Scammer: Inaba

[surebet]

Greets,

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=119338.0

You know the drill. An "untrustworthy" tag à la Matthew N. Wright could also be considered.

[1701170600]

1701170600

[1701170600]

1701170600

[1701170600]

1701170600

[mc_lovin]

You know the drill. An "untrustworthy" tag à la Matthew N. Wright could also be considered.

After getting scammertagged and then the community cools down, upgrade to Untrustworthy should be a community decision.

[MPOE-PR]

You know the drill. An "untrustworthy" tag à la Matthew N. Wright could also be considered.

After getting scammertagged and then the community cools down, upgrade to Untrustworthy should be a community decision.

Who is "the community"?

[Este Nuno]

Who is "the community"?

A "community" of one.

[surebet]

*cough*

[Minor Miner]

It is pretty clear cut.   No 1000 BTC has been donated.   They have shipped.   They missed the target so the 1000 should have been paid.
Why does he not have a scammer tag?

[Xian01]

It is pretty clear cut.   No 1000 BTC has been donated.   They have shipped.   They missed the target so the 1000 should have been paid.
Why does he not have a scammer tag?

Theymos has been notably silent on these calls for action

[surebet]

It is pretty clear cut.   No 1000 BTC has been donated.   They have shipped.   They missed the target so the 1000 should have been paid.
Why does he not have a scammer tag?

Theymos has been notably silent on these calls for action

Why bite the hand that feeds you ~2k in ad revenue per week?

[superduh]

tag him

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

It is pretty clear cut.   No 1000 BTC has been donated.   They have shipped.   They missed the target so the 1000 should have been paid.
Why does he not have a scammer tag?

Theymos has been notably silent on these calls for action

Why bite the hand that feeds you ~2k in ad revenue per week?

Not anymore

[00null]

I am offering up a guarantee of 1000 BTC to charity (I will take suggestions on which charity to donate this to) if BFL does not meet it's power claims within 10% - meaning if BFL's power consumption is more than 66w for a Single SC, we lose the "bet."

For a scammer tag, the accused person needs to have promised to do something and then failed to deliver on the promise.

[surebet]

It is pretty clear cut.   No 1000 BTC has been donated.   They have shipped.   They missed the target so the 1000 should have been paid.
Why does he not have a scammer tag?

Theymos has been notably silent on these calls for action

Why bite the hand that feeds you ~2k in ad revenue per week?

Not anymore

Indeed, congrats on the win. He did offer more or less 4k$ this round though, so my point still stands.

Funny how he has stayed out of this thread though, usually Josh loves to berate people and throw quarters at them.

[surebet]

*cough*

[Xian01]

... might as well put some of that refund money to good use ...

[kakobrekla]

I am offering up a guarantee of 1000 BTC to charity (I will take suggestions on which charity to donate this to) if BFL does not meet it's power claims within 10% - meaning if BFL's power consumption is more than 66w for a Single SC, we lose the "bet."

For a scammer tag, the accused person needs to have promised to do something and then failed to deliver on the promise.

By the definition, we can start 'Scammer: Theymos'.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

you guys are doing this all wrong.  There is a new section in your avatar for reputation. 

I have the proud privilege of being the first poster in Inaba's "official" reputation here on this forum...

Click the red reputation under the glorious bastard's avatar here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=206304.20

Only provide facts, we don't want to lose the AWESOME new rep tool.  (and if you like that I am taking it upon myself to notify the world of inaba's inaccuracy's hit me up as +1 a few posts down on that same page...  I'm trying to earn my reputation by doing the right thing and telling noobs of the dangers that they may not see on day one).

FUCKBFL

Only you and people who trusts you sees the red warning. The exception is if your trust list is blank (trust is different from feedback), you automatically trust theymos then and theymos trusted people (which I think I'm the only one that has being actually leaving some feedback).

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

No, I see 0 -0 +0. Someone who trusts you (or nobody and theymos trusts you) will see it.

[surebet]

No, I see 0 -0 +0. Someone who trusts you (or nobody and theymos trusts you) will see it.

That's an awesomely useful feature...

[surebet]

Happy 1000-views-and-no-mod-comment, thread.

[MPOE-PR]

By the definition, we can start 'Scammer: Theymos'.

Plus parents everywhere.

For the record, the classical definition of civil responsibility includes promise to perform and detrimental reliance. Both, not just one. I notice the forum does tend to favor a "one's enough" outlook, but the reasons things worked out that way in the real world are solid and haven't changed just because Bitcoin, just because internet forum or just because self entitled posters.