HONEST BITCOIN: DOUBLE YOUR BITCOINS. YES IT IS A PONZI.

[shefchenko17]

I see your point but this is not the way to stop/prevent it stealing from people. You could...IDK..learn to hack and hack their sites and return those BTC to the people may be?

[1715421117]

1715421117

[1715421117]

1715421117

[1715421117]

1715421117

[1715421117]

1715421117

[Honestbit]

I agree with cryptodevil. thanks to its work to alert members to the danger of these sites and double ponzi was possible to reduce the theft of btc by many scammer sites that have this forum


I even start discussing with cryptodevil up losing many of my btc for these scammer.


And remember that every double site coming this forum everyone including me invested in these sites and the sites disappeared two days later and only paid the first part of the value which is not 10% corresponded, and the result of this theft was seeing many members the cry that were stolen

And see that 8 doubles sites that appeared a day, all had the same pattern of operation ie all were / are managed by the same people and the bastards up laughing

I started to believe that cryptodevil had reason until I find a member of this forum which was to show on youtube who won 4 btc with your site double and he was laughing while many members were crying here in the forum

And another big scammer here forum found him in one of the forums to offer double free scripts that he had used to rob us here in the forum
this scammer had 18 double sites, all those sites that double scammer were very famous here and he did not regret it had in the other forum until bragged about stealing our bitcoins


Therefore: cryptodevil you should continue to send away those motherfuckers coming here with intent to steal.
And if you need help to remove these worms can count on me

What does this have to do with this thread?

[cryptodevil]

Well, there's the fact you're clearly lying about this being your first account on this forum.

[Honestbit]

Well, there's the fact you're clearly lying about this being your first account on this forum.

I'm sorry that great minds think alike. Also I'd like to point out that honest bitcoin has not "disappeared two days later"

[shefchenko17]

Well, there's the fact you're clearly lying about this being your first account on this forum.

I'm sorry that great minds think alike. Also I'd like to point out that honest bitcoin has not "disappeared two days later"

unfortunately we can say the same about cryptodevil

[cryptodevil]

Well, there's the fact you're clearly lying about this being your first account on this forum.

I'm sorry that great minds think alike. Also I'd like to point out that honest bitcoin has not "disappeared two days later"

That's not even relevant. Your lame 'Honest' ponzi scam attempt has failed miserably 13gbAFBZJ1Bk5KbWh37WbEdv1tioBHLVDr and so all you've got left is to keep floating bullshit dishonest argument. There's no reason for you to disappear because nobody would bother chasing you.

Eventually you'll get bored and stop posting from this alt account of yours, returning to your main account(s) to continue on with whatever bollocks you get up to there. Unless you are QS, which means you'll be unable to admit defeat and move on, leaving you to relentlessly post inane nonsensical fallacy-laden diatribe as you desperately try to prove you have a valid point to make.

[Honestbit]

Well, there's the fact you're clearly lying about this being your first account on this forum.

I'm sorry that great minds think alike. Also I'd like to point out that honest bitcoin has not "disappeared two days later"

That's not even relevant. Your lame 'Honest' ponzi scam attempt has failed miserably 13gbAFBZJ1Bk5KbWh37WbEdv1tioBHLVDr and so all you've got left is to keep floating bullshit dishonest argument. There's no reason for you to disappear because nobody would bother chasing you.

Eventually you'll get bored and stop posting from this alt account of yours, returning to your main account(s) to continue on with whatever bollocks you get up to there. Unless you are QS, which means you'll be unable to admit defeat and move on, leaving you to relentlessly post inane nonsensical fallacy-laden diatribe as you desperately try to prove you have a valid point to make.

Piece of advice: ad hominem attacks don't work. So let's say you hypothetically somehow prove that I am the same person as another person that most people here don't know.
1) Good job, you just proved something that's 100% untrue.
2) So what? You get high on endorphins...
3) In the meantime, I will continue advertising my ponzi.

Oh, and I noticed you dropped your facade about foreign investors...

[cryptodevil]

Oh, and I noticed you dropped your facade about foreign investors...

No I haven't, you simply insisted that by posting a list of wikipedia links in foreign languages was sufficient to guarantee that all participants would know what they were doing. I pointed out that was still not a 100% guarantee as there is no way for you to achieve 100% guaranteed fully-informed participation.

You, on the other hand, *have* since avoided your "show me which US law says my ponzi scheme is illegal" ignorant insistence when I linked to FTC documentation about the illegality of ponzi/pyramid schemes and pointed out that you need only let me know which US State you are in so I could cite the relevant legislation for you.

[Honestbit]

Oh, and I noticed you dropped your facade about foreign investors...

No I haven't, you simply insisted that by posting a list of wikipedia links in foreign languages was sufficient to guarantee that all participants would know what they were doing. I pointed out that was still not a 100% guarantee as there is no way for you to achieve 100% guaranteed fully-informed participation.

*fancy table turning*

But then again, there is not a 100% guarantee that we are all evolved from chickens and the world will end in 76 hours.

Your point is?

[cryptodevil]

My point is that your assertions which desperately try to justify and defend your ponzi scam as not being a scam or even illegal, are complete and utter toss. Not only is that my opinion, it is proven fact as demonstrated by my reasoned rebuttals to them.

[Honestbit]

My point is that your assertions which desperately try to justify and defend your ponzi scam as not being a scam or even illegal, are complete and utter toss. Not only is that my opinion, it is proven fact as demonstrated by my reasoned rebuttals to them.

Yet again you avoid the question of foreign investors and your need for 100% of them to understand. Maybe you should tour the world giving lessons on what poonzis are.

[cryptodevil]

It isn't my need for 100%, it is your need if you want to assert that your ponzi is 'honest'. That you can't means, quite simply, that you can't.

[Honestbit]

It isn't my need for 100%, it is your need if you want to assert that your ponzi is 'honest'. That you can't means, quite simply, that you can't.

I am being honest. People like you are being stupid. This is Honest Bitcoin, not Smart People Bitcoin

[cryptodevil]

It isn't my need for 100%, it is your need if you want to assert that your ponzi is 'honest'. That you can't means, quite simply, that you can't.

I am being honest. People like you are being stupid. This is Honest Bitcoin, not Smart People Bitcoin

Ah, so now you are claiming it is *you* who is being honest, as opposed to your ponzi scheme?

Because you are being honest about it being a ponzi scheme, that has never been the issue. The issue has always been that your scheme cannot be honest as long as there is a chance that a participant may not be fully-informed about how it functions.

Do you see how you fail at this? Your scheme can *never* be 'honest' as long as random internet strangers can be incited to participate.

[Honestbit]

It isn't my need for 100%, it is your need if you want to assert that your ponzi is 'honest'. That you can't means, quite simply, that you can't.

I am being honest. People like you are being stupid. This is Honest Bitcoin, not Smart People Bitcoin

Ah, so now you are claiming it is *you* who is being honest, as opposed to your ponzi scheme?

Because you are being honest about it being a ponzi scheme, that has never been the issue. The issue has always been that your scheme cannot be honest as long as there is a chance that a participant may not be fully-informed about how it functions.

Do you see how you fail at this? Your scheme can *never* be 'honest' as long as random internet strangers can be incited to participate.

Then we have a disagreement on the definition of the word honest. A google search gives "free of deceit and untruthfulness; sincere". I have not hidden the fact that profits are going to come from later investors. I have not hidden the fact that that business is currently slow. I have not hidden the fact that that I do not know how to code. I can keep going if you want. Honesty has everything to do with me and nothing to do with you.

[cryptodevil]

Honesty has everything to do with me and nothing to do with you.

You are dishonestly avoiding the fact I just raised about your scheme not being honest. So there's that evidence of you being dishonest for starters.

[shefchenko17]

Honesty has everything to do with me and nothing to do with you.

You are dishonestly avoiding the fact I just raised about your scheme not being honest. So there's that evidence of you being dishonest for starters.

Interesting...could you explain exactly how is his scheme being dishonest?

[cryptodevil]

Interesting...could you explain exactly how is his scheme being dishonest?

Seriously? How many ways do I need to explain it?

Actually, no, I take that back shefchenko, thank you! You've just proved to me that even when somebody claims to be fully-informed about a ponzi scheme they *still* can fail to understand it properly.

The issue has always been that your scheme cannot be honest as long as there is a chance that a participant may not be fully-informed about how it functions.

Do you see how you fail at this? Your scheme can *never* be 'honest' as long as random internet strangers can be incited to participate.

As long as there is a chance that the operator will knowingly take money from participants who might not properly understand the system then those who operate the scheme and those who willingly accept a share of the money from this inherently flawed process are doing so dishonestly when they claim it is an 'honest' ponzi.

If you cannot ensure 100% fully-informed participation, which you cannot as already proven, then you cannot claim your ponzi to be an honest system because it may contain funds from people who would otherwise not have sent them, had they actually fully understood what the scheme was.

[shefchenko17]

hahahahah you talk much, but say nothing. "as long as there is a chance that a participant may not be fully-informed about how it functions" ...I've a question for you are you fully informed? Is there anyway that could be fully informed? The man has explained that it is a ponzi, explained how ponzis work, explained that he would pay the old ones by the new ones' money...What else do you need to be explained? And please don't answer like before "you proved that ... some shit" "you fail by you own bla bla.." EXPLAAAAAAAAAIN us what else do you need?

[Honestbit]

Interesting...could you explain exactly how is his scheme being dishonest?

Seriously? How many ways do I need to explain it?

Actually, no, I take that back shefchenko, thank you! You've just proved to me that even when somebody claims to be fully-informed about a ponzi scheme they *still* can fail to understand it properly.

The issue has always been that your scheme cannot be honest as long as there is a chance that a participant may not be fully-informed about how it functions.

Do you see how you fail at this? Your scheme can *never* be 'honest' as long as random internet strangers can be incited to participate.

As long as there is a chance that the operator will knowingly take money from participants who might not properly understand the system then those who operate the scheme and those who willingly accept a share of the money from this inherently flawed process are doing so dishonestly when they claim it is an 'honest' ponzi.

If you cannot ensure 100% fully-informed participation, which you cannot as already proven, then you cannot claim your ponzi to be an honest system because it may contain funds from people who would otherwise not have sent them, had they actually fully understood what the scheme was.

I have a question for cryptodevil: is the Earth round?