Bitcoin Forum
June 17, 2024, 02:45:37 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they believe that the creator of this topic displays some red flags which make them high-risk. (Login to see the detailed trust ratings.) While the bitcointalk.org administration does not verify such claims, you should proceed with extreme caution.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Dooglus is supporting ponzis  (Read 9852 times)
CryptoDatabase
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1003


https://cryptodatabase.net


View Profile WWW
March 30, 2016, 02:26:59 AM
 #81

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.

The only one who was asking for the script to be removed was me so I'm not sure who you think you are referring to here. As for stalking, show me one other thread, any thread, outside of this one where I have even said anything negative about DT members.

Not once did I mention anything about anyone being removed from DT or that someone should get negged for something. All I want is that everyone be held accountable for implied rules on this forum.

His removal of the source means that there is one less place for scammers to get that script. It is a win-win for everyone, not sure why you would even bitch about it.
exstasie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1521


View Profile
March 30, 2016, 02:56:41 AM
 #82

Boy it sure stinks like butthurt in here. You all know who I'm talking about. Be a little more transparent, why don't ya?

Roll Eyes

dooglus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2940
Merit: 1330



View Profile
March 30, 2016, 04:31:11 AM
 #83

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.

I know, it makes no sense to remove the code given that it all already exists and existed before I forked it, but if this makes people happy then so be it.

I have no interest in a crappy PHP Ponzi script anyway. I only looked at it because Klye asked for my help debugging the script he was using, and we both ended up concluding that the script is beyond help.

If it was a project I actually cared about then it would be different.

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.

I have no fear of losing my position in the trust system. If theymos wants to remove me from DT I won't miss it. It would be a shame if he takes it away based on QS' trouble making, rather than because I actually did anything wrong, but I doubt that would happen. QS has been making trouble for me for a year or so now. If theymos was going to fall for his lies and manipulations I'm thinking he would have already done so.

Just-Dice                 ██             
          ██████████         
      ██████████████████     
  ██████████████████████████ 
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████   
        ██████████████       
            ██████           
   Play or Invest                 ██             
          ██████████         
      ██████████████████     
  ██████████████████████████ 
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████   
        ██████████████       
            ██████           
   1% House Edge
TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
March 30, 2016, 06:30:25 AM
 #84

...

I am sure Theymos could give a flying fuck about any of this, I was more referring to the trust ranger dictator squad. I understand that you don't really care about the code, but that is besides the point, you are teaching these loons that they can get what they want with this stalking obsessive behavior. IMO this could be better addressed by removing a few people from your trust list and giving users here some peace from the bored OCD stalkers on your down trust list rather than giving in to this nonsense. That seems to be more of the issue this is resulting from anyway. I think people care less about the fact that you modified this code and more about the fact that you have people in your trust list negging everyone left and right while the same rules don't apply to you personally. That is my impression of the complaints here other than those of Quickstalker.
Quickseller (OP)
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2912
Merit: 2339


View Profile
April 06, 2016, 06:59:28 AM
 #85

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.
If you only exclude someone from your trust list after they start questioning you (and nearly immediately thereof, and reasonably was aware of such prior squabbles prior to being questioned), then even if such personal squabbles are being arbitrated via the trust system, that is not the reason for the exclusion, the reason for the exclusion is to silence your critics and to warn others against speaking out against you.

One should not value their position in DT more than exposing a scammer. Would you disagree?
I do agree that one should not value their position in the DT network more then exposing a scammer, but that does not mean that is how others value their own position in the DT network. I was speaking about how I believe other people are thinking, not how I am thinking myself.
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?
It is very difficult to put a dollar figure on the amount of money that was stolen as a result of dooglus's help (only in relation to his coding of a ponzi script) because it is not public information when someone uses his script.

One known instance of when a ponzi was using the script that dooglus fixed is here (archive). The amount stolen via this ponzi is unclear looking at the blockchain, especially considering there was never a deposit address posted. There were a couple of different addresses that people were posting that they had sent to. There were claims that the ponzi in question had run away with .5 BTC (which would mean that it had unmet obligations of 1 BTC since it promised to double the amount deposited), and at one point there was a post claiming there was a queue of ~.69 BTC (which would equal unmet obligations totaling 1.38 BTC).



minifrij-

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.
Maybe I could have used different terminology, however the effect remains the same. The fixed better script that dooglus created edited, made it easier for ponzis to operate, and eventually steal from others.

No, you cannot fix a bug and then imply that you made the entire script, however you can (accurately) say that you contributed to said script.



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.
I don't know if the script would have been unusable without the help of dooglus, however according to dooglus himself, prior to him editing the script, anyone using the script would have paid out the incorrect players, which would cause the ponzi to quickly fail, and would have prevented ponzi operators from stealing more money from players then they otherwise might be able to.

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
You could argue that the bug in question was trivial, however it was non-trivial enough to have remained in the code for >a year. Also The number of people that have the ability to code on here is very limited.

I do not dispute the fact that the script was used to scam people prior to dooglus's involvement, however I believe that dooglus's involvement has allowed ponzi operators (or could potentially allow ponzi operators) to steal larger amounts of others' money. See my explanation below:

As you most likely know, a ponzi will generate trust and the ability to steal large amounts of money as follows:

#A ponzi will agree to return 125% of a player's deposit after 48 hours

hour - description -- amount of money held at ponzi

0 - ponzi thread and website is created -- $0
1 - player "A" deposits $10 and posts as much -- $10
7 - player "B" deposits $15 and posts as much -- $25
40 - player "C" deposits $$5 and posts as much -- $30
49 - ponzi sends player "A" his "winnings" -- $17.50
52 - player "D" sees that "A" has been repaid and deposits $25 -- $42.50
55 - ponzi sends player "B" his "winnings" -- $23.75
60 - players "E" and "F" see that multiple people are receiving their winnings and deposit a total of $40 -- $63.75
--snip--
"n" - ponzi operator decides to run away with every one's money -- a lot of money

in the above scenario, if the old code was used then player "A" would not have received a payout, and would call out the ponzi on being a scam. The operator would simply run away with $17.50 and only a small number of people would have gotten scammed. However in the above example, as of hour "60" the operator would have been able to run away with a lot more money due to the trust earned from paying out players for only a short period.

Even if I were to give dooglus a maximum benefit of the doubt and say that his involvement had very little impact on the ability of ponzi operators to steal from others, as a result of dooglus's help, people were able to steal a small amount of additional money. The question of how much dooglus helped other people steal really is a moot point because someone is a scammer if they steal $1, $1,000 or if they steal $1,000,000.

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.
1 - People have been labeled as scammers in the past for wearing signatures of scam/ponzi sites.
2 - I don't think that receiving the .4BTC (or whatever few hundred dollar equivalent amount) in exchange for wearing the signature of a website that eventually turns out to be a scam would make you a scammer
3 - IIRC, dooglus had made roughly 100BTC in profit between gambling at dicebitco.in and investing in their bankroll. This is when they were cheating their high rollers and stealing from their bankroll investors.
4 - Dooglus was downplaying the possibility of the operators of dicebitco.in being scammers up until very shortly before it was revealed they were scamming
5 - Much more information on this topic will come in Chapter 3

Worried here this is going to one day be like everydice. Does anyone know the admin's identity or know their rep is as significant as Dooglus's was when he created Just-Dice?

EveryDice refunded everyone in full I believe.

Why would you worry about that?
archive



dooglus -


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.

--snip--
 I was lucky not to be scammed myself by those scammers,
Lucky enough so that you were always able to withdraw just before the operators decided to run away with every one's money.

yet you twist the reality to try to make it look as if I was somehow to blame.
Or had advance knowledge of the scam, yet pushed (and advertised) the sites anyway. But this is off topic in this thread, it can be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3

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.
There is no distinction between "whitehat" and "blackhat" hacking in the eyes of the law if the owner of the site has not expressly permitted you to attempt to find vulnerabilities.

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?
Let me see if I am understanding this correctly.
  • You knew that Kyle (the operator of the CLAM based ponzi) had stolen 25BTC from investors of his ICO/IPO
  • Your own negative trust rating against Kyle says that he should not be trusted with other people's money/coins
  • You knew that Kyle was the person running the CLAM based ponzi
  • The CLAM based ponzi would need to be trusted with player's CLAMs in order to operate
  • When you became aware that the operator of this CLAM based ponzi was Kyle, you actively chose not to warn others not to trust this person
  • Instead of warning others not to trust Kyle, you instead helped him potentially become trusted with more of other people's money via helping edit the code of the ponzi script he was using
  • This sounds vaguely familiar to me for some strange reason
TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
April 06, 2016, 06:25:55 PM
 #86

Capitulating to these stalkers and trust dictators only feeds their behavior. This was a bad move IMO. ...
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.
dooglus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2940
Merit: 1330



View Profile
April 06, 2016, 07:00:36 PM
 #87

If you only exclude someone from your trust list after they start questioning you (and nearly immediately thereof, and reasonably was aware of such prior squabbles prior to being questioned), then even if such personal squabbles are being arbitrated via the trust system, that is not the reason for the exclusion, the reason for the exclusion is to silence your critics and to warn others against speaking out against you.

I excluded BAC from my trust network shortly after he started leaving unwarranted negative feedback against all the CLAM developers. His feedback was no longer correct or useful and so I excluded it. That is what exclusion is for.

It is very difficult to put a dollar figure on the amount of money that was stolen as a result of dooglus's help (only in relation to his coding of a ponzi script) because it is not public information when someone uses his script.

I keep telling you. I don't and didn't code a Ponzi script. I removed some broken code from an existing Ponzi script.

The correct answer to the question "How much did dooglus steal?" is "nothing at all". But don't let that get in the way of your story telling.

1 - People have been labeled as scammers in the past for wearing signatures of scam/ponzi sites.

I have never knowingly worn the signature of a scam or Ponzi site. I did were signatures for 2 dice sites that ended up being scams, but I had no idea they were scams while I was wearing the signatures, and stopped wearing them as soon as I became concerned about the possibility of foul play.

2 - I don't think that receiving the .4BTC (or whatever few hundred dollar equivalent amount) in exchange for wearing the signature of a website that eventually turns out to be a scam would make you a scammer

That's my point. If you advertise an obvious Ponzi scam then you cannot reasonably claim you don't know you're advertising a scam. If you advertise what appears to be a regular dice site that eventually scams people I think that is quite different.

3 - IIRC, dooglus had made roughly 100BTC in profit between gambling at dicebitco.in and investing in their bankroll. This is when they were cheating their high rollers and stealing from their bankroll investors.

IIRC it was much less than that. I had a couple of good runs using Martingale betting but hit the inevitable losing streaks that put an end to it. Whether I won or lost doesn't seem to be relevant to whether I'm a scammer however, so what's your point? And I didn't play on their site once it came out that they were cheating their players. Why would I?

4 - Dooglus was downplaying the possibility of the operators of dicebitco.in being scammers up until very shortly before it was revealed they were scamming

This is completely false. I always said that I didn't know who they were and so had no way of knowing whether they were scammers or not. I was active in outing their scamming when Finile (was that his name?) first spotted the evidence.

5 - Much more information on this topic will come in Chapter 3

I can hardly wait.

Worried here this is going to one day be like everydice. Does anyone know the admin's identity or know their rep is as significant as Dooglus's was when he created Just-Dice?

EveryDice refunded everyone in full I believe.

Why would you worry about that?
archive

Is that your evidence of me downloading the risk of them scamming?

I am saying that worrying about them turning out like a site that didn't scam isn't something to worry about. That is not the same as saying there is nothing else to worry about. Of course there is always a risk when trusting third parties with your money.

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.

I was lucky not to be scammed myself by those scammers,
Lucky enough so that you were always able to withdraw just before the operators decided to run away with every one's money.

In both cases there were warning signs. dicebitco.in were caught skipping bets, and dice.ninja stopped showing proof of solvency via their cold wallet. I posted about both of these things and withdrew my coins.

yet you twist the reality to try to make it look as if I was somehow to blame.
Or had advance knowledge of the scam, yet pushed (and advertised) the sites anyway. But this is off topic in this thread, it can be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3

I had no advance knowledge. You have no evidence that I had any advance knowledge, and yet keep insinuating that I did.

For a brief time I advertised a couple of sites that appeared to be running an honest service. Later, there were warning signs that they might not be honest. I withdrew my coins and warned people about the sites.

How does any of that mesh with your theory that I was somehow complicit in the scams? It would make no sense for me to post anything negative about the sites if I was "in on" the scams.

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.
There is no distinction between "whitehat" and "blackhat" hacking in the eyes of the law if the owner of the site has not expressly permitted you to attempt to find vulnerabilities.

The vulnerabilities were visible to anyone with a brain. You do not need permission to notice things. It's not like I went looking for them. I noticed that the sites were open to abuse by unethical people and responsibly disclosed the vulnerabilities to the sites. You somehow want to turn that into evidence against me? Go ahead!

You knew that Kyle (the operator of the CLAM based ponzi) had stolen 25BTC from investors of his ICO/IPO

As I understand it he has paid the majority of his debt back and is working to pay back the rest. He strikes me as a good guy with some problems, trying to make things right.

Your own negative trust rating against Kyle says that he should not be trusted with other people's money/coins
You knew that Kyle was the person running the CLAM based ponzi
The CLAM based ponzi would need to be trusted with player's CLAMs in order to operate
When you became aware that the operator of this CLAM based ponzi was Kyle, you actively chose not to warn others not to trust this person
Instead of warning others not to trust Kyle, you instead helped him potentially become trusted with more of other people's money via helping edit the code of the ponzi script he was using

I don't think it's a good idea for him to hold other people's money. He has shown in the past that he can't be trusted with it, and I'm not convinced that he wouldn't make the same mistake again in the future. Maybe he learned his lesson but I wouldn't be sure of it.

But despite that, the fact remains that he was indeed running a Ponzi scheme, and he was using a crappy open source PHP script to do it. The script had paid the first few players out twice each by mistake, and he had no idea why. He asked for my help in fixing the script and I gave it. I posted that I didn't think it was a good idea to be running the scheme, and that the staking rewards wouldn't pay for the returns. Having the script continue paying out incorrectly would be more likely to lead to the scheme defaulting than having it work right and so I decided to take a look at the script. After seeing how poorly coded it was I gave up and recommended he just stop using it.

This sounds vaguely familiar to me for some strange reason

Because you have somehow got it into your head that I'm doing bad things, and so you see everything I do in the same light.

Just-Dice                 ██             
          ██████████         
      ██████████████████     
  ██████████████████████████ 
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████   
        ██████████████       
            ██████           
   Play or Invest                 ██             
          ██████████         
      ██████████████████     
  ██████████████████████████ 
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████   
        ██████████████       
            ██████           
   1% House Edge
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3710
Merit: 8969


https://bpip.org


View Profile WWW
April 06, 2016, 08:27:32 PM
Last edit: April 06, 2016, 09:01:28 PM by suchmoon
 #88

One should not value their position in DT more than exposing a scammer. Would you disagree?
I do agree that one should not value their position in the DT network more then exposing a scammer, but that does not mean that is how others value their own position in the DT network. I was speaking about how I believe other people are thinking, not how I am thinking myself.

Sounds like a long-winded equivalent of "I made it up". Would you consider now the possibility that the lack of support for your accusations is being caused not by this "fear" but perhaps by the tenuous nature of said accusations?

4 - Dooglus was downplaying the possibility of the operators of dicebitco.in being scammers up until very shortly before it was revealed they were scamming

I was hanging out around dicebitco.in at that time and I know this to be the opposite of truth, to put it mildly. Dooglus was one of the few consistently warning about the dangers of these anonymous dice sites. Save me a lot of aggravation and some coins too.

Judging by the factual tone of your statements it shouldn't be hard to provide extensive proof/links. Why are you not doing that?

Worried here this is going to one day be like everydice. Does anyone know the admin's identity or know their rep is as significant as Dooglus's was when he created Just-Dice?

EveryDice refunded everyone in full I believe.

Why would you worry about that?
archive

"Why would you worry about [this being like the other site that refunded everyone]?"

Where do you see a problem with that statement?
dooglus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2940
Merit: 1330



View Profile
April 06, 2016, 08:52:45 PM
 #89

"Why would you worry about [this being like the other site that refunded everyone]?"

Where do you see a problem with that statement?

He doesn't. He wants others to see the problem that he is hinting at but which doesn't really exist. It's how he operates. He has no evidence so he has to rely on this kind of half-truth.

See also the constant "but that's nothing compared to what is coming in part 3" bullshit.

Just-Dice                 ██             
          ██████████         
      ██████████████████     
  ██████████████████████████ 
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████   
        ██████████████       
            ██████           
   Play or Invest                 ██             
          ██████████         
      ██████████████████     
  ██████████████████████████ 
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████   
        ██████████████       
            ██████           
   1% House Edge
Vod
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3738
Merit: 3098


Licking my boob since 1970


View Profile WWW
April 06, 2016, 11:13:48 PM
 #90

See also the constant "but that's nothing compared to what is coming in part 3" bullshit.

He would have led with his best foot forward - his first argument would have been his most damming.

https://nastyscam.com - featuring 13 years of OGNasty bitcoin scams     https://vod.fan - advanced image hosting - coming sooner than you think!
xetsr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120
Merit: 1000


View Profile
April 06, 2016, 11:26:56 PM
Last edit: April 06, 2016, 11:51:03 PM by xetsr
 #91

...

I am sure Theymos could give a flying fuck about any of this, I was more referring to the trust ranger dictator squad. I understand that you don't really care about the code, but that is besides the point, you are teaching these loons that they can get what they want with this stalking obsessive behavior. IMO this could be better addressed by removing a few people from your trust list and giving users here some peace from the bored OCD stalkers on your down trust list rather than giving in to this nonsense. That seems to be more of the issue this is resulting from anyway. I think people care less about the fact that you modified this code and more about the fact that you have people in your trust list negging everyone left and right while the same rules don't apply to you personally. That is my impression of the complaints here other than those of Quickstalker.

Sooner or later the ones receiving negative trust will try and make their point over that.

Question for those who neg ponzi script sellers:
I buy a ponzi script
Script's code is fucked so I fix it or pay someone to fix it
I decide to make the code available for FREE and upload to github so there is no excuse from ponzi owners not to pay because of bad coding, script was hacked and etc

Would I receive negative trust? Yes or no but please include why?

This is something I probably wouldn't do but I'm still interested in hearing what you all think.
dooglus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2940
Merit: 1330



View Profile
April 07, 2016, 08:25:12 AM
 #92

Question for those who neg ponzi script sellers:
I buy a ponzi script
Script's code is fucked so I fix it or pay someone to fix it
I decide to make the code available for FREE and upload to github so there is no excuse from ponzi owners not to pay because of bad coding, script was hacked and etc

Would I receive negative trust? Yes or no but please include why?

This is something I probably wouldn't do but I'm still interested in hearing what you all think.

I don't think I ever left feedback for anyone for selling a script, but I'll answer your question anyway.

If you buy any code on the understanding that you wouldn't publish it, but you do publish it, then I would see that as evidence that you aren't very trustworthy. You don't have the right to open-source somebody else's closed source code against their will.

I don't understand what you're saying about "no excuse not to pay".

Just-Dice                 ██             
          ██████████         
      ██████████████████     
  ██████████████████████████ 
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████   
        ██████████████       
            ██████           
   Play or Invest                 ██             
          ██████████         
      ██████████████████     
  ██████████████████████████ 
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████   
        ██████████████       
            ██████           
   1% House Edge
allyouracid
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2320
Merit: 1292


Encrypted Money, Baby!


View Profile
April 07, 2016, 08:38:49 AM
Last edit: April 08, 2016, 07:13:24 AM by allyouracid
 #93

[snip]
I did not miss that quote. The improved version of the script was not available prior to Dooglus making said improvements. Furthermore Dooglus helping code the ponzi enabled more ponzi scammers to be able to steal from others because they now have a better working script.

Most importantly, I believe that Dooglus knew the person behind the ponzi that he was helping is a known scammer, and in effect was providing a way for said known scammer to be able to be in possession of other people's money.
What would be more interesting: what do you say to the comparison of dooglus supposedly helping others scam by fixing a script vs. you offering forum accounts for sale, which are 90% of times being used to scam in any way?

I think this kind of comparison is way more appropriate than the ISIS bomb nonsense you came up with, to be honest.


A little off topic: in 2013-14, I lost quite a fuckton of money on just-dice.com. At first, I was mad at the website, its creator and everything. Now who's to blame, just-dice.com (or any other website I would have used if just-dice wasn't there) or me?
I realized that it was solely my mistake. Learned an expensive lesson, which is still very present in my mind, and I consider it valuable, because that former mistake protects me from making that very same mistake again.

Your logic is seriously flawed, dude.
Contributing to Open Source is a good thing, and if I were to partake in a ponzi scheme, I'd definitely prefer one which is open source, so I can see what the code does. And when I see experienced coders contributing / fixing errors, I'd feel even better using it, because it increases chances that eventual payouts go to the address they're supposed to.

Not the script itself makes it a scam. The script is just a transcripted form of the logic which already exists in the heads of many, many people. It's the intentions of those using the scripts. And if someone is clear about running a ponzi, warns about the risks and doesn't bullshit others with some "we generate money by trading" nonsense, I'm completely okay with it.
But if they do bullshit others and eventually scam them, who's to blame? The one who used the gun and shot, the manufacturer, the shop which sold it, the government which created laws about possession of guns, or V/God* who created mankind in the first place?


QS, you're really making yourself look ridiculous here. What are we talking about, aren't there any real problems to be solved? And where is the facepalm smiley, ffs.

* Disclaimer: it is not my belief that mankind was created by god.

Don't visit my shitcoin blog: OCOIN.DEV
Use cointracking.info for tax declaration & tracking of your trades!
dooglus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2940
Merit: 1330



View Profile
April 07, 2016, 02:41:03 PM
 #94

But if they do bullshit others and eventually scam them, who's to blame? The one who used the gun and shot, the manufacturer, the shop which sold it, the government which created laws about possession of guns, or V/God* who created mankind in the first place?

You're right! We should be going after the authors of the PHP programming language itself. If they hadn't made their language available this evil script could never have existed. Surely they must have known their programming language was able to be used to implement scammy scripts and should therefore be held accountable for all the bad programs that exist due to their negligence.

Note for the hard of thinking: this is a joke; I am following the flawed QS logic to its natural conclusion.

Just-Dice                 ██             
          ██████████         
      ██████████████████     
  ██████████████████████████ 
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████   
        ██████████████       
            ██████           
   Play or Invest                 ██             
          ██████████         
      ██████████████████     
  ██████████████████████████ 
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████   
        ██████████████       
            ██████           
   1% House Edge
xetsr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120
Merit: 1000


View Profile
April 07, 2016, 02:53:24 PM
 #95

Question for those who neg ponzi script sellers:
I buy a ponzi script
Script's code is fucked so I fix it or pay someone to fix it
I decide to make the code available for FREE and upload to github so there is no excuse from ponzi owners not to pay because of bad coding, script was hacked and etc

Would I receive negative trust? Yes or no but please include why?

This is something I probably wouldn't do but I'm still interested in hearing what you all think.

I don't think I ever left feedback for anyone for selling a script, but I'll answer your question anyway.

If you buy any code on the understanding that you wouldn't publish it, but you do publish it, then I would see that as evidence that you aren't very trustworthy. You don't have the right to open-source somebody else's closed source code against their will.

I don't understand what you're saying about "no excuse not to pay".

Others have though. I'm pretty sure anyone else selling or releasing code that would benefit ponzi owners or their members would receive negative trust.

If I were to buy full rights to the code, fixed it up and released it.

I've seen ponzi owners blame bad code for not being able pay out, exploited code and etc.
Quickseller (OP)
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2912
Merit: 2339


View Profile
April 25, 2016, 06:48:07 AM
 #96

It is very difficult to put a dollar figure on the amount of money that was stolen as a result of dooglus's help (only in relation to his coding of a ponzi script) because it is not public information when someone uses his script.

I keep telling you. I don't and didn't code a Ponzi script. I removed some broken code from an existing Ponzi script.
What you are saying you did and what I am saying you did are one and the same. You took a ponzi code, made one or more changes to it and after said changes the ponzi script was better.

The correct answer to the question "How much did dooglus steal?" is "nothing at all". But don't let that get in the way of your story telling.
You don't need to be the one who received the money in order for you to have helped third parties steal from others.

3 - IIRC, dooglus had made roughly 100BTC in profit between gambling at dicebitco.in and investing in their bankroll. This is when they were cheating their high rollers and stealing from their bankroll investors.

IIRC it was much less than that. I had a couple of good runs using Martingale betting but hit the inevitable losing streaks that put an end to it. Whether I won or lost doesn't seem to be relevant to whether I'm a scammer however, so what's your point? And I didn't play on their site once it came out that they were cheating their players. Why would I?
It looks like the amount was actually closer to 35BTC, however the fact remains that you won over $15,000 on a site that was cheating highrollers. The size of bets that you were making would reasonably qualify you to be a high roller. The reason why they were able to steal so much money from others was because you were promoting it so heavily and gave them positive trust. You were also actively telling people that you think they should gamble at dicebitco.in (by your own description) which gave them an additional air of legitimacy.
4 - Dooglus was downplaying the possibility of the operators of dicebitco.in being scammers up until very shortly before it was revealed they were scamming

This is completely false. I always said that I didn't know who they were and so had no way of knowing whether they were scammers or not. I was active in outing their scamming when Finile (was that his name?) first spotted the evidence.
I disagree. Someone posted in the dicebitco.in thread a concern that you were promoting a dice site that popped out of nowhere and whose owners were unknown, to which dicebitco.in responded to but you did not despite responding to several other posts around that same time.

You were also not active in outing dicebitco.in as being scammers as you were initially (url=http://archive.is/NWf4V]archive[/url] defending them.

I was just looking at my deposit address on the blockchain, and noticed that the amount was transferred to the address of https://btcgains.com/ central address. How is that site related to dicebitco?

If you think of it as "your" deposit address, you're probably going to make wrong assumptions. The address is owned by the site, and the coins you send to it can be used however they like. Most likely they were used to fund some other user's withdrawal.

The only thing that makes it "yours" is that coins sent to it are credited to your account on the site. After that, the coins may move to cold storage, but most likely they will be sent to a different player when he requests a withdrawal.
What i mean dooglus is does anyone know who this guy is or could he simply run off with currently 3,360,000 USD equiv roughly and no one know? This guy doesn't seem to have much previous trust to creating the site.
archive


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.

I was lucky not to be scammed myself by those scammers,
Lucky enough so that you were always able to withdraw just before the operators decided to run away with every one's money.

In both cases there were warning signs. dicebitco.in were caught skipping bets, and dice.ninja stopped showing proof of solvency via their cold wallet. I posted about both of these things and withdrew my coins.
And you were promoting the fact that you had withdrew your coins the same way that you were promoting the fact that you had a significant amount of bitcoin deposited with them previously, yes? When dicebitco.in announced in their changelog that they were going to require 2fa in order to divest, you pointed out that this might be undesirable to bankroll investors along with you many other bug reports, yes? (<-- many of the people that dicebitco.in was able to steal from had their 2fa codes/devices locked away in places that were inaccessible during the weekend -- eg. bank safe deposit box -- and considering that the owners of dicebitco.in were all but certainly gambling with an alt account knowing the server seed at a time when roughly zero banks were open, Sunday evening/very early Monday morning -- the first report of mateo winning big was at ~12:30 AM GMT September 8 2014 -- anyone who stored their f2a code off site more or less was unable to divest from their bankroll, yes?

yet you twist the reality to try to make it look as if I was somehow to blame.
Or had advance knowledge of the scam, yet pushed (and advertised) the sites anyway. But this is off topic in this thread, it can be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3

I had no advance knowledge. You have no evidence that I had any advance knowledge, and yet keep insinuating that I did.

For a brief time I advertised a couple of sites that appeared to be running an honest service. Later, there were warning signs that they might not be honest. I withdrew my coins and warned people about the sites.
Are you sure about this? I am not so sure


How does any of that mesh with your theory that I was somehow complicit in the scams? It would make no sense for me to post anything negative about the sites if I was "in on" the scams.
You were defending dicebitco.in after it was revealed that they were skipping rolls. Once both of the sites had sufficient amounts of others' BTC it really did not matter what you posted one way or another.



You knew that Kyle (the operator of the CLAM based ponzi) had stolen 25BTC from investors of his ICO/IPO

As I understand it he has paid the majority of his debt back and is working to pay back the rest. He strikes me as a good guy with some problems, trying to make things right.
I am not sure why you believe that. Even if this was true, you were helping him get into the exact same situation that resulted in him stealing 25BTC of other people's money.

Your own negative trust rating against Kyle says that he should not be trusted with other people's money/coins
You knew that Kyle was the person running the CLAM based ponzi
The CLAM based ponzi would need to be trusted with player's CLAMs in order to operate
When you became aware that the operator of this CLAM based ponzi was Kyle, you actively chose not to warn others not to trust this person
Instead of warning others not to trust Kyle, you instead helped him potentially become trusted with more of other people's money via helping edit the code of the ponzi script he was using

I don't think it's a good idea for him to hold other people's money. He has shown in the past that he can't be trusted with it, and I'm not convinced that he wouldn't make the same mistake again in the future. Maybe he learned his lesson but I wouldn't be sure of it.
So you admit that he should not be holding other people's money, yet you helped him hold more of other people's money, and when you were aware that he was trying to hold other people's money under an alternate account/identity you did not warn anyone.


But despite that, the fact remains that he was indeed running a Ponzi scheme, and he was using a crappy open source PHP script to do it. The script had paid the first few players out twice each by mistake, and he had no idea why. He asked for my help in fixing the script and I gave it. I posted that I didn't think it was a good idea to be running the scheme, and that the staking rewards wouldn't pay for the returns. Having the script continue paying out incorrectly would be more likely to lead to the scheme defaulting than having it work right and so I decided to take a look at the script. After seeing how poorly coded it was I gave up and recommended he just stop using it.
At the end of the day you still helped improve a script designed to run a ponzi. This is a script that is designed to help someone hold other people's money. And at the end of the day, it is a script that is going to be used to help people steal other people's money.



One should not value their position in DT more than exposing a scammer. Would you disagree?
I do agree that one should not value their position in the DT network more then exposing a scammer, but that does not mean that is how others value their own position in the DT network. I was speaking about how I believe other people are thinking, not how I am thinking myself.

Sounds like a long-winded equivalent of "I made it up". Would you consider now the possibility that the lack of support for your accusations is being caused not by this "fear" but perhaps by the tenuous nature of said accusations?
No. I was told specifically that I should consider removing my negative rating against dooglus in order to be added back into the DT network by one of the people who are very liberal of the negative ratings they give. There is also the reputation that CITM got for being the essential cause of negative trust whenever anyone talked about him.

Quote from: redacted date=1456048098
What I guess is happening:

He does want to add you in his trust list. But is either under pressure from other DT members, or himself thinks that if he adds you in his trust list, two of the "trusted members" Vod and dooglus will have a neg which will create unnecessary drama, which will come down to him adding you to his trust list.

Try removing those feedbacks and put subtle hints such as(but not limited to) PMs or Personal text pointing out that you have removed them.


There are pros and cons for it being public. For example discussing CiTM in the public before he was overthrown got you disavowed from DT and negative trusted. People can be unwilling to speak out at their own risk and also propagates people using smurfs.

4 - Dooglus was downplaying the possibility of the operators of dicebitco.in being scammers up until very shortly before it was revealed they were scamming

I was hanging out around dicebitco.in at that time and I know this to be the opposite of truth, to put it mildly. Dooglus was one of the few consistently warning about the dangers of these anonymous dice sites. Save me a lot of aggravation and some coins too.
I don't think you have any examples of this. Dooglus posted exactly two times about potential risks with trusting coins with a anon dice site operator, the first one was him posting an email asking to hold the private keys to their cold storage along with their server seeds, however he was simultaneously posting at the time that he was trusting them with 50BTC+ in their bankroll. The second time was something along the lines of "oops I accidentally sent these guys whose identities I don't know 100BTC of my money, so I tried to withdraw it all, but they sent it to me immediately after I attempted to withdraw it so I will send 50BTC back to their site".

Worried here this is going to one day be like everydice. Does anyone know the admin's identity or know their rep is as significant as Dooglus's was when he created Just-Dice?

EveryDice refunded everyone in full I believe.

Why would you worry about that?
archive

"Why would you worry about [this being like the other site that refunded everyone]?"

Where do you see a problem with that statement?
Maybe I was unclear when I posted that quote. That person replied to dooglus clarifying his concern that anon people are being trusted with $3+ million dollars as a result of dooglus's promotions, however dooglus did not respond to this concern in any way despite being very active in that thread and posting in the same page (multiple times) after that post was written.




A little off topic: in 2013-14, I lost quite a fuckton of money on just-dice.com. At first, I was mad at the website, its creator and everything. Now who's to blame, just-dice.com (or any other website I would have used if just-dice wasn't there) or me?
I realized that it was solely my mistake. Learned an expensive lesson, which is still very present in my mind, and I consider it valuable, because that former mistake protects me from making that very same mistake again.
Unless you are saying that dooglus/Just-Dice was cheating you when you lost your money then the comparison is not the same. If you were not cheated when you had your gambling losses then the results of each of your rolls were predetermined and your loosing bets would have been winning bets had you chosen "high" instead of "low" (or visa versa, whichever would have applied). What is the case with a ponzi on the other hand, is that there are certain circumstances in which a player should win, however the operator decides to run away with players' money, in other words the player looses when they "should have" won. The reason why this is so prevalent in happening is because of the fact that ponzi operators almost always have nearly zero prior reputation and ponzis are designed to hold an exponentially larger amount of others' money over a very short period of time.

Your logic is seriously flawed, dude.
Contributing to Open Source is a good thing, and if I were to partake in a ponzi scheme, I'd definitely prefer one which is open source, so I can see what the code does.
The players do not see the code in any way. It is only the operators that have anything to do with the code. The code is run entirely behind the scenes.

And when I see experienced coders contributing / fixing errors, I'd feel even better using it, because it increases chances that eventual payouts go to the address they're supposed to.
Except when the operators decide to simply send money to their own btc address stealing all the money that the players trusted the operator with

Not the script itself makes it a scam.
No, it just helps scammers get more of other people's money.
The script is just a transcripted form of the logic which already exists in the heads of many, many people. It's the intentions of those using the scripts. And if someone is clear about running a ponzi, warns about the risks and doesn't bullshit others with some "we generate money by trading" nonsense, I'm completely okay with it.
Like I said above, this is not what happens.

But if they do bullshit others and eventually scam them, who's to blame? The one who used the gun and shot, the manufacturer, the shop which sold it, the government which created laws about possession of guns, or V/God* who created mankind in the first place?
When a gun manufacturer creates/produces a gun, there are several legitimate uses for said gun (eg self defense, hunting, ect.), and the vast majority of people who use such guns will use them for said legitimate uses, and a very small number of gun users/owners use guns for illegal/nefarious purposes. On the other hand, operators of ponzis almost always (when they are entrusted with other's money) will end up stealing from their players. There is a legitimate use for a ponzi script, however such use is almost never used.

Vod
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3738
Merit: 3098


Licking my boob since 1970


View Profile WWW
April 25, 2016, 03:16:02 PM
 #97

Quickseller, give it up.

Dooglus is respected.  You are not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMTAUr3Nm6I

https://nastyscam.com - featuring 13 years of OGNasty bitcoin scams     https://vod.fan - advanced image hosting - coming sooner than you think!
Quickseller (OP)
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2912
Merit: 2339


View Profile
April 25, 2016, 05:07:11 PM
 #98


Dooglus is respected. 
That does not give him a free pass to do whatever he wants to do. If anything that should subject him to a higher standard as if it is true that he is respected then others will look at what he does and will mirror such behavior.

At the end of the day Dooglus took a tool that ponzi operators use and improved by using his abilities to read and edit code to remove a few lines of code and making it easier for ponzi operators to scam. By being made aware of this behavior and withholding a negative rating you are defacto endorsing that it is okay to support, help and work for ponzis.

Vod do you think it is okay to help ponzis become more popular?
mammabitcoin2u
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 250

Don't follow the herd~make your own path


View Profile
April 25, 2016, 06:10:11 PM
 #99


Dooglus is respected. 
That does not give him a free pass to do whatever he wants to do. If anything that should subject him to a higher standard as if it is true that he is respected then others will look at what he does and will mirror such behavior.

At the end of the day Dooglus took a tool that ponzi operators use and improved by using his abilities to read and edit code to remove a few lines of code and making it easier for ponzi operators to scam. By being made aware of this behavior and withholding a negative rating you are defacto endorsing that it is okay to support, help and work for ponzis.

Vod do you think it is okay to help ponzis become more popular?

Respected by whom  Roll Eyes and what for  Roll Eyes bullshitting?? side-stepping??  As with soooooooooo many on this board, he is just another fraud.  It may be possible he was legit?? I am new and do not know, nor do I care.  As far as this newbie is concerned........he is a participant in SCAMS.  It is obvious to this newbie, the scam ponzi's that keep creeping up are the SAME GROUP of people, setting up scams in ponzi's, loans, sales, etc. 

My stance on this is that if a Ponzi scheme is presented in an honest fashion then it's not fraudulent.

Most Ponzi scams promise to double your money in a certain amount of time. They obviously aren't able to do this indefinitely, and so inevitably end up breaking their promise to at least some of the players.

This Ponzi tells you up front that at least some players will be making a loss.

I don't think it's fair to require that 100% of customers fully understand the terms up front. You can't expect 100% of people to understand anything at all, since there exist some incredibly unintelligent people. So long as the claims made are true, that seems to me to be enough. If people fail to understand those claims that's their own responsibility.

The quote about it being illegal to run a business where the income is only from new recruits doesn't apply I think. Ponzi schemes aren't generally funded by referrals, and many players player repeatedly. Obviously if nobody was ever "recruited" into playing a Ponzi then there would be no business, but the same could be said about any business. If a store never "recruited" any customers they wouldn't make any sales. That's not what the law is talking about. It's talking about schemes where you have to buy a membership to get involved.

One problem I see is that even though OP is being upfront about the way his Ponzi operates in this thread, he (or his friends) could well be promoting the same scheme elsewhere using dishonest ("double your money, every time!") claims, and we wouldn't know. But I guess in that case we negrate him there, and not here.



~Be Wise & Scrutinize Everything~~Scammers are like roaches squash 1 there's millions more hiding~I will NEVER ask for a loan~I got plenty of my own ~ BIGGEST lie to date said about me: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2046485.msg20429473#new
Vod
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3738
Merit: 3098


Licking my boob since 1970


View Profile WWW
April 26, 2016, 02:50:29 AM
 #100

Vod do you think it is okay to help ponzis become more popular?

My stance is the same as Dooglus and Theymos - if a Ponzi scheme is presented in an honest fashion then it's not fraudulent.

The issue I have is most ponzis are not honest - they do not state that you will lose your money when the program collapses.

Even if a ponzi is obviously a ponzi, newbies may not know the risks.  The risks need to be posted clearly on the ponzi.  If they are, I consider it gambling, and have no problem with it.

https://nastyscam.com - featuring 13 years of OGNasty bitcoin scams     https://vod.fan - advanced image hosting - coming sooner than you think!
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!