warrant a tag (which most definitely gos way beyond just scammers - and doesn't actually include all scammers for that matter.).  There's detailed flaws in some of your points as well - but no point arguing detail when the area covered hasn't even been defined.

[sega01]

I think usagi's post is quite valid. I can't say for everything involved around him with GLBSE and such, but the points above are sound to me.

1) Wrong. First there are victimless crimes, second you broke the law of USA (by selling illegal securities).
2) Wrong. One step of fraud is a lie. Look it up.
3) Returning money is remedy for you.

I said that you're fraudster already.

Fuck your sticky thief, there should be a sticky about your lying and scamming ass.

1) True, in the US, victimless crimes can be punished. However, I don't consider them to be very valid on a moral or practical level. In general, I feel if there is no victim, there's no reason to prosecute. That being said, I don't know the whole situation with usagi and "illegal securities", so perhaps there is something I am missing.

2) I think in usagi's example, it would not be fraud. Now, I much prefer working with fully honest buyers and sellers. And such information, even country of residence, can weigh in to the other user's considerations. If the lie caused direct harm or misleading, I think it would align with a scam. Even so, beyond "fraud" or not fraud, I think 100% honesty is a great virtue that will be rewarded in the long run by the community.

3) If an accurate amount of damages is made and paid off, and the once-scammer does not appear likely to scam in the future, I don't see why that's insufficient to remove their scammer tag. I understand that sometimes damages can be more than just money, perhaps time or emotional stress, but I think a fair settlement can be reached.

[Deprived]

The second kind of remedy which must be present is a kind of direct remedy the accused can perform after the fact to have the scammer tag removed. If this is not able to be proposed, then it's probably unfair/without merit to give someone a scammer tag.

No.

There are (very broadly) two categories of people who get scammer tags here.

1.  Those who deliberately acted in a manner designed to defraud (scammers by dictionary definition basically).  These should never get their tags removed.
2.  Those who ended up unable to fulfil their obligations without any intention to ever deceive or defraud (or where the evidence isn't clear whether they had ill-intent and so they are entitled to some degree of "Innocent until proven Guilty").  These should have their tags removed when they've provided remedy.

I would very much like to see the tag split into two seperate tags:

1.  Scammer - for people who deliberately attempt to defraud.
2.  Defaulter - for those who are in default on their obligations but where it's not proven they deserve 1.

#2 MUST get the tag until the pay back - because with a lot of scammers it can't be totally proven that they scammed, only that they defaulted.  The tag acts to warn others dealing with them to be very careful as they are already in default on other agreement(s) and so there's a significant chance they are actually scammers (and also are short of BTC to provide prompt remedy).

Tag 2 should NOT be given out if there's clear evidence that the default was entirely unexpected AND the individual is attempting to remedy in a timely fashion.  So, for example, companies listed on GLBSE would not get tags just for missing dividend payments etc - but WOULD get tags if they didn't start sorting things out once they finally got their lists of asset holders.

But I see a HUGE difference where intent to defraud exists - and in no way should tags given for that ever be removed.  They ARE scammers and should be identified as such.  Maybe a "Used to be a Scammer" tag if they go a year without further issues.

[BCB]

I also agree with Deprived.

I find it curious though that it seem that no users who were actually defrauded by usagi post in these threads.

Maybe they use sock puppet accounts because they are embarrassed they made bad investments.

If you made a bad investment, well, welcome to the world of bitcoin lending and bitcoin securities.  

It does not by itself make usgnai a scammer.

If you were defrauded or scammed and have proof please PM me with evidence.

What evidence did you rely on to make your investments.
What statements do you have that show the value of your investments.
What proof do you have that those investments no longer have value.
Please explain how you were scammed.


please do not include info about usagi's charater as that is currently not relevent.

Thanks!

[Deprived]

I also agree with Deprived.

I find it curious though that it seem that no users who were actually defrauded by usagi post in these threads.

Maybe they use sock puppet accounts because they are embarrassed they made bad investments.

If you made a bad investment, well, welcome to the world of bitcoin lending and bitcoin securities.  

It does not by itself make usgnai a scammer.

If you were defrauded or scammed and have proof please PM me with evidence.

What evidence did you rely on to make your investments.
What statements do you have that show the value of your investments.
What proof do you have that those investments no longer have value.
Please explain how you were scammed.


please do not include info about usagi's charater as that is currently not relevent.

Thanks!

To be clear - are you saying someone who wasn't an investor can't point out scamming?

It's an interesting perspective to take that if a victim doesn't realise they've been victimised noone else should point it out.

Makes it somewhat of a miracle that anyone ever gets convicted of murder - as I've yet to hear about a murder victim come forward and register a complaint.

Getting back to the point, are you saying that I shouldn't PM you any evidence (I have never purchased any assets issued by usagi - despite day-trading on dozens of different GLBSE assets).  Should I type it up and advertise it in Securities forum and see if any investor wants to PM it to you?

Certainly an interesting spin on things that only victims have useful evidence - and everyone else should do their best three wise monkeys impression.

[usagi]

Bottom line - it isn't as simple as you claim.  And it's impossible to give guidelines without information about what categories of behaviour warrant a tag (which most definitely gos way beyond just scammers - and doesn't actually include all scammers for that matter.).  There's detailed flaws in some of your points as well - but no point arguing detail when the area covered hasn't even been defined.

Maybe it's not so simple but I've seen too many accusations here lately which contain hyperbole, are blind and overly general, and do not name victims or damages. What's the point of this place if people are going to make accusations that have no actual substance?

I think we are going to grow out of this forum soon. Maybe it sounds crazy but I don't see how the forum can continue on like this for much longer. I see the signs. Before that happens I'd like to see a serious attempt at cleaning it up and moderating it properly. A panel of judges known for their fairness and equitable judgements would be a very nice start.

If we don't get better judges, I am guessing the community will begin to move towards dumping the (useless?) scam accusation forum and use real-world lawyers. Mods are biased, sometimes extremely so, and don't even see it as their job to be fair or even look at the scam accusation forum at all. It's pretty obvious that they only handle things which they are interested in or which affect them. I also see the community getting too big and diversified to rely on a single forum on a single bb system to handle the entire community's scam problems. No one remembers any of the small time scammers from 6 months ago.

I guess I am just asking, is this really an effective system? How can we improve it?

[usagi]

The second kind of remedy which must be present is a kind of direct remedy the accused can perform after the fact to have the scammer tag removed. If this is not able to be proposed, then it's probably unfair/without merit to give someone a scammer tag.

No.

There are (very broadly) two categories of people who get scammer tags here.

1.  Those who deliberately acted in a manner designed to defraud (scammers by dictionary definition basically).  These should never get their tags removed.

I'm afraid I can't agree with that because it makes me think you would send a convicted con artist to jail for life. I don't believe in life imprisonment. I think most forms of white collar fraud are punishable by just a few years in life. Never is a long time.

2.  Those who ended up unable to fulfil their obligations without any intention to ever deceive or defraud (or where the evidence isn't clear whether they had ill-intent and so they are entitled to some degree of "Innocent until proven Guilty").  These should have their tags removed when they've provided remedy.

I would very much like to see the tag split into two seperate tags:

1.  Scammer - for people who deliberately attempt to defraud.
2.  Defaulter - for those who are in default on their obligations but where it's not proven they deserve 1.

Wow, that's a really good idea! I hope Theymos sees that and agrees. I knew something would come out of this discussion ^^

#2 MUST get the tag until the pay back - because with a lot of scammers it can't be totally proven that they scammed, only that they defaulted.  The tag acts to warn others dealing with them to be very careful as they are already in default on other agreement(s) and so there's a significant chance they are actually scammers (and also are short of BTC to provide prompt remedy).

Tag 2 should NOT be given out if there's clear evidence that the default was entirely unexpected AND the individual is attempting to remedy in a timely fashion.  So, for example, companies listed on GLBSE would not get tags just for missing dividend payments etc - but WOULD get tags if they didn't start sorting things out once they finally got their lists of asset holders.

But I see a HUGE difference where intent to defraud exists - and in no way should tags given for that ever be removed.  They ARE scammers and should be identified as such.  Maybe a "Used to be a Scammer" tag if they go a year without further issues.

I like the defaulter tag idea a lot.

[usagi]

To be clear - are you saying someone who wasn't an investor can't point out scamming?

It's an interesting perspective to take that if a victim doesn't realise they've been victimised noone else should point it out.

Makes it somewhat of a miracle that anyone ever gets convicted of murder - as I've yet to hear about a murder victim come forward and register a complaint.

Getting back to the point, are you saying that I shouldn't PM you any evidence (I have never purchased any assets issued by usagi - despite day-trading on dozens of different GLBSE assets).  Should I type it up and advertise it in Securities forum and see if any investor wants to PM it to you?

Certainly an interesting spin on things that only victims have useful evidence - and everyone else should do their best three wise monkeys impression.

I don't think that's what he means. I think he is pointing out that most non-investors are blind. You and others have pointed out that BMF for example lost money. But there's no context. If you invested 100 bitcoins in BMF, you would have ended up being able to sell those for 50 bitcoins on the date GLBSE closed. That's a fact. If you invested 100 bitcoins in GIGAMINING, you would be able to sell them for 43 (at ~0.65/share). We did better than most miners, that's a fact. Yes there were companies that did better than BMF. That doesn't make mining companies a scam.

Take YABMC for example. 100 bitcoins at .30, and then you sell them on the day GLBSE closes for .1 if you're lucky. Your 100 btc investment is now valued at 33. BMMO was similar. we had 3775 shares. So what people are doing is they're saying OK, BMF lost money, and it was because usagi misled investors, falsified NAVs... but if you look at the actual facts, we did better than most mining companies, and all our investments were in... mining companies. We only lost money because mining crashed. And we lost less money than the sector average. CPA as well; we IPO'd at .1 and were going for 0.03 to 0.04 before the crash. We lost a lot less than mining. We did good. But only a shareholder would realize that. To someone who wasn't a shareholder, they just see that we lost money and want to blame me for being a terrible investors. The truth is completely different...

Shareholders are (or should be) happy because BMF proved to be a better investment. That is a fact! BMF was selling for 50 when everything else was going for 30 or 40. The point is, we did better, and I would like to think our investors know that. But yes we did lose money. puppet and eskimobob will never let me forget that. But it doesn't mean I stole any money or ripped anyone off.

Anyone who says differently is doing investors a great disservice. Let me put it this way. If buying BTC and holding it from $5 to $15 was such a great trade, why were so many people investing in mining stocks? for the same reason I was. We didn't know -- we couldn't predict the future. We made the best decision we could and we were wrong. Not just me -- everyone who invested with me. So that is why, I suspect, there are so few (zero? one?) investors who are complaining.

It isn't like we crashed by 50% because mining was rock-stable the whole time. Everyone who was invested widely knows BMF did better than other companies. What's the surprise?

[Axios]

I don't think that's what he means. I think he is pointing out that most non-investors are blind. You and others have pointed out that BMF for example lost money. But there's no context. If you invested 100 bitcoins in BMF, you would have ended up being able to sell those for 50 bitcoins on the date GLBSE closed. That's a fact. If you invested 100 bitcoins in GIGAMINING, you would be able to sell them for 43 (at ~0.65/share). We did better than most miners, that's a fact. Yes there were companies that did better than BMF. That doesn't make mining companies a scam.

I used to own for a brief moment some of your crap when I was trying to divest from Pirate, I sold it after you accused EskimoBob. Yea, I was a fool to believe your lies, fraudulent statements and etc. You're trying to imply that you did better than everyone else? Who cares. You were lying after I reviewed your financial statements on your website.

I sold pretty much all of my assets a long time before GLBSE shutdown.

Didn't you just access most of the mining companies of scam? Do I need to refresh your memory?

[repentance]

Bottom line - it isn't as simple as you claim.  And it's impossible to give guidelines without information about what categories of behaviour warrant a tag (which most definitely gos way beyond just scammers - and doesn't actually include all scammers for that matter.).  There's detailed flaws in some of your points as well - but no point arguing detail when the area covered hasn't even been defined.

I think we are going to grow out of this forum soon. Maybe it sounds crazy but I don't see how the forum can continue on like this for much longer. I see the signs. Before that happens I'd like to see a serious attempt at cleaning it up and moderating it properly. A panel of judges known for their fairness and equitable judgements would be a very nice start.

If we don't get better judges, I am guessing the community will begin to move towards dumping the (useless?) scam accusation forum and use real-world lawyers. Mods are biased, sometimes extremely so, and don't even see it as their job to be fair or even look at the scam accusation forum at all. It's pretty obvious that they only handle things which they are interested in or which affect them. I also see the community getting too big and diversified to rely on a single forum on a single bb system to handle the entire community's scam problems. No one remembers any of the small time scammers from 6 months ago.

I guess I am just asking, is this really an effective system? How can we improve it?

I don't think it's crazy at all.  For many of the most egregious scams real-world lawyers and real world courts are the most appropriate remedy and the scammer tag is pretty meaningless as those involved don't give a shit about being labelled a scammer on a messageboard and such a label in no way helps victims.

There are already Bitcoin specific and real world mediation options available to people but people lack confidence in using them and there's no way to compel people to use them.

You could have the fairest judges in the world, but as long as there are no real world consequences accompanying the scammer tag - which there aren't and cannot be as it exists at the moment - it's going to remain a joke.

Unfortunately, it looks like this topic has already derailed into being a discussion about your businesses in particular rather than about the value or otherwise of the existing scammer tag system.

[usagi]

I don't think that's what he means. I think he is pointing out that most non-investors are blind. You and others have pointed out that BMF for example lost money. But there's no context. If you invested 100 bitcoins in BMF, you would have ended up being able to sell those for 50 bitcoins on the date GLBSE closed. That's a fact. If you invested 100 bitcoins in GIGAMINING, you would be able to sell them for 43 (at ~0.65/share). We did better than most miners, that's a fact. Yes there were companies that did better than BMF. That doesn't make mining companies a scam.

I used to own for a brief moment some of your crap when I was trying to divest from Pirate, I sold it after you accused EskimoBob. Yea, I was a fool to believe your lies, fraudulent statements and etc. You're trying to imply that you did better than everyone else? Who cares. You were lying after I reviewed your financial statements on your website.

I sold pretty much all of my assets a long time before GLBSE shutdown.

Didn't you just access most of the mining companies of scam? Do I need to refresh your memory?

You say I lied and gave fraudulent statements of fact -- can you actually provide evidence that I did so? If so, please PM it to BCB. Don't post it in this thread -- you're off topic hijacking is not wanted here. This thread is for intelligent people to discus an intelligent problem. If you have issues (and you do appear to have issues) you should air them somewhere else.

To address the main point of your post however, thank you for providing yet another example of why damages are important in a scam accusation case. You appear unable to show that as a result of what you claim is a lie, that you lost any more money than you would have if you invested in GIGAMINING or any other company.

[Axios]

So in other words -- you didn't lose any more money investing in BMF than in any other mining company?

Thank you.

Irrelevant. I made money on other mining stocks. (To be exact a stock and during a different time period).

[usagi]

So in other words -- you didn't lose any more money investing in BMF than in any other mining company?

Thank you.

Irrelevant. I made money on other mining stocks. (To be exact a stock and during a different time period).

If you did not lose money, then why do you believe I lied to you? The fact you made money in mining suggests you would have made a similar amount if you remained invested in BMF. I'm sorry you seem so convinced that I scammed or lied, but the facts don't seem to support what you are saying.