Douglus should remove cryptodevil from DT due to conflict of interest

[Gimpeline]

Having this guy in DT is like having ISIS as a moderator. they say. " believe in the god I will or live in fear from terror". He uses the same tactics. "Invest your bitcoins where I want or have your reputation ruined".

[mexxer-2]

Having this guy in DT is like having ISIS as a moderator. they say. " believe in the god I will or live in fear from terror". He uses the same tactics. "Invest your bitcoins where I want or have your reputation ruined".

Wrong again. First, please don't use real life examples while taking about unique situations in a private forum, just makes you sound stupid and may piss off other people. Also, you had to bring religion into this didn't you?

Second, he's not telling you where to invest your BTC. Heck, go and invest it in the scrypt scam for all you like. He's just tagging users who post about their positive experience in a ponzi thread, or are directly promoting it. Thereby causing promotion of something that will lead to the other users(who might invest after seeing the huge amount of positive reviews) being ripped off.

If you want to make an intellectual argument , I'm fine with that. If you want to continue preaching or other unrelated bullcrap, ignore this post and I'll willingly ignore you

[suchmoon]

Having this guy in DT is like having ISIS as a moderator. they say. " believe in the god I will or live in fear from terror". He uses the same tactics. "Invest your bitcoins where I want or have your reputation ruined".

Huh? Nobody cares where you invest your coins. Send them to Karpeles or Garza if you insist.

All these ISIS and Gestapo analogies are beyond idiotic. When was the last time you lived under a truly authoritarian regime? Was it really as bad as this forum?

[Quickseller]

Oh QS, you are so predictable.

This is the rep I left for that user obvious-scammer-sock-is-obvious:

Posting encouragement to scammer running non-verifiable 'lottery' scam.

[Edit] OMGLMAO! Too fucking funny: 'Innocent' (according to QS) scamming-lottery-supporting scammer opens moderated ponzi thread to promote his own ponzi: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1394528
[IMG ]http://i65.tinypic.com/14tt3ck.png[/img]

The thread in question was posted a week after you left the negative trust rating. You left the negative rating because he was saying that a gambling site that would potentially compete with Just-Dice might be fun to play at.

A good number of the references used for negative ratings are "broken links" in that they do not link back to any post that they made

Yeah YourPointIsInvalid tried that one already. Firstly, if a user has deleted the post concerned then the rating will be removed if they contact me to let me know. If they don't contact me then they clearly don't care enough about it and neither should you. Secondly, 'A good number'? ORLY? How many would that actually be and, as I already said, why should you care if they haven't asked for the rating to be removed?

When I checked the last time I posted here, more of your recent ponzi related negative ratings had invalid references then those that linked to an actual post.

You are not exactly an approachable person, so someone who should not be labeled a scammed, yet is labeled one anyway is going to think they are wasting their breath asking for the negative rating to be removed. Additionally many of the accounts that you left negative trust for are very new, and therefore have little reason to put in significant amounts of efforts to "fix" their reputation.

Most importantly is it up to the accuser to prove their claim (no I am not saying that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and no I am not saying that everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt, however there does need to be some basis for a claim that someone is a scammer).

First and foremost participating in a ponzi does not make a person a scammer,

Nope, it makes them someone who wants to knowingly help scammers steal money from other users.

It is no secret that the operators of pretty much all of the ponzis are going to scam eventually, and it is no secret that ponzis are not sustainable. Many of the posts that you included a reference to for you negative ratings even included comments pointing out that the ponzi is not going to last forever (eg that some people will eventually lose money).

One thing that the OP forgot to mention is that one aspect of gambling online is the social aspect. This is why reputable sites like Primedice and betking.io, and even sites run by people with questionable ethics like Just-Dice have chat features on their sites, and have threads in the gambling section so people can chat about how much they have recently won/lost, about their experiences, about their strategies, ect.. By calling anyone who comments about a ponzi game, or any other site that could potentially compete with Just-Dice a scammer, you are essentially taking away one part of what gamblers consider to be fun about this kind of gambling.

Having this guy in DT is like having ISIS as a moderator. they say. " believe in the god I will or live in fear from terror". He uses the same tactics. "Invest your bitcoins where I want or have your reputation ruined".

--snip--

Second, he's not telling you where to invest your BTC. Heck, go and invest it in the scrypt scam for all you like. He's just tagging users who post about their positive experience in a ponzi thread, or are directly promoting it. Thereby causing promotion of something that will lead to the other users(who might invest after seeing the huge amount of positive reviews) being ripped off.
--snip--

What you are describing is not someone that is a scammer, especially when there are comments in the review that acknowledge that the ponzi will eventually collapse, and especially when the person making the comments has little reputation and when few/no people will take their word as written.

[cryptodevil]

*usual whining fallacy-laden bullshit we've come to expect*

There, fixed it for ya.

[tspacepilot]

When QS was trolling me as ACCTSeller, Panthers52, Quickseller, FunFunnyFan (etc ?), dooglus noticed a little quirk which he does that sorta ends up being like a signature.  I don't think he realizes that not many people do this.  dooglus suggested we not reveal it in case it comes in handy in the future to identify his alts. 

FWIW, that newton1 OP has the same quirk.

[Brob12321]

My account is now ruined as the result of CryptoDevil, all I have done is post in the investor based games section to tell people a certain site does not look good and will most likely fall apart soon and to stay away from said site.  In a few instances I have said that the site looks like it may last a bit but will eventually collapse.  The investor based games section is part of the gambling section, any user that enters this section is gambling whether it be a ponzi, lottery or dice game.  They all allow you to win or lose. 

When playing the lottery, millions may buy a ticket and no one wins, should that be deemed a scam? Because the state did not declare a winner so effectively the state took the money.  Eventually a winner may arise after some time.  This is equivalent to a user investing in a ponzi early on and making a profit, winning money as the result of another person losing money; it is the principal of ALL GAMBLING. 

When playing a dice game a user may win or lose.  If the user loses the admin gets the money and the user loses, should this be deemed a scam?  Oh but these dice games are provably fair right?  So it is the computers fault that a user lost his money and suddenly it is alright.  A dice game always has a house edge, should this unfair advantage be deemed a scam because the owner of the dice site will be effectively taking money from its users?

When a user enters the gambling section, it is obvious that the user can win or lose.  If an investor puts money in a obvious scam run by a newbie with no website, they lose.  If a investor puts money in a well put together website that lasts 2 months, they win.  If an investor puts money in early in the game they may win, if an investor puts money in late in the game they may lose.  Just as a investor may put money in the stock market too late and lose their money. 

How do you say one type of gambling is okay and the other is not ?  Who makes these rules ?  This politically correct thinking that you are driving is so sick, that a person may lose his money for not doing the research and not being aware of the risk and suddenly all posters who made a post on any thread in the investor based games section have their accounts destroyed !   

My posts were for the most part warning others not to invest in clear scams.  Take a look at my post history if you don't believe me.  I even wrote a story a while back of how I lost hundreds of dollars through investor based games.  But I did not threaten negative trust for users who enjoyed the game, I simply did my research and took caution in the future and warned of sites that I feel are outright give me your money and take off type deals.  I never once promoted one of those sites EVER!  My red trust has a reference to a page that has no content at all on it !!!! 

This is my red trust:

User   Date   Risked BTC amount   Reference   Comments
cryptodevil 0: -0 / +0   2016-03-17   0.00000000   Reference   Wants to help ponzi scammers steal from other people


This is the reference link:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1396008.msg14221470#msg14221470

The content of this page now reads
quickprofit.trade
Newbie
*


Activity: 4

Ignore trust - We haven't scam anyone


View Profile  Personal Message (Offline)
Trust: -2: -1 / +0
Warning: Trade with extreme caution!
Ignore
   
defunct
March 12, 2016, 05:30:28 PM
 #1
defunct


There is no evidence of what I even said on this page.  And if anything I was warning people not to invest in the site because the site was posted by a newbie and the site looked horrible and was not able to be viewed on a browser after a few days.


I have private messaged CryptoDevil asking why he has done this to me, why he has destroyed my account with no evidence; telling him that I was warning newbies not to invest in obvious scam from the start programs which are still considered gambling I suppose, I have never promoted a ponzi scheme ever, all I have done is simply state you can either win or lose like any form of gambling out there. I have humbly asked Cryptodevil what I can do to get him to remove my red trust as Crypto is a hobby of mine I have been involved in for over a year now on this forum and off.  Now with this negative trust, I will never be taken seriously on this forum and my opinion is worthless.  Cryptodevil, I ask of you again, will you please remove my red trust? if the answer is no, what must I do for you to remove my red trust? 


Very truly yours.

[suchmoon]

My account is now ruined as the result of CryptoDevil, all I have done is post in the investor based games section to tell people a certain site does not look good and will most likely fall apart soon and to stay away from said site.  In a few instances I have said that the site looks like it may last a bit but will eventually collapse.  The investor based games section is part of the gambling section, any user that enters this section is gambling whether it be a ponzi, lottery or dice game.  They all allow you to win or lose.  

When playing the lottery, millions may buy a ticket and no one wins, should that be deemed a scam? Because the state did not declare a winner so effectively the state took the money.  Eventually a winner may arise after some time.  This is equivalent to a user investing in a ponzi early on and making a profit, winning money as the result of another person losing money; it is the principal of ALL GAMBLING.  

When playing a dice game a user may win or lose.  If the user loses the admin gets the money and the user loses, should this be deemed a scam?  Oh but these dice games are provably fair right?  So it is the computers fault that a user lost his money and suddenly it is alright.  A dice game always has a house edge, should this unfair advantage be deemed a scam because the owner of the dice site will be effectively taking money from its users?

When a user enters the gambling section, it is obvious that the user can win or lose.  If an investor puts money in a obvious scam run by a newbie with no website, they lose.  If a investor puts money in a well put together website that lasts 2 months, they win.  If an investor puts money in early in the game they may win, if an investor puts money in late in the game they may lose.  Just as a investor may put money in the stock market too late and lose their money.  

How do you say one type of gambling is okay and the other is not ?  Who makes these rules ?  This politically correct thinking that you are driving is so sick, that a person may lose his money for not doing the research and not being aware of the risk and suddenly all posters who made a post on any thread in the investor based games section have their accounts destroyed !  

My posts were for the most part warning others not to invest in clear scams.  Take a look at my post history if you don't believe me.  I even wrote a story a while back of how I lost hundreds of dollars through investor based games.  But I did not threaten negative trust for users who enjoyed the game, I simply did my research and took caution in the future and warned of sites that I feel are outright give me your money and take off type deals.  I never once promoted one of those sites EVER!  My red trust has a reference to a page that has no content at all on it !!!!  

This is my red trust:

User   Date   Risked BTC amount   Reference   Comments
cryptodevil 0: -0 / +0   2016-03-17   0.00000000   Reference   Wants to help ponzi scammers steal from other people


This is the reference link:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1396008.msg14221470#msg14221470

The content of this page now reads
quickprofit.trade
Newbie
*


Activity: 4

Ignore trust - We haven't scam anyone


View Profile  Personal Message (Offline)
Trust: -2: -1 / +0
Warning: Trade with extreme caution!
Ignore
   
defunct
March 12, 2016, 05:30:28 PM
 #1
defunct


There is no evidence of what I even said on this page.  And if anything I was warning people not to invest in the site because the site was posted by a newbie and the site looked horrible and was not able to be viewed on a browser after a few days.


I have private messaged CryptoDevil asking why he has done this to me, why he has destroyed my account with no evidence; telling him that I was warning newbies not to invest in obvious scam from the start programs which are still considered gambling I suppose, I have never promoted a ponzi scheme ever, all I have done is simply state you can either win or lose like any form of gambling out there. I have humbly asked Cryptodevil what I can do to get him to remove my red trust as Crypto is a hobby of mine I have been involved in for over a year now on this forum and off.  Now with this negative trust, I will never be taken seriously on this forum and my opinion is worthless.  Cryptodevil, I ask of you again, will you please remove my red trust? if the answer is no, what must I do for you to remove my red trust?  


Very truly yours.

You probably shouldn't have posted a wall of text justifying ponzis to begin with, but that's between you and cryptodevil.

But on the subject of gambling can you explain this: what's the house edge for ponzis, and what are the odds for the "victim" to win or lose in one? And why does a ponzi tend to collapse whereas a dice game or a lottery does not?

[Decoded]

My account is now ruined as the result of CryptoDevil, all I have done is post in the investor based games section to tell people a certain site does not look good and will most likely fall apart soon and to stay away from said site.  In a few instances I have said that the site looks like it may last a bit but will eventually collapse.  The investor based games section is part of the gambling section, any user that enters this section is gambling whether it be a ponzi, lottery or dice game.  They all allow you to win or lose. 

When playing the lottery, millions may buy a ticket and no one wins, should that be deemed a scam? Because the state did not declare a winner so effectively the state took the money.  Eventually a winner may arise after some time.  This is equivalent to a user investing in a ponzi early on and making a profit, winning money as the result of another person losing money; it is the principal of ALL GAMBLING. 

When playing a dice game a user may win or lose.  If the user loses the admin gets the money and the user loses, should this be deemed a scam?  Oh but these dice games are provably fair right?  So it is the computers fault that a user lost his money and suddenly it is alright.  A dice game always has a house edge, should this unfair advantage be deemed a scam because the owner of the dice site will be effectively taking money from its users?

When a user enters the gambling section, it is obvious that the user can win or lose.  If an investor puts money in a obvious scam run by a newbie with no website, they lose.  If a investor puts money in a well put together website that lasts 2 months, they win.  If an investor puts money in early in the game they may win, if an investor puts money in late in the game they may lose.  Just as a investor may put money in the stock market too late and lose their money. 

How do you say one type of gambling is okay and the other is not ?  Who makes these rules ?  This politically correct thinking that you are driving is so sick, that a person may lose his money for not doing the research and not being aware of the risk and suddenly all posters who made a post on any thread in the investor based games section have their accounts destroyed !   

My posts were for the most part warning others not to invest in clear scams.  Take a look at my post history if you don't believe me.  I even wrote a story a while back of how I lost hundreds of dollars through investor based games.  But I did not threaten negative trust for users who enjoyed the game, I simply did my research and took caution in the future and warned of sites that I feel are outright give me your money and take off type deals.  I never once promoted one of those sites EVER!  My red trust has a reference to a page that has no content at all on it !!!! 

This is my red trust:

User   Date   Risked BTC amount   Reference   Comments
cryptodevil 0: -0 / +0   2016-03-17   0.00000000   Reference   Wants to help ponzi scammers steal from other people


This is the reference link:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1396008.msg14221470#msg14221470

The content of this page now reads
quickprofit.trade
Newbie
*


Activity: 4

Ignore trust - We haven't scam anyone


View Profile  Personal Message (Offline)
Trust: -2: -1 / +0
Warning: Trade with extreme caution!
Ignore
   
defunct
March 12, 2016, 05:30:28 PM
 #1
defunct


There is no evidence of what I even said on this page.  And if anything I was warning people not to invest in the site because the site was posted by a newbie and the site looked horrible and was not able to be viewed on a browser after a few days.


I have private messaged CryptoDevil asking why he has done this to me, why he has destroyed my account with no evidence; telling him that I was warning newbies not to invest in obvious scam from the start programs which are still considered gambling I suppose, I have never promoted a ponzi scheme ever, all I have done is simply state you can either win or lose like any form of gambling out there. I have humbly asked Cryptodevil what I can do to get him to remove my red trust as Crypto is a hobby of mine I have been involved in for over a year now on this forum and off.  Now with this negative trust, I will never be taken seriously on this forum and my opinion is worthless.  Cryptodevil, I ask of you again, will you please remove my red trust? if the answer is no, what must I do for you to remove my red trust? 


Very truly yours.

You probably shouldn't have posted a wall of text justifying ponzis to begin with, but that's between you and cryptodevil.

But on the subject of gambling can you explain this: what's the house edge for ponzis, and what are the odds for the "victim" to win or lose in one? And why does a ponzi tend to collapse whereas a dice game of a lottery does not?

Ponzis are unsustainable. As soon as there are no investors, the whole system gets shaky. The "victims" usually don't know what's coming and acknowledge the chance of losing. Gambling is the opposite, the house edge is public. People know their chance of losing.

[Brob12321]

The odds of gambling are not always known before hand for the public to view.  An example, I bet you .01 BTC that Cryptodevil removes the red trust, there is no public algorithm for what will happen, it is a game of chance just as poker is just as a physical game of dice, just as roulette.  Investing in a ponzi does require increased risk for this lack of knowledge and so if you win the reward is much greater especially with things like compounding interest.   However, I will say there are ways to lessen your risk, by looking at the hot wallets of said ponzi's and by seeing what monitoring sites are saying and the people are saying on forums like moneymakergroup(if they are paying or not). 

Anyway, I am not defending Ponzi schemes or scam from the start sites I just am saying that they are another form of gambling and they follow the risk/reward formula just as any other investment would. 

[suchmoon]

The odds of gambling are not always known before hand for the public to view.  An example, I bet you .01 BTC that Cryptodevil removes the red trust, there is no public algorithm for what will happen, it is a game of chance just as poker is just as a physical game of dice, just as roulette.  Investing in a ponzi does require increased risk for this lack of knowledge and so if you win the reward is much greater especially with things like compounding interest.   However, I will say there are ways to lessen your risk, by looking at the hot wallets of said ponzi's and by seeing what monitoring sites are saying and the people are saying on forums like moneymakergroup(if they are paying or not). 

Anyway, I am not defending Ponzi schemes or scam from the start sites I just am saying that they are another form of gambling and they follow the risk/reward formula just as any other investment would. 

I love how you're trying to drag another type of gambling into the comparison without answering the question.

Are you trying to say that (1) the odds of a dice roll or a roulette spin are unknown, or (2) ponzi outcomes are determined by chance/luck comparable to dice/roulette?

[Quickseller]

But on the subject of gambling can you explain this: what's the house edge for ponzis, and what are the odds for the "victim" to win or lose in one? And why does a ponzi tend to collapse whereas a dice game or a lottery does not?

The house edge for ponzis is very high, much higher then other games with comparable potential returns available in the crypto world. The odds for a "victim/investor" to win/lose in a ponzi are generally unknown and again are probably worse then other potential alternatives available in the crypto world. Ponzis tend to collapse because they are not able to attract sufficient additional money to continue to pay "victims/investors", and because the people running/operating ponzis tend to have little/no reputation (and/or have build up their reputation over a very short period of time), so the operators are entrusted with more money then they should be.

It should also be noted that in the US, the state lotteries (eg powerball, megamillions), have a house edge of between 40 and 50 percent, and that Las Vegas casino games sometimes have house edges in the double digits, sometimes exceeding 20%, and are often not prominently disclosed. It is also difficult to tell if a casino was cheating their players in a specific round of a specific game, especially long after the fact.

Most importantly, if you are responsibly gambling, you should not be "banking" on winning any particular bet, but are rather betting for entertainment purposes.

[suchmoon]

This is the reference link:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1396008.msg14221470#msg14221470

There is no evidence of what I even said on this page.  And if anything I was warning people not to invest in the site because the site was posted by a newbie and the site looked horrible and was not able to be viewed on a browser after a few days.

Oops....

https://archive.is/jSDGq#selection-10285.0-10285.190

Interesting program, website seems to be designed pretty well, the program isn't anything to crazy so it may be sustainable, if that reserve fund is legit that is also in your favor as well.

[whywefight]

This is the reference link:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1396008.msg14221470#msg14221470

There is no evidence of what I even said on this page.  And if anything I was warning people not to invest in the site because the site was posted by a newbie and the site looked horrible and was not able to be viewed on a browser after a few days.

Oops....

https://archive.is/jSDGq#selection-10285.0-10285.190

Interesting program, website seems to be designed pretty well, the program isn't anything to crazy so it may be sustainable, if that reserve fund is legit that is also in your favor as well.

Well done suchmoon. Thats the reason all references should be done via archive.is

[cryptodevil]

Such tears. Many beg.

Jeez, you take Sunday off and people have a breakdown about their, rather dishonest, claims to not have supported a ponzi. Evidence is a bitch, ain't it?

In any event, the ponzi scammer has torched that thread so the reference post is gone from this forum, which is the important thing. I understand that it is possible to create trust references which won't disappear in these circumstances but as long as the cheerleading here is gone that's all I am concerned with.

I will delete your rating, albeit your post history does still contain some suggestion that you still consider a 'good' ponzi to be a worthwhile 'investment', which could encourage newbs to think likewise. So I'd ask that you reconsider your position in this regards as it is still going to to risk attracting further negative ratings.

I have many requests from people to delete ratings, which I normally will do, but I'd be hard pressed to justify deleting one issued to the same member after he'd already had one removed. So if you choose to continue posting support for what you consider to be 'good' ponzis in future, expect a permanent rating.

[dooglus]

The odds of gambling are not always known before hand for the public to view.  An example, I bet you .01 BTC that Cryptodevil removes the red trust, there is no public algorithm for what will happen, it is a game of chance just as poker is just as a physical game of dice, just as roulette.  Investing in a ponzi does require increased risk for this lack of knowledge and so if you win the reward is much greater especially with things like compounding interest.

You are missing the point. When you bet on dice, roulette, or Cryptodevil's future actions, the terms are clear in advance:

  "if you roll less than 49.5 you win"
  "if the ball lands on red you win"
  "if cryptodevil inexplicably removes red trust you win"

With a Ponzi scam the terms are dishonest:

  "double your money in 48 hours"

The terms don't mention any possibility of a loss and in fact explain why such a loss is impossible:

  "we make sure we have backup funds in order to cover any losses (if ever)."

The loss isn't the result of the terms, it's explicitly outside of the terms, and that is what makes it dishonest.

Anyway, I am not defending Ponzi schemes or scam from the start sites I just am saying that they are another form of gambling and they follow the risk/reward formula just as any other investment would. 

By claiming they are just another kind of gambling you are defending them. Gamblers know they are gambling. Some Ponzi victims don't. They believe the "double your money" lies.

You made 4 positive statements about a scheme that was clearly designed from the outset to scam:

* Interesting program
* website seems to be designed pretty well
* the program isn't anything to crazy so it may be sustainable
* if that reserve fund is legit that is also in your favor as well

Did you really think it "may be sustainable"? They were paying 10% profit every 12 hours. That's 21% per day, 747% per week, and 3590% per month.

If you thought that "may be sustainable" you're as naive as the innocent victims. And if you didn't, you were lying.

[Brob12321]

Such tears. Many beg.

Jeez, you take Sunday off and people have a breakdown about their, rather dishonest, claims to not have supported a ponzi. Evidence is a bitch, ain't it?

In any event, the ponzi scammer has torched that thread so the reference post is gone from this forum, which is the important thing. I understand that it is possible to create trust references which won't disappear in these circumstances but as long as the cheerleading here is gone that's all I am concerned with.

I will delete your rating, albeit your post history does still contain some suggestion that you still consider a 'good' ponzi to be a worthwhile 'investment', which could encourage newbs to think likewise. So I'd ask that you reconsider your position in this regards as it is still going to to risk attracting further negative ratings.

I have many requests from people to delete ratings, which I normally will do, but I'd be hard pressed to justify deleting one issued to the same member after he'd already had one removed. So if you choose to continue posting support for what you consider to be 'good' ponzis in future, expect a permanent rating.

Thank you for this.  I will not promote or encourage ponzi schemes in the future, I am in no way for the deception of newbies to the cryptoworld, I will be much more careful as to what I say in the future because you are right we don't know if all of these people are familiar with what a ponzi scheme is, if they are desperate for money, etc, etc and I don't want to say anything to make someone think twice about investing in a scam and not being able to eat because of it.  That is something I don't want on my conscious. 

[newtons1]

Huh? Nobody cares where you invest your coins. Send them to Karpeles or Garza if you insist.

False. Look at the feedbacks that cryptodevil is leaving. They coincide with investing in ponzi schemes and posting about investing and posting a message that it is unknown how long the ponzi scheme will last.

Now that it is revealed that Douglus is involved in ponzi schemes, maybe he is keeping cryptodevil in his trust list to week out all the ponzi competition and then open a massive ponzi scheme of his own 

[suchmoon]

Huh? Nobody cares where you invest your coins. Send them to Karpeles or Garza if you insist.

False. Look at the feedbacks that cryptodevil is leaving. They coincide with investing in ponzi schemes and posting about investing and posting a message that it is unknown how long the ponzi scheme will last.

Now that it is revealed that Douglus is involved in ponzi schemes, maybe he is keeping cryptodevil in his trust list to week out all the ponzi competition and then open a massive ponzi scheme of his own 

What's false is all the shit you tacked on to my simple statement. I didn't say anything about any of that other stuff, it's all in your head.

And your obsession with dooglus is getting worse, you should have that checked out.

[tspacepilot]

Huh? Nobody cares where you invest your coins. Send them to Karpeles or Garza if you insist.

False. Look at the feedbacks that cryptodevil is leaving. They coincide with investing in ponzi schemes and posting about investing and posting a message that it is unknown how long the ponzi scheme will last.

Now that it is revealed that Douglus is involved in ponzi schemes, maybe he is keeping cryptodevil in his trust list to week out all the ponzi competition and then open a massive ponzi scheme of his own 

Quickseller,

Why do you keep on posting in this thread using multiple accounts?   Such blatant sockpuppetry isn't going to.fix your trust rating and it isn't going to make your fallacious thinking any more sound---ie, you aren't going to convince anyone just because you keep on repeating yourself under multiple usernames.