Dooglus is supporting ponzis

[whywefight]

Scammers Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3420

What happened:: In October 2015 Dooglus edited code for a ponzi script in order to fix some bugs with said ponzi script.

Reference Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1216193.0;all (archive), https://github.com/dooglus/CryptoPonzi (archive) and https://github.com/dooglus/CryptoPonzi/branches (archive)

It seems that some people feel that "supporting" a ponzi in any way is considered to be scamming, and editing code for a ponzi certainly would fall under the category of "supporting" a ponzi.

Even more people are strongly against the sale of ponzi scripts and the advertising of a ponzi in their signature, which is very similar to the benefits that dooglus has provided.

Additional Notes: The ponzi in question claims to be "risk free" because if not enough people continue to "invest" in the ponzi that you will receive returns via POS staking, however this is simply not true because the CLAMs you send to the ponzi will be used to payout previous "investors" leaving nothing to stake. This means that not only was dooglus supporting a ponzi, but he was supporting a ponzi that was dishonest about the risks involved in "playing" such ponzi.

This completes the first part of my series of the transgressions of Dooglus
Part 1: Dooglus supporting ponzis  [/url]

As far as i know (assuming the topic would be still a live) a PSA would be posted and everyone advertising or supporting the ponzi after that will be tagged. Thats how CD does it and its posted here how it works.

So the main question for me is now: Is this topic about supporting the fight against ponzis or is this a gathering of some old fags that are butthurt for whatever reasons, throwing dirt at each other. If its the second thing then: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRBs_F74Nek

In addition: How about working on the current problems instead of dragging out personal bitchfights in public? Well, everybody is free to start where ever he wants...

Want me to post an PSA in that thread??

For QS it's more than likely a vendetta but he does bring up a good point.

With the current anti-ponzi view going on in the forum it looks really bad when someone who's voice seems to matter actively fixes and provides a ponzi script for download via their github.

It looks even worse when others who voices seem to matter as well chime in with support for doing this.

Personally I couldn't care less if people do whatever with ponzis as its a good lesson to those that get scammed to not do it again. Lessons learned are best done the hard way.

But if rules apply for some then they must apply to all.

Like posted before, if the post is addressed to CD, he would post a PSA and tag all future supporters. Thats why my question is: What is the thread really about?

Speaking so, i could post a PSA and i would tag doog if he goes on supporting it after that post. we all knew: this will not happen.

[alani123]

I think that this is a little pretentious. Don't get me wrong, it's ok to discuss people's actions and question their reputation but why is this scam accusation submitted by someone that wasn't scammed? Dooglus was very clear about what he was developing. I'd say that by being in the crypto space for so long one should have grown some tolerance for the mere existence of financial schemes and activities that would have been unacceptable in most other occasions. There are just so many and in this case it seems to me as though Quickseller is trying to dig out old and now irrelevant information to damage dooglus. I don't know why that is though, maybe it boils down to a personal conflict without anything overly serious at stake.

There is obviously more to it, just quoting the most recent one:

I also don't think the forum is turning a blink eye towards Vod's abusive nature, nor his abusive trust ratings. Vod already has one exclusion and the only person on "level 1" in the DT network, dooglus is anticipated of being removed from DT -- I need to bother to gather the necessary evidence, and make the necessary arguments. BadBear has threatened to exclude Vod from his trust list on at least one occasion, and had (temporally) added one person to his trust list that really should not have been in his trust list who gave Vod a negative rating that was likely an effort to calm Vod down. Tomatocage was not happy with Vod's propensity to dox people that Vod does not like, and I have been told that BadBear does not like this either. I also believe that theymos used to have Vod in his trust list, which is not the case currently.

Oh right! And now that you mention it, dooglus has crossed out Quickseller from default trust.

Conflict of interest alert...

[CryptoDatabase]

Scammers Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3420

What happened:: In October 2015 Dooglus edited code for a ponzi script in order to fix some bugs with said ponzi script.

Reference Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1216193.0;all (archive), https://github.com/dooglus/CryptoPonzi (archive) and https://github.com/dooglus/CryptoPonzi/branches (archive)

It seems that some people feel that "supporting" a ponzi in any way is considered to be scamming, and editing code for a ponzi certainly would fall under the category of "supporting" a ponzi.

Even more people are strongly against the sale of ponzi scripts and the advertising of a ponzi in their signature, which is very similar to the benefits that dooglus has provided.

Additional Notes: The ponzi in question claims to be "risk free" because if not enough people continue to "invest" in the ponzi that you will receive returns via POS staking, however this is simply not true because the CLAMs you send to the ponzi will be used to payout previous "investors" leaving nothing to stake. This means that not only was dooglus supporting a ponzi, but he was supporting a ponzi that was dishonest about the risks involved in "playing" such ponzi.

This completes the first part of my series of the transgressions of Dooglus
Part 1: Dooglus supporting ponzis  [/url]

As far as i know (assuming the topic would be still a live) a PSA would be posted and everyone advertising or supporting the ponzi after that will be tagged. Thats how CD does it and its posted here how it works.

So the main question for me is now: Is this topic about supporting the fight against ponzis or is this a gathering of some old fags that are butthurt for whatever reasons, throwing dirt at each other. If its the second thing then: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRBs_F74Nek

In addition: How about working on the current problems instead of dragging out personal bitchfights in public? Well, everybody is free to start where ever he wants...

Want me to post an PSA in that thread??

For QS it's more than likely a vendetta but he does bring up a good point.

With the current anti-ponzi view going on in the forum it looks really bad when someone who's voice seems to matter actively fixes and provides a ponzi script for download via their github.

It looks even worse when others who voices seem to matter as well chime in with support for doing this.

Personally I couldn't care less if people do whatever with ponzis as its a good lesson to those that get scammed to not do it again. Lessons learned are best done the hard way.

But if rules apply for some then they must apply to all.

Like posted before, if the post is addressed to CD, he would post a PSA and tag all future supporters. Thats why my question is: What is the thread really about?

Speaking so, i could post a PSA and i would tag doog if he goes on supporting it after that post. we all knew: this will not happen.

A PSA warning users about the CryptoPonzi script would be a good thing for the community as it will make more people aware of it and they can watch out for websites that use it.

Edit- On a side note, a stickied thread with the current and past ponzis may be beneficial as well or possibly a detailed guide on how to tell when a site is operating like a ponzi as a warning to people.

[Zeke2345]

Why does this issue pop up from time to time,it never goes anywhere and comes across as sour grapes.
I know little of the issue but see it posted frequently enough that I know it just turns into a flame war eventually.
Not saying either side is right and would like to see a final outcome for this sooner than latter.
Serves as a good distraction but achieves little.

Still need a popcorn emoticon

Do not mind me,can see its getting turbulent now.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I think that this is a little pretentious. Don't get me wrong, it's ok to discuss people's actions and question their reputation but why is this scam accusation submitted by someone that wasn't scammed? Dooglus was very clear about what he was developing. I'd say that by being in the crypto space for so long one should have grown some tolerance for the mere existence of financial schemes and activities that would have been unacceptable in most other occasions. There are just so many and in this case it seems to me as though Quickseller is trying to dig out old and now irrelevant information to damage dooglus. I don't know why that is though, maybe it boils down to a personal conflict without anything overly serious at stake.

It's the new dt brigade who've been negging users extremely liberally,  as has already been mentioned.   I would say if dooglus doesn't get negged it's sketchy as fuck.  And for the record,  I think a lot of the negs I've seen for ponzis are undeserved.

And then there's quickseller who's the last person on earth who should be running his mouth.   But that's off topic.

[whywefight]

It's the new dt brigade who've been negging users extremely liberally,  as has already been mentioned.   I would say if dooglus doesn't get negged it's sketchy as fuck.  And for the record,  I think a lot of the negs I've seen for ponzis are undeserved.

Still it seems, most people didnt even care to read CD's anouncment OR really looking up the feedbacks. Otherwise there wouldnt be random inaccurate statements like this. I am not saying you do it all the time, i just picked this one.

[Vod]

OP - he who lives in a glass house should not throw stones.

Dooglus is honest.  You are not.

Left for chuckles:   
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1179238.msg12603059#msg12603059

[suchmoon]

It's the new dt brigade who've been negging users extremely liberally,  as has already been mentioned.   I would say if dooglus doesn't get negged it's sketchy as fuck.  And for the record,  I think a lot of the negs I've seen for ponzis are undeserved.

Which is why there is the "~" feature.

However even by those "extremely liberal" standards, and even assuming that some other newbie user had done the same thing -  it doesn't appear that a neg trust would have been posted. There was no PSA and there was no actual support for the ponzi, quite the contrary.

I'm not aware of any DT1-2 member negging coders for making changes to open source software that might be used for scamming but I'm sure someone will let me know if I'm wrong.

[Slowturtleinc]

OP - he who lives in a glass house should not throw stones.

Dooglus is honest.  You are not.

Left for chuckles:   
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1179238.msg12603059#msg12603059

Just watching some of dooglus responses in other threads I would not say he is completely out in the clear on this. Just a personal observation,each his own right.
But at the same time I think QS has been beating a dead horse here for a well,the link made me recall laughing as the shit was flung around.

[redsn0w]

Get a life Quickseller.

How can't I quote you?

@quickseller,

Dooglus doesn't support ponzis... he only fixed some bug in that code =! support ponzi.


Quickseller , really get a life ... there are a lot of good/fantastic things outside your room !


PS: take it only as a suggestion, nothing of personal.

[CryptoDatabase]

Dooglus doesn't support ponzis...

As long as he is publicly offering ponzi scripts for download he is. Not sure why people just keep overlooking this.

It's one thing to fix some code for someone, it's another to host it on their github for everyone to download long after the fact.

"Hey, here is a ponzi source ready to go for you, use my personal link and share it with all of your friends. Remember to use the tutorial I provide at the link so you know how to properly set it up"

Come on folks, we all know the definition of support and what it means. Lets not act like we don't.

[redsn0w]

Dooglus doesn't support ponzis...

As long as he is publicly offering ponzi scripts for download he is. Not sure why people just keep overlooking this.

It's one thing to fix some code for someone, it's another to host it on their github for everyone to download long after the fact.

"Hey, here is a ponzi source ready to go for you, use my personal link and share it with all of your friends. Remember to use the tutorial I provide at the link so you know how to properly set it up"

Come on folks, we all know the definition of support and what it means. Lets not act like we don't.

Then... what does quickseller want at the end of the story ? The removal of dooglus from the depth 1 of the trust list/system ?

[CryptoDatabase]

Dooglus doesn't support ponzis...

As long as he is publicly offering ponzi scripts for download he is. Not sure why people just keep overlooking this.

It's one thing to fix some code for someone, it's another to host it on their github for everyone to download long after the fact.

"Hey, here is a ponzi source ready to go for you, use my personal link and share it with all of your friends. Remember to use the tutorial I provide at the link so you know how to properly set it up"

Come on folks, we all know the definition of support and what it means. Lets not act like we don't.

Then... what does quickseller want at the end of the story ? The removal of dooglus from the depth 1 of the trust list/system ?

I honestly don't care what QS wants as he is a liar and cannot be trusted.

I just want everyone to be held accountable for applied rules with NO exceptions.

[Quickseller]

Salty -

I guess if we are trying to get rid of the philosophy of ponzis, and get straight to the question, does Dooglus owe anyone money?

That depends on the jurisdiction of a court in which litigation is potentially taken against dooglus, as well as the tort laws in such jurisdiction, however I would err on the side of "yes".

The allegation in the OP is that dooglus (helped) create a product that was designed to ultimately steal from others. This means that anytime any ponzi operator had previously used his script to steal money from others, that he would likely be considered to be an accomplice to such theft. According to this, there is no distinction between an accomplice and the person who actually commits the tort, although it is likely that the accomplice would not be liable for 100% of the damages.

A Gun Manufacturer can potentially (Page 2, last paragraph), be held liable if they knowingly sell a gun to someone they know will subsequently use said gun to commit a crime of violence (or a drug trafficking crime).

A bartender can be potentially held liable if s/he knowingly (or should have known) servers a drink to a drunk person, and said drunk person subsequently kills someone while driving while still drunk.

Both of the above examples are very similar to dooglus creating a product whose only potential use is to eventually scam people.

MRKLYE -

Additional Notes: Any amount of clam no matter how trivial has a chance to stake.. SO your point on your additional note isn't valid.

It has a chance to stake, however the chance is not very high with small amounts of CLAM in a wallet/address.

P.S. Going after people on this forum that have been proven trustworthy with over 60M worth of bitcoin for giving a buddy a hand with some code is pure fucking faggotry,

Oh, so just because someone has been trusted with a lot of money in the past, they should be given a free pass in being able to do whatever they want in the future....you should vote for Hilary.

Slandering others doesn't make you more credible, It just makes you look like an upset child.

Slander? What have I said here that is incorrect? Please point it out

The answer to all of the above:

I don't have time to hold your hand and explain to you the finer points of logic and thinking at the moment, you obviously need a new hobby other than trying to cause a commotion on the internet, because if you think we'll forget how much of a turd in the punch bowl you are if you accuse everyone else of being shit you are sadly mistaken.

So in other words, you are unable to point out any lie I have said in this thread, and you have no response to my other points. Good to know.

whywefight -

As far as i know (assuming the topic would be still a live) a PSA would be posted and everyone advertising or supporting the ponzi after that will be tagged. Thats how CD does it and its posted here how it works.

--snip--

Want me to post an PSA in that thread??

A prerequisites of someone receiving negative trust, or the community being warned about nefarious behavior/activity is not a PSA being posted in some thread. Someone cannot say that they never saw the PSA that says stealing is not allowed and as a result they shouldn't get negative trust for not repaying a loan they took out. If you stole money, or in this case, helped people steal money, then you should be labeled a scammer, period. You either stole money (or helped people steal money), or you didn't, there is no "I didn't know this isn't allowed".

suchmoon -

However even by those "extremely liberal" standards, and even assuming that some other newbie user had done the same thing -  it doesn't appear that a neg trust would have been posted. There was no PSA and there was no actual support for the ponzi, quite the contrary.

Someone posting a PSA saying that others in the community should not do or post something does not make whatever the subject of the PSA a scam. There is nothing that would stop someone from writing a PSA that says that anyone who thinks the sky is blue, and if such a (ridiculous) PSA was posted, anyone who posts they think the sky is blue would not automatically be a scammer. If you are caught driving 65 MPH on a highway in which the speed limit is only 55 MPH, you cannot present a defense on the basis that you thought the speed limit was 65 MPH (if you do, it would be ignored by the judge/court). Writing a PSA might be helpful to educate people who might otherwise not know they are about to "break the law", however it is not necessary to post such a PSA prior to someone being guilty of a crime.

I'm not aware of any DT1-2 member negging coders for making changes to open source software that might be used for scamming but I'm sure someone will let me know if I'm wrong.

That is an awfully specific example you are looking for, however there was essentially the same example posted in #2 of this thread:

Well...people have gotten Negative Feedback's for writing scripts for Ponzi's (example BSM)

BSM received negative trust from both Cryptodevil and Lutpin for selling a ponzi script (that he created). here (archive -- archive prior to the OP being deleted/edited to nothing), and here (archive is where BSM admitted to creating a ponzi script that he was trying to sell.

In this case, dooglus took open source script, made some changes to it, creating a new script (that is based on the prior script), and published it for anyone to download and use. The main difference is that dooglus is offering his ponzi script for free while BSM was trying to sell it.

redsn0w -

Dooglus doesn't support ponzis... he only fixed some bug in that code

The particular script that dooglus worked on was having problems, apparently to the point that the script would send money back to an incorrect address. Dooglus edited the script so that it would send money to the correct address (or so he claimed). In other words, before dooglus helped, any potential ponzi operator that wanted to use that script would not be able to run a ponzi, and after dooglus finished helping with the script, such ponzi operator would be able to run a ponzi.

[dooglus]

The scripts sole purpose was to run a ponzi. There are no other potential uses for the script in question. It was forked multiple times and apparently had previously been fairly widely used by ponzis in the past. By editing the code in the script, you were fixing a problem that various ponzis were (potentially) having, allowing them to potentially build a stronger sense of legitimacy and eventually end up stealing a greater amount of other people's money.

I fixed bugs in Ponzi code. It's true. Whether the code is used to steal money or not is up to the person running the script and how they market it. The only reason I was even looking at the script was because Klye was having problems with it. As I understood it, he was marketing his Ponzi truthfully and not attempting to steal anything from anyone. From what I've heard nobody other than Klye himself ended up out of pocket from using that script.

What lie have I said in this thread? Please point it out to me.

I wasn't referring to this thread in particular, but since you asked, the very first sentence you wrote is a lie:

Scammers Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3420

That is a link to my profile not a scammer's profile. I am not a scammer. I have never scammed anyone or attempted to scam anyone.

If you can successfully find a lie written by me in the OP of this thread then I might even payout a bug bounty extortion to you

I don't want your money. We've been over your weak "extortion" claim before too. When someone tells you "we will pay you for finding bugs" and then you find a bug and they admit it's a bug but won't pay you what they promised to pay you, and you leave them feedback saying that they broke their word, that isn't extortion. That's them showing that they are not trustworthy, and me leaving feedback so others can see that they are not trustworthy. But maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. Maybe we're saving rehashing that for a separate episode of "dooglus is bad". I can hardly wait.

so just because someone has been trusted with a lot of money in the past, they should be given a free pass in being able to do whatever they want in the future....

Absolutely not. I'm not asking for a free pass. But this "fixing bugs makes doog bad" line of argument only makes you look weak.

I guess if we are trying to get rid of the philosophy of ponzis, and get straight to the question, does Dooglus owe anyone money?

I do. I owe lots of people a lot of CLAMs. If they want repayment they need to log in to Just-Dice and click the 'withdraw' button.

I think I'm missing something essential here. Where did dooglus support the ponzi? Got a link to that? The thread you linked to says quite the contrary:

https://archive.is/GJAt4#selection-5773.0-5773.105

Please refrain from associating my name with this project in an attempt to give it feelings of legitimacy.

Thanks for taking the time to find that.

This is what QS always does. It's the same with the dice sites I played on and talked about that ended up disappearing with people's money. He says I "supported" them, but in fact went to great lengths to repeatedly state that I didn't know who ran them or whether they were trustworthy.

Just watching some of dooglus responses in other threads I would not say he is completely out in the clear on this. Just a personal observation,each his own right.

For instance?

Dooglus doesn't support ponzis...

As long as he is publicly offering ponzi scripts for download he is. Not sure why people just keep overlooking this.

I am not offering Ponzi scripts for download. I forked a crappy Ponzi project on github to fix a bug in it that was costing Klye some money. Github make the script available for download, as they were making it available for download before I forked it. That's how github works.

And I am not supporting Ponzis simply by correcting an error in a Ponzi script. If I correct a spelling mistake in one of your sentences, am I supporting the point you are trying to make? I don't think so. I am simply correcting an error.

It's one thing to fix some code for someone, it's another to host it on their github for everyone to download long after the fact.

The code is open source. I made the fix in public. That's how open source works. The development is distributed and open. You think I could delete my change from the Internet now even if I wanted to?

"Hey, here is a ponzi source ready to go for you, use my personal link and share it with all of your friends. Remember to use the tutorial I provide at the link so you know how to properly set it up"

This is a misrepresentation. I forked an existing project, which itself was a fork of an existing project. If there's a tutorial in the fork I made it's because there was a tutorial in the project I forked. All I did was fix a trivial bug in existing code.

Come on folks, we all know the definition of support and what it means. Lets not act like we don't.

That should be "Let's not act", you missed an apostrophe. Does that mean I am supporting you? Or am I only fixing an error in what you said?

[Slowturtleinc]

@dooglus
Was another thread similar to this where you said everyone was a sock puppet that did not fall in with your thinking. Just found that interesting to dismiss everyone in the thread that way. Same names pretty much in this thread supporting you as in that one as well. My opinion you are shady just by watching. Nothing personal.

[suchmoon]

However even by those "extremely liberal" standards, and even assuming that some other newbie user had done the same thing -  it doesn't appear that a neg trust would have been posted. There was no PSA and there was no actual support for the ponzi, quite the contrary.

Someone posting a PSA saying that others in the community should not do or post something does not make whatever the subject of the PSA a scam. There is nothing that would stop someone from writing a PSA that says that anyone who thinks the sky is blue, and if such a (ridiculous) PSA was posted, anyone who posts they think the sky is blue would not automatically be a scammer. If you are caught driving 65 MPH on a highway in which the speed limit is only 55 MPH, you cannot present a defense on the basis that you thought the speed limit was 65 MPH (if you do, it would be ignored by the judge/court). Writing a PSA might be helpful to educate people who might otherwise not know they are about to "break the law", however it is not necessary to post such a PSA prior to someone being guilty of a crime.

Right, if only there was a traffic law that said something like "you shall obey the posted speed limit"... in any case, completely irrelevant. I was simply responding regarding the "extremely liberal" neg trust ratings and checking if dooglus' participation in that thread would have passed as support for the ponzi same way as aforementioned ratings.

Of course you don't need a PSA or any kind of other formal process to post a neg. The PSA is just a choice of some members to warn about their intent and is not a forum rule. 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.

I also think it's disingenuous to be opposed to the way cryptodevil and whywefight and others are negging ponzis, but at the same time expect a significantly more wide-ranging criteria to be applied to someone you dislike personally. Now that would be the wrong use for the trust system but thank God theymos for the tilde.

[SaltySpitoon]

Salty -

I guess if we are trying to get rid of the philosophy of ponzis, and get straight to the question, does Dooglus owe anyone money?

That depends on the jurisdiction of a court in which litigation is potentially taken against dooglus, as well as the tort laws in such jurisdiction, however I would err on the side of "yes".

The allegation in the OP is that dooglus (helped) create a product that was designed to ultimately steal from others. This means that anytime any ponzi operator had previously used his script to steal money from others, that he would likely be considered to be an accomplice to such theft. According to this, there is no distinction between an accomplice and the person who actually commits the tort, although it is likely that the accomplice would not be liable for 100% of the damages.

A Gun Manufacturer can potentially (Page 2, last paragraph), be held liable if they knowingly sell a gun to someone they know will subsequently use said gun to commit a crime of violence (or a drug trafficking crime).

A bartender can be potentially held liable if s/he knowingly (or should have known) servers a drink to a drunk person, and said drunk person subsequently kills someone while driving while still drunk.

Both of the above examples are very similar to dooglus creating a product whose only potential use is to eventually scam people.

I moved it to Reputation anyway, because reviewing it all again, it looks like a real longshot to be calling Dooglus a scammer by possible involvement with a non specific thing. It isn't unreasonable for people to question Dooglus' person or reputation for something like this I suppose. Not that moderators are here to arbitrate scam reports, but unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't really look like this is a scam report, rather a warning that in your opinion Dooglus has been involved in a moral gray area. I get what you are trying to say by association, but a lot of this is opinion. First on the topic of ponzis, some people think they are a scam, others do not. Not that my personal opinion matters here, but I'm using my opinion as an example. Ponzi's are not a scam by default, just because the people playing the game end up losing in the end, that doesn't mean that there isn't a calculated risk that players can take with the hope to make money. In my opinion, ponzis with express written rules (like all thousand ponzis I've seen pop up) are not scams in themselves, nor when they close down, as long as they do so in a way that abides by what they have stated to the public. I don't think of ponzis any differently than dice sites. That said, assuming that the ponzis that used Dooglus' source were in fact scams I'm still not really convinced that he would be liable by association. Not only was his association to fix bugs, but he's not really directly liable. If godaddy makes someone a website and they do something illicit with it, godaddy isn't at fault. To modify your gun manufacturer comparison, in this example Dooglus isn't the guy who manufactured the gun, hes the guy who fixed the crooked barrel that the manufacturer produced.

The biggest point I want to stress here, is my opinion asside, even looking from both my perspective and counter my perspective, via mine there is no scam accusation, and via counter, the scam accusation is incredibly shakey at best. From both perspectives, I'd say what is really in question here is a moral question as to how people view Dooglus' actions, which would belong in reputation rather than scam accusation. If what I've said is wrong and I've misinterpreted what you are going for, please feel free to move the thread back to scam accusations. I'm solely trying to help you put your thread in the correct board.

Frankly I don't care about the outcome for either of you, I have no stake in any of this, short of making sure the thread is in the location it belongs.

[CryptoDatabase]

Dooglus doesn't support ponzis...

As long as he is publicly offering ponzi scripts for download he is. Not sure why people just keep overlooking this.

I am not offering Ponzi scripts for download. I forked a crappy Ponzi project on github to fix a bug in it that was costing Klye some money. Github make the script available for download, as they were making it available for download before I forked it. That's how github works.

And I am not supporting Ponzis simply by correcting an error in a Ponzi script. If I correct a spelling mistake in one of your sentences, am I supporting the point you are trying to make? I don't think so. I am simply correcting an error.

It's one thing to fix some code for someone, it's another to host it on their github for everyone to download long after the fact.

The code is open source. I made the fix in public. That's how open source works. The development is distributed and open. You think I could delete my change from the Internet now even if I wanted to?

"Hey, here is a ponzi source ready to go for you, use my personal link and share it with all of your friends. Remember to use the tutorial I provide at the link so you know how to properly set it up"

This is a misrepresentation. I forked an existing project, which itself was a fork of an existing project. If there's a tutorial in the fork I made it's because there was a tutorial in the project I forked. All I did was fix a trivial bug in existing code.

Come on folks, we all know the definition of support and what it means. Lets not act like we don't.

That should be "Let's not act", you missed an apostrophe. Does that mean I am supporting you? Or am I only fixing an error in what you said?

1. You are clearly offering it for download on your github, would you like me to go download a copy specifically from your personal github account that also has a lot of other stuff people view and download?

2. There's all sorts of open source scripts out there including rats to hijack users computers, you can't use that excuse to justify hosting a script that can/is used to steal peoples money.

3. Fixing an apostrophe and fixing code that steals people's money are two different things but yes, you supported me by correcting a mistake I made.

Why is it so hard for you to just take it down? You can't remove it completely but guess what? You can create one less place for them to download it.

[dooglus]

In my opinion, ponzis with express written rules (like all thousand ponzis I've seen pop up) are not scams in themselves, nor when they close down, as long as they do so in a way that abides by what they have stated to the public.

I agree with you that they aren't a scam if they operate how they claim they will operate. But I disagree that the majority of Ponzis do what they have stated to do. Most Ponzis claim to be able to double your money indefinitely (usually accompanied by some kind of lie about how they make the money from trading or whatever) and end up NOT doubling everyone's money.

Promising mathematically impossible things is what makes them scams in my opinion.

If they are clear up-front that some people will make a loss then I don't see how that can be called a scam. Alternatively, if they promise to double everyone's money, then realize after the fact that it's not sustainable and make up the shortfall out of their own pocket, then that too can't be called a scam. The vast majority of Ponzis of course do neither of these. They promise crazy returns and end up defaulting. That's what makes them scams.