Dooglus is supporting ponzis

[Heutenamos]

This completes the first part of my series of the transgressions of Dooglus
Part 1: Dooglus supporting ponzis  

This looks more like some kind of personal attack to smear Dooglus's reputation, especially with the last part of your comment.  I understand your overall point, but I don't believe that Dooglus's intent was to A) be part of a ponzi or B) make a profit from it.  I think you're mistaken and you need to consider the weight of the argument you're making with respect to the justification of it all.  I think you've made your point, nuff said.

People posting in those sections might also not have those intentions but he tags them ? all such things fall under "helping the operator"

Though ,I don't have anything personal with doo but i will never support the "abusive behavior".

Doo(a developer) helping an operator fix his script and let his site profit =  an MBA(marketing) expert helping an operator fix his business and let his site profit.

But he and his list members will tag the latter one which is simple manipulation and abuse.although ,I dont think he should be negged for this etc..but that is the shitty logic of some DT trolls on here ,so i am saying considering that.Everyone should do their due diligence before investing anything in anything is my opinion.

This completes the first part of my series of the transgressions of Dooglus
Part 1: Dooglus supporting ponzis  

This looks more like some kind of personal attack to smear Dooglus's reputation, especially with the last part of your comment.  I understand your overall point, but I don't believe that Dooglus's intent was to A) be part of a ponzi or B) make a profit from it.  I think you're mistaken and you need to consider the weight of the argument you're making with respect to the justification of it all.  I think you've made your point, nuff said.

Of course it is a smear campaign gainst dooglus, Quickseller wants to be on DT again while Doog who's currently in DT has crossed out QS... If Quickseller is known for one thing it's his smear campaigns.

No matter who says it.Observe what is being said.

[redsn0w]

This completes the first part of my series of the transgressions of Dooglus
Part 1: Dooglus supporting ponzis 

This looks more like some kind of personal attack to smear Dooglus's reputation, especially with the last part of your comment.  I understand your overall point, but I don't believe that Dooglus's intent was to A) be part of a ponzi or B) make a profit from it.  I think you're mistaken and you need to consider the weight of the argument you're making with respect to the justification of it all.  I think you've made your point, nuff said.

Of course it is a smear campaign against dooglus, Quickseller wants to be on DT again while Doog who's currently in DT has crossed out QS... If Quickseller is known for one thing it's his smear campaigns.

Exactly, a lot of times QS was right but other times completely wrong... Nothing of personal @QS .

[whywefight]

The purpose of this thread is to warn others about a small portion of dooglus's prior transgressions.

Noted.

I do believe that dooglus should be removed from DT.

Is this in your personal interest(for whatever reason) or in the communitys interest, or maybe both?

Although not for reasons listed in the OP (this will come later in my series).

I would like to see the full picture before giving a statement about it, anyways this is above my level of influence.

If you believe that someone who engaged in this kind of activity should be given negative trust and/or excluded from your trust list then I would
suggest doing so.

Yes i do. But as stated before, it doesnt work for things way back in the past. I made that timeframe limit after doing the coin-gnt feedbacks. It works like this: Posting a warining (PSA) that all future support will result in a negative feedback. Tag people who go on. The definition of support is: Promoting and advertising, this includes posting about investments, taking part in promotions. (Thats just how i personally handle it)

I am not sure if having code on your own repo is support. I also have forks of code in my repo that i dont support. I do so to be sure there is a copy of the code for future reference.

I would note that you did leave a negative rating for BSM for selling a ponzi script, and dooglus has one listed for free on his github account, so I think it would probably only be logical for you to leave him a negative trust rating.

BSM was advertising it and his intention was to sell it, it was not public available. In addition he told people first he would stop doing so but started to sell it again short after feedbacks were removed.

I understand the argument but i dont see doogs personal benefit of having the source in his repo. Yes, i am aware he did changes to it.

[Slowturtleinc]

Want to touch on a issue brought up here about people active in threads like this not negatively commenting on the people they feel should have it.
Since I am not in DT my trust comments would do nothing and appear as trolling from a unknown account,so thats most people not in DT.
The people in DT usually tend to follow/support those that brought them into the tree and the tree works more like a gang than a actual trust system. So you risk retaliation from people you have never interacted with.
This is my observation on a lot of the trust squabbles we see here and those that actually do not care are quickly dismissed in one form or another as a troll,sock puppet or mental health. Its kind of sad that a good idea seems to have been corrupted for the better interests of those in it,as opposed to the whole forum working together.

The more you write the more people nit pick the words or ask for references to distract from the situation.

This is not unique to just this forum,seems a natural cycle for any power set up.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Back to the show...

***Will stay out from now on,I promise. Please hit me on p.m if you want me to address anything else.

[CryptoDatabase]

Why is it so hard to just delete the repo from github and end this all together?

As Dooglus stated he only fixed it for a person. Well you fixed it so you no longer need it so why is it still there?

Saving it for 'reference' isn't a viable answer as you have stated it can be found elsewhere.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

This completes the first part of my series of the transgressions of Dooglus
Part 1: Dooglus supporting ponzis  

This looks more like some kind of personal attack to smear Dooglus's reputation, especially with the last part of your comment.  I understand your overall point, but I don't believe that Dooglus's intent was to A) be part of a ponzi or B) make a profit from it.  I think you're mistaken and you need to consider the weight of the argument you're making with respect to the justification of it all.  I think you've made your point, nuff said.

Of course it is a smear campaign against dooglus, Quickseller wants to be on DT again while Doog who's currently in DT has crossed out QS... If Quickseller is known for one thing it's his smear campaigns.

And aside from anything dooglus did or his status on DT or future status---QS should absolutely not be back on DT.  I was chagrined to see his red trust score come down when escrow.ms got booted.  But I've removed DT from my trust list anyway.  This whole drama, the dooglus thing included, is fucking high school bullshit.

[dooglus]

why is doo going insane levels to tag people who make a post in the ponzi section?

I'm not. I didn't post much feedback at all recently.

You may be thinking of cryptodevil?

to increase the flow in those ponzi which he is working for ? or making the code right so that people lose money ?

I'm not working for a Ponzi. I was looking at the Ponzi script that Klye was using many months ago and saw an obvious bug in it. There was an exclamation mark where there shouldn't be. So I forked the repository and removed the exclamation mark. I also deleted 5 lines of code that weren't needed. That is the sum total of my "contribution" to the script - I deleted 5 lines and an exclamation mark.

Here's the first line I deleted: https://github.com/dooglus/CryptoPonzi/commit/e71472

Here's the next 4 lines and the exclamation mark I deleted: https://github.com/dooglus/CryptoPonzi/commit/6b26cd

Pretty far fetched to call that "working for a Ponzi"!

Why he and his list members harass & force users to not to take part into it?

My list members? What list? I don't harass anyone or force anyone to do or not to do anything. If you're referring again to cryptodevil, I think he is only tagging people who are promoting Ponzi schemes. It seems he and I disagree about the scaminess of "honest Ponzis" but overall I think he's doing a good thing in tagging Ponzi promoters.

whatever be the reason but both the actions contradict each other.

It might be a little off topic but only a retarded motherfucker or a dishonest businessman can say that people who wear a signature or post in a ponzi thread are the scammers or are liable in any sense.

I think you might be offtopic. This thread is for QS to make weird allegations about how I support Ponzis.

People posting in those sections might also not have those intentions but he tags them ? all such things fall under "helping the operator"

Again, you're mixing me up with someone else.

Though ,I don't have anything personal with doo but i will never support the "abusive behavior".

So don't. Stand up against abuse whenever you see it. I personally don't find it abuse when people who advertize Ponzi scams get negative feedback saying that they advertize Ponzi scams, but if you disagree you are welcome to stand up for the rights of the Ponzi scammers.

Doo(a developer) helping an operator fix his script and let his site profit =  an MBA(marketing) expert helping an operator fix his business and let his site profit.

Klye was running an honest Ponzi, but using a crappy script to do so. He couldn't figure out what was going wrong with it, so I took a look. I fixed the first bug I found with it, then realised how crappy the script was and recommended that he should stop using it.

Everyone should do their due diligence before investing anything in anything is my opinion.

I agree completely.

No matter who says it.Observe what is being said.

What is being said here is that I am untrustworthy for fixing a bug in some open source code that I saw.

For me, fixing bugs in open source software is like picking up trash you see on the sidewalk. If everyone did it, we'd have better code and cleaner sidewalks for all. If I see some trash on the sidewalk outside of a known gangster's house I don't refuse to pick it up because someone might accuse me of "supporting" the gangster. I pick it up because it shouldn't be there no matter what. Dumb analogy. Whatever. Check my github account - I've forked lots of projects to make a one-off fix. That's how you make changes to github projects. Fork, edit, merge.

Why is it so hard to just delete the repo from github and end this all together?

As Dooglus stated he only fixed it for a person. Well you fixed it so you no longer need it so why is it still there?

Saving it for 'reference' isn't a viable answer as you have stated it can be found elsewhere.

It isn't hard to delete the repo. The only reason I didn't delete it already is that QS would spin that into proof that I have something to hide.

Note that deleting the repo wouldn't "end this all together". No matter what I do QS will continue making a big deal out of this and other assorted imagined wrongdoings forever.

My only two changes:

https://github.com/dooglus/CryptoPonzi/commit/e71472 - Remove unused variable.

Code:

-	$adresses = array();

https://github.com/dooglus/CryptoPonzi/commit/6b26cd - Fix getAddress() so it correctly finds the address to which the first input was sent.

Code:

-		if ($vinvout == 1)
-			$vinvout = 0;
-		else
-			$vinvout = 1;
-		
-		$address = $transactionin['vout'][!$vinvout]['scriptPubKey']['addresses'][0];
+		$address = $transactionin['vout'][$vinvout]['scriptPubKey']['addresses'][0];

Hardly worth 'preserving'. Note how every line but one starts with a '-'? That means I deleted lines. The only line without a '-' at the start is where I removed a '!' character.

[Quickseller]

BAC left Dooglus a negative rating and Dooglus excluded BAC from his trust list, which puts him close to being out of the DT network. Dooglus excluded me around the time I was questioning him about his reputation loan to tspacepilot, and while I was still on BadBear's and Tomatocage's trust list.

I'm still not seeing a problem. If someone values their position in DT more than exposing a scammer that's really not the right example to bring up here. Not to mention that neither one of you was harmed in any way by the exclusion, the trust system worked as it was supposed to.

You don't think it is a problem when someone excludes someone else when they are questioned or receive negative trust? Someone in dooglus's position can effectively since those criticizing them, and can create an environment in which people may be intimidated about questioning him, or agreeing with those that question him. You can also say that negative trust does not harm a person because it does not prevent them from trading with others. 

I am only speculating, and I cannot speak for those who have left negatives for those that promoted ponzis and those that have sold ponzi scripts but have not left negative trust for Dooglus yet. I do know that Vod once offered to give up his account when BadBear was threatening to exclude Vod from his trust list in order to avoid being removed from DT. I would also point out that those that are leaving most of the negative trust for those accosiated and participating in ponzis appear to be trying to make a name for themselves, or at least that is how they come across to me -- this is getting a little off topic though.

At least some of "those who have left negatives for those that promoted ponzis" seem to not think that dooglus did anything wrong (I think we had cryptodevil and whywefight in this thread already). Not sure what Vod has to do with anything but let me remind you what I stated originally:

Which is why I still don't understand why some posters even in this thread are not negging dooglus but for some reason are expecting others to do that. If anyone distrusts dooglus for the reasons presented in the OP or any other reasons - just go ahead and do it, how hard can it possibly be.

Especially now that the thread is back in Scam Accusations it would feel really bizarre if negs wouldn't start pouring in. Could it have something to do with the lack of an actual scam, attempt to scam, intent to scam, support for a scam, etc?

You don't think that coding a script for a ponzi is not support for a ponzi? That sounds like the definition of supporting a ponzi to me. Without the help of dooglus, any ponzi that was using the script in question would not have been able to steal money from others.

cloverme --

This completes the first part of my series of the transgressions of Dooglus
Part 1: Dooglus supporting ponzis 

This looks more like some kind of personal attack to smear Dooglus's reputation, especially with the last part of your comment.  I understand your overall point, but I don't believe that Dooglus's intent was to A) be part of a ponzi or B) make a profit from it.  I think you're mistaken and you need to consider the weight of the argument you're making with respect to the justification of it all.  I think you've made your point, nuff said.

dooglus has a very long history of profiting from when other people have been scammed to the point of tens of thousands of dollars, and the amount of money stolen as a result of these scams is to the tune of millions of dollars. He also has a long history of hacking sites, and other transgressions that I intend on exposing, and preventing others from getting scammed similarly in the future.

MRKYLE --

responding to this in the correct thread

I, for the record never scammed anyone,

Right, "never" lol

Now, I'm not exactly sure where you get off calling out dooglus for giving a hand to a person operating a site that for the record no user ever lost any CLAM on and that all payments were paid out.

--snip--

Given the fact that the clambaker site was closed only after it had fully refunded the remaining waiting payments and no one lost anything on it besides the owner paying out the remaining investments out of pocket your scam accusation and shitposting is absolutely unwarranted and frankly you have no ground to stand on with your accusation.

So do you admit that you were behind this ponzi? Or are you just speculating that no one lost any money via the clambaker ponzi?

Calling out dooglus on this scam accusation was dumb. But calling me out was probably a bad judgement call on your part.
At the very least I'm honest enough to admit I've fucked up and try to rectify what's been done, Same cannot be said for you.

I, for the record never scammed anyone,

Hmmm, it doesn't look like you have admitted very much.


Anyone that has lost money as a result of the clambaker ponzi or any other ponzi that used the same script as listed/referenced in the OP can post here with the amount they lost.

[CryptoDatabase]

It isn't hard to delete the repo. The only reason I didn't delete it already is that QS would spin that into proof that I have something to hide.

Note that deleting the repo wouldn't "end this all together". No matter what I do QS will continue making a big deal out of this and other assorted imagined wrongdoings forever.

Occasionally a sliver of light slides into the darkness, in this case it just happened to be the github repo of the ponzi script. Everything else he says is mostly full of shit.

Personally I couldn't care about ponzis as I stated earlier but due to the recent mass ruin of dozens of accounts that just happened to post in a ponzi thread I feel that everyone should be held accountable not just the new people.

The eggs don't add up that those who host ponzis and those who just make a simple post asking about a particular ponzi in a thread get negged by DT members but actually giving public access to a ponzi source code is ok. That just doesn't sound right to me.

Hell, I wouldn't even be posting here if I didn't catch the word Ponzi in the thread title, wouldn't even have read the thread.

Either that policy needs to change or it needs to be applied to everything related to ponzis with no exceptions to it. It is either ok, or it's not ok, there can't be any loopholes or 'overlooked' things.

Going back to QS, it most likely wont end for his part but any validity that he may have had with this thread would be gone if the github repo was just removed. He was full of shit while on DT and is still full of shit to this day.

[Heutenamos]

why is doo going insane levels to tag people who make a post in the ponzi section?

I'm not. I didn't post much feedback at all recently.

You may be thinking of cryptodevil?

No,doo if you dont stop the person in your list and say you completely agree with him then you both are one appeal on this context but with different bodies or color's.

Doo(a developer) helping an operator fix his script and let his site profit =  an MBA(marketing) expert helping an operator fix his business and let his site profit.

Klye was running an honest Ponzi, but using a crappy script to do so. He couldn't figure out what was going wrong with it, so I took a look. I fixed the first bug I found with it, then realised how crappy the script was and recommended that he should stop using it.

It's not what you think doo.The rule should be the same for one & all.Either you change your insanity on Ponzi or resign from the position you hold as you contradicted your own believes and principles. Doesn't matters if that was your interest or what but your action supported a Ponzi.

Everyone should do their due diligence before investing anything in anything is my opinion.

I agree completely.

No you don't.You would have removed CD if you did.

Either that policy needs to change or it needs to be applied to everything related to ponzis with no exceptions to it. It is either ok, or it's not ok, there can't be any loopholes or 'overlooked' things.

Going back to QS, it most likely wont end for his part but any validity that he may have had with this thread would be gone if the github repo was just removed. He was full of shit while on DT and is still full of shit to this day.

Exactly.It's not bout the OP saying but doo supported a Ponzi.No loopholes 

[cryptodevil]

Everyone should do their due diligence before investing anything in anything is my opinion.

I agree completely.

No you don't.You would have removed CD if you did.

Riggggght, so anybody on DT who adds somebody else is required to agree with absolutely everything they say? I must have missed that rule, can you point it out for me?

I was under the impression that adding someone to your trust list was because you generally trusted their ratings to be correct. But you're saying that isn't true, that there is a hidden rule somewhere which actually declares some kind of symbiotic morality requirement?

Dooglus and I have a different opinion on 'Honest' Ponzi schemes, that is all. Seeing as not many people bother trying to fly that particular approach to running their scam, asides from QS as 'Honestbit' who as a US resident is actually prohibited by law from operating and promoting his "Hey we're a Ponzi" Ponzi, it isn't something that comes up that often. So we generally do agree on most issues concerning ponzis, just not that one.

For a minor difference of opinion about this to draw the spittle-flecked rage of ponzi-whores is absurd.

QS, why don't you and your sock-puppets take a break from the internet for an hour or two. Take a shower, clean yourself up, go for a walk in the sunshine for a little while. It'll do you the power of good.

[CryptoDatabase]

3. Posting of your participation in any form in their threads is UNDENIABLE PROOF that you don't give a shit about other users being ripped off.

Posting about it is worthy of a negative rating but hosting the source code is ok to do.

Curious, if I went and posted a thread with this same exact ponzi script linking to his github for download how long would it take before you would give me a negative rating?

Look what I found, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1345741.0

Someone already has been negged by 2 default trust users here for using Dooglus's repod github of this script to scam people...

Some more infos:

The fee is deducted from the payout.
So if you throw 0.001 in you get 0.00195 out.

i'm not 100% happy with that behaviour, and probably will change in the future.
but for now it stays like that.

secondly.
script runs on a middle-class server.
I do not expect any problems, but should the unlikely event happen and there is a big rush,
and the server breaks down, do not to burst into a panic. I upgrade it as soon as possible.

script is based on this opensource one: https://github.com/Crypton33/CryptoPonzi
or more specific on the modified from ClamBaker / Dooglus: https://github.com/ClamBaker/CryptoPonzi

so all kodus go to this guys and girls.

now have fun and earn some coins!

 

Seeing as you posted your little warning on that thread I take it you already knew this but chose to ignore it.

There is a very good possibility that this site, https://cryptospout.com/blowout/clam_blowout.html , is using the same script to operate their ponzi with as well.

[Heutenamos]

He is an obvious alt account which is solely made to troll or distract people from the point.It is also not a co-incidence that he is under doo.

I bet if someone else would have done such a thing then people would have made that person red in a matter of seconds.

[cryptodevil]

3. Posting of your participation in any form in their threads is UNDENIABLE PROOF that you don't give a shit about other users being ripped off.

Posting about it is worthy of a negative rating but hosting the source code is ok to do.

Logic fail.

He did not 'post about it' in the thread, he merely confirmed he had fixed some bugs and stated that the code was shit and shouldn't be used on a live system. That is not 'posting of your participation' in the ponzi.

Curious, if I went and posted a thread with this same exact ponzi script linking to his github for download how long would it take before you would give me a negative rating?

I don't know, depends on whether I'm about at my desk when you do.

If you posted a link encouraging people to download it so they could run their own ponzi schemes, it would warrant tagging you. If you posted a link discussing the shonky code inside it, that is something else.

Next.

[CryptoDatabase]

3. Posting of your participation in any form in their threads is UNDENIABLE PROOF that you don't give a shit about other users being ripped off.

Posting about it is worthy of a negative rating but hosting the source code is ok to do.

Logic fail.

He did not 'post about it' in the thread, he merely confirmed he had fixed some bugs and stated that the code was shit and shouldn't be used on a live system. That is not 'posting of your participation' in the ponzi.

Curious, if I went and posted a thread with this same exact ponzi script linking to his github for download how long would it take before you would give me a negative rating?

I don't know, depends on whether I'm about at my desk when you do.

If you posted a link encouraging people to download it so they could run their own ponzi schemes, it would warrant tagging you. If you posted a link discussing the shonky code inside it, that is something else.

Next.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=658125.msg13858034#msg13858034

Using my nifty Googling skills there is all sorts of info pertaining to the code that Dooglus fixed being used massively to scam people.

You are just showing how two faced you are. It isn't ok for new people to have anything to do with ponzis but its ok for DT users to host it as a repo on their github while it is actively being used to scam people with.

It's ok though, blocking you from my trust list as you can no longer be trusted to do what is right.
Next.

[suchmoon]

BAC left Dooglus a negative rating and Dooglus excluded BAC from his trust list, which puts him close to being out of the DT network. Dooglus excluded me around the time I was questioning him about his reputation loan to tspacepilot, and while I was still on BadBear's and Tomatocage's trust list.

I'm still not seeing a problem. If someone values their position in DT more than exposing a scammer that's really not the right example to bring up here. Not to mention that neither one of you was harmed in any way by the exclusion, the trust system worked as it was supposed to.

You don't think it is a problem when someone excludes someone else when they are questioned or receive negative trust?

No, I don't think it's a problem. For example I'm excluding people who I think are using the trust system to arbitrate their personal squabbles (so I can't rely on their trust ratings) and I don't think there is any problem with that even if they happen to leave me negative feedback or question me. It's an essential feature of the trust system and two DT1 exclusions are needed for a DT2 member so I'm still failing to see how that could prevent anyone from speaking out against a scammer.

Someone in dooglus's position can effectively since those criticizing them, and can create an environment in which people may be intimidated about questioning him, or agreeing with those that question him. You can also say that negative trust does not harm a person because it does not prevent them from trading with others. 

Apples and cabbages, as we have already established that dooglus didn't neg BAC or yourself. I will say however that you still failed to address the major underlying flaw in your argument, which is:

One should not value their position in DT more than exposing a scammer. Would you disagree?

You don't think that coding a script for a ponzi is not support for a ponzi? That sounds like the definition of supporting a ponzi to me. Without the help of dooglus, any ponzi that was using the script in question would not have been able to steal money from others.

I think that's the part that's missing from your scam accusation. How much did dooglus steal?

[minifrij]

..and two DT1 exclusions are needed for a DT2 member so I'm still failing to see how that could prevent anyone from speaking out against a scammer.

BAC left Dooglus a negative rating and Dooglus excluded BAC from his trust list, which puts him close to being out of the DT network.

Basically QS is gripping at straws to try and justify his petty arguments with other people.

He is an obvious alt account which is solely made to troll or distract people from the point.

What point? I don't see CD trying to distract from anything. If anything, by tagging those who take part in Ponzis he is bringing it closer to light.

It is also not a co-incidence that he is under doo.

Nice conspiracy. have you got any evidence towards that, or are you just trying to push the anti-CD circle-jerk more?

You don't think that coding a script for a ponzi is not support for a ponzi?

Fixing a bug in a script != coding a script. I've fixed bugs in scripts previously, I cannot then put that on my portfolio and imply that I made it.

Without the help of dooglus, any ponzi that was using the script in question would not have been able to steal money from others.

You're over exaggerating again. Do you really think that the 5 lines doog fixed were so detrimental to the script that it would have rendered the script unusable? I can almost guarantee that the script was used prior to dooglus' involvement, and had been used to steal money from others. Trying to argue that he had such a large effect on the script is stupid, as it is plainly obvious he didn't.

dooglus has a very long history of profiting from when other people have been scammed to the point of tens of thousands of dollars...

I would ask for evidence, though I can already tell you're just going to bring up the dicebitco.in signature campaign again.

...and the amount of money stolen as a result of these scams is to the tune of millions of dollars.

Hey, remember when you worked directly with TF to try and get a lawsuit against Vod (where he sent you money towards it)? TF, someone who single-handedly stole over $1,500,000 (at current prices) from people using his services, sent money he stole from others directly to you?
Yeah me neither. What am I talking about, burn dooglus for advertising a site that scammed!

Really QS, this is starting to get a bit sad. Do you really have nothing better to do with your time than follow internet vendettas against people who don't trust you?

[dooglus]

You don't think that coding a script for a ponzi is not support for a ponzi? That sounds like the definition of supporting a ponzi to me. Without the help of dooglus, any ponzi that was using the script in question would not have been able to steal money from others.

Again, I didn't code a script. I removed some code from a pre-existing script.

Any Ponzi actually using the script would have quicky realised they were paying the wrong people. It takes very little effort by anyone with familiarity of coding and Bitcoin to locate and remove the error in the script. To say that without my help no Ponzi using the script would have been able to use it to steal money is simply wrong.

dooglus has a very long history of profiting from when other people have been scammed to the point of tens of thousands of dollars, and the amount of money stolen as a result of these scams is to the tune of millions of dollars.

Maybe you should clear this up. The way write it appears to imply that the people being scammed was somehow related to me profiting. I suspect that what you are referring to is when I played and invested at a couple of dice sites run by scammers. I was lucky not to be scammed myself by those scammers, yet you twist the reality to try to make it look as if I was somehow to blame.

He also has a long history of hacking sites, and other transgressions that I intend on exposing, and preventing others from getting scammed similarly in the future.

More weasel words. You know how the word "hacking" has both ethical and blackhat meanings. I have never "hacked" a site in the way you are implying. I have found vulnerabilities in sites and reported them to the site owners.

Maybe you should get to exposing these "transgressions" rather than hinting at them. Let the people see that what you have amounts to a big pile of nothing.

Given the fact that the clambaker site was closed only after it had fully refunded the remaining waiting payments and no one lost anything on it besides the owner paying out the remaining investments out of pocket your scam accusation and shitposting is absolutely unwarranted and frankly you have no ground to stand on with your accusation.

So do you admit that you were behind this ponzi? Or are you just speculating that no one lost any money via the clambaker ponzi?

This is the Klye that first showed me the Ponzi script he was using, yes. Are there multiple Klye's in this space?

Posting about it is worthy of a negative rating but hosting the source code is ok to do.

I have pushed a commit to my fork of the CryptoPonzi repository removing all the code and editing the README to say not to use the code.

    https://github.com/dooglus/CryptoPonzi

[CryptoDatabase]

I have pushed a commit to my fork of the CryptoPonzi repository removing all the code and editing the README to say not to use the code.

    https://github.com/dooglus/CryptoPonzi

Great, thanks. One less way for folks to abuse that script.

[TECSHARE]

I have pushed a commit to my fork of the CryptoPonzi repository removing all the code and editing the README to say not to use the code.

    https://github.com/dooglus/CryptoPonzi

Capitulating to these stalkers and trust dictators only feeds their behavior. This was a bad move IMO. Almost no one was buying this bullshit, and the ones that were seemingly were simply opposed to the people within your trust list who are trying to dictate to everyone else what they can and can not do here based on their own personal preferences, not the forum rules. This is totally antithetical to what Bitcoin was created for.

This is why this forum is shit, because all that one needs to do is gangstalk the more reputable members and they capitulate out of fear of losing their position in the trust system. In effect anyone within the trust system is either corrupt or spineless and stands for nothing. If you stand for nothing, you fall for everything. You in effect just paid the ransom to the people who are trying to kidnap your reputation, and now they will want more, and more, and more, and when there is nothing more left to take they will just kill your rep anyway.