TradeFortress VERY untrustworthy, owes me 10.15 BTC, possibly others.

[DiamondCardz]

I could write a piece of paper with "1 BTC" on it and it would have the same value.

That'd have significantly more value for the paper it was wrote on.

True, that.

[1715675413]

1715675413

[1715675413]

1715675413

[1715675413]

1715675413

[1715675413]

1715675413

[1715675413]

1715675413

[Anduck]

Well, even if you did make it clear it's a BTC debt issued by you, you still mislead people to think they would get something. They thought you would honor your debts which you don't do.

Long time members of this community are not supposed to mislead newbies, it's just wrong. You would get banned if you went to newbies section and make a thread "send your bitcoins here [address], I will pay back double!". Then with your logic you could say, umm, "never said when I will pay back". Or something else that's clearly scamming or atleast very shady and untrustworthy stuff. Do we agree?

You very well knew there were bitstamp/snapswap backed ripple-BTCs around and they would lose them by trusting you. They didn't/don't understand the Ripple system enough to know what trusting someone actually means. You lured them to this trap that can be read as untrustworthy behaviour at least.

It's not "pointing a flaw in Ripple system", it's taking advantage of people who don't understand trust system of ripple. Even though you didn't probably mean to do actual harm or get benefit (in form of real bitcoins), you 100% knew it would harm people who fell in this.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Well, even if you did make it clear it's a BTC debt issued by you, you still mislead people to think they would get something. They thought you would honor your debts which you don't do.

Long time members of this community are not supposed to mislead newbies, it's just wrong. You would get banned if you went to newbies section and make a thread "send your bitcoins here [address], I will pay back double!". Then with your logic you could say, umm, "never said when I will pay back". Or something else that's clearly scamming or atleast very shady and untrustworthy stuff. Do we agree?

You very well knew there were bitstamp/snapswap backed ripple-BTCs around and they would lose them by trusting you. They didn't/don't understand the Ripple system enough to know what trusting someone actually means. You lured them to this trap that can be read as untrustworthy behaviour at least.

If I buy an apple and say I'll pay 0.05 BTC for it, and give them a piece of paper saying 0.05 BTC for it, I am a scammer. If I do a bet, I'm a scammer.

If I go "Free BTC!" and post a picture of a Bitcoin, I am not a scammer. If I give them a worthless Ripple BTC, I'm not a scammer.

Which part of this do you have problems comprehending?

[Anduck]

Well, even if you did make it clear it's a BTC debt issued by you, you still mislead people to think they would get something. They thought you would honor your debts which you don't do.

Long time members of this community are not supposed to mislead newbies, it's just wrong. You would get banned if you went to newbies section and make a thread "send your bitcoins here [address], I will pay back double!". Then with your logic you could say, umm, "never said when I will pay back". Or something else that's clearly scamming or atleast very shady and untrustworthy stuff. Do we agree?

You very well knew there were bitstamp/snapswap backed ripple-BTCs around and they would lose them by trusting you. They didn't/don't understand the Ripple system enough to know what trusting someone actually means. You lured them to this trap that can be read as untrustworthy behaviour at least.

If I buy an apple and say I'll pay 0.05 BTC for it, and give them a piece of paper saying 0.05 BTC for it, I am a scammer. If I do a bet, I'm a scammer.

If I go "Free BTC!" and post a picture of a Bitcoin, I am not a scammer. If I give them a worthless Ripple BTC, I'm not a scammer.

Which part of this do you have problems comprehending?

Please read my previous post again and think about it. It's not about what you gave to them, it's about what it caused and what you told them and how.

[murraypaul]

You make not have actually lied at any point, but is clear that you intentionally mislead people in order to prove a point.
And as a result of that, people who trusted you have lost money.
Feeling good about that?

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

You would get banned if you went to newbies section and make a thread "send your bitcoins here [address], I will pay back double!". Then with your logic you could say, umm, "never said when I will pay back". Or something else that's clearly scamming or atleast very shady and untrustworthy stuff. Do we agree?

This is a red herring. I never did anything remotely similar to that.

The closet would be "Add trust for [address], I will send you 1 Ripple BTC". I do not profit in any way.

Also take a look at this thread, this is where the OP actually profits:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.0

You very well knew there were bitstamp/snapswap backed ripple-BTCs around and they would lose them by trusting you.

That is correct, just as how when someone announces a new security vulnerability in SSL for example (http://breachattack.com/) they very well knew that it will lead to innocent people being MITM attacked. Eventually site owners will fix and new SSL versions will fix the vulnerability, same thing here - it's better for people to learn about why Ripple's debt model is flawed now rather than later.

[Anduck]

You made harm to people and you did it on purpose. Just so you haven't forgot: You lured people to trust you without telling them they will lose all their real valuable backed ripple bitcoins (if they had any) when they add the trust towards you. It's scamming.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

You made harm to people and you did it on purpose. Just so you haven't forgot: You lured people to trust you without telling them they will lose all their real valuable backed ripple bitcoins (if they had any) when they add the trust towards you. It's scamming.

I didn't directly do harm to people, and no it is not scamming.

[murraypaul]

You made harm to people and you did it on purpose. Just so you haven't forgot: You lured people to trust you without telling them they will lose all their real valuable backed ripple bitcoins (if they had any) when they add the trust towards you. It's scamming.

I didn't directly do harm to people, and no it is not scamming.

Wiggle all you want, you knowingly caused harm.
It may not be scammy, but it is pretty scummy.

And it is nothing like annoucing a security leak in SSL. The equivalent would be that you didn't just announce the leak, you created a page to trash end-users' computers, and tricked them into visiting your site.

[augustocroppo]

Just a few quotes by you from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=206948.0

Too bad I can't see the original first post because it's been edited and the topic is self moderated.

You mislead them purposely to think they would get something else than a DEBT issued by you.

Here it is:

To expose and bring awareness to the flaws in the Ripple payment system, I am giving away 1 BTC on Ripple.

This is a social experiment. Therefore, posts not consisting of an Ripple address to send 1 BTC to will be deleted.

How it works

1. Register for a bitcointalk.org forum account if you haven't
2. Complete the following steps in your light (not a full node) Ripple client:



So you can copy and paste the address we're sending your bitcoin from, it's rH3bZsvVUhzugvcYuJVoSYCEMHkfK6wHNv

3. Post your address here. I will send at least 1 BTC to your address.

That's it!

I suggest reading RippleScam.org afterwards. Please note that you must exchange your bitcoins with an liquidity provider (Ripple does this automatically, when paths are calculated) in order to withdraw them from a gateway.

[DumbFruit]

It's really exciting to see theory tested. I've stayed well clear of Ripple for this exact reason. As TradeFortress puts it; trust isn't binary.

This concept in Ripple is central to it's usefulness and it just doesn't hold water. These objections have been brought up since it's inception and it's only been met with constant hand-waving by the Ripple developers.

Even debt at Banks like Chase or Bank of America aren't interchangeable. The whole idea of Ripple is that if Chase promises to redeem 100$, then Bank of America will redeem 100$ and hold the IOU from Chase. That's completely outrageous.

Imagine that we somehow got to a point where Ripple was the dominant exchange platform in the world, and regularly handles transactions on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars. You mean to tell me that we're just suppose to trust notoriously untrustworthy banks to never have less than 100% reserves? That a gigantic bank is never going to default and renege on it's IOU's? If we trusted banks this much, then why did we ever bother with Bitcoin?

The constant inclination in the system would be to move debt of untrustworthy institutions, to trustworthy institutions. Putting the bad debt on the balance sheets of the good banks.

The developers of course continue creating their mountain of rules and caveats to inexorably chip away at the problem, but what they don't realize is that they're chipping away at their central premise; That of interchangeable debt. Once they totally abandon that idea, they'll have something that works, but when they get there, what will be the point?

A peer to peer trust-free medium of exchange?                                                            _(BTC)

Edit:
ROFLMAOPIMP
Webr3
This is where this started??:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=210634.20

Where you were WARNED REPEATEDLY in a thread totally about TradeFortress "scamming" people and then you lost 10btc anyway? He gets your bitcoins back to you, you are warned again, and you lose them in exactly the same way! Holy cow! LMAO!!!

TradeFortress should have kept your bitcoins, and you shouldn't parading around in your dumbassity*  trying to attack TradeFortress' reputation.

Wow. I have to step back and cool off from this. This too hilarious/dumb/incredible.

*That's a word now.

Edit2:
"Okay, why should I remove the trust line? Have you extend trust to people who are untrustworthy?" -Webr3
Ahahahahahaha. Wow.

Edit3:
Ahem... Now that I've had a few deep breathes. Sorry for your loss, but it's a problem with Ripple, not TradeFortress.

Edit4: Realized they never really made any serious effort to address the problems.

[Anduck]

It's really exciting to see theory tested. I've stayed well clear of Ripple for this exact reason. As TradeFortress puts it; trust isn't binary.

This concept in Ripple is central to it's usefulness and it just doesn't hold water. These objections have been brought up since it's inception and it's only been met with constant hand-waving by the Ripple developers.

Even debt at Banks like Chase or Bank of America aren't interchangeable. The whole idea of Ripple is that if Chase promises to redeem 100$, then Bank of America will redeem 100$ and hold the IOU from Chase. That's completely outrageous.

Imagine that we somehow got to a point where Ripple was the dominant exchange platform in the world, and regularly handles transactions on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars. You mean to tell me that we're just suppose to trust notoriously untrustworthy banks to never have less than 100% reserves? That a gigantic bank is never going to default and renege on it's IOU's? If we trusted banks this much, then why did we ever bother with Bitcoin?

The constant inclination in the system would be to move debt of untrustworthy institutions, to trustworthy institutions. Putting the bad debt on the balance sheets of the good banks.

The developers of course continue creating their mountain of rules and caveats to inexorably chip away at the problem, but what they don't realize is that they're chipping away at their central premise; That of interchangeable debt. Once they totally abandon that idea, they'll have something that works, but when they get there, what will be the point?

A peer to peer trust-free medium of exchange?                                                            _(BTC)

Edit:
ROFLMAOPIMP
Webr3
This is where this started??:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=210634.20

Where you were WARNED REPEATEDLY in a thread totally about TradeFortress "scamming" people and then you lost 10btc anyway? He gets your bitcoins back to you, you are warned again, and you lose them in exactly the same way! Holy cow! LMAO!!!

TradeFortress should have kept your bitcoins, and you shouldn't parading around in your dumbassity*  trying to attack TradeFortress' reputation.

Wow. I have to step back and cool off from this. This too hilarious/dumb/incredible.

*That's a word now.

Edit2:
"Okay, why should I remove the trust line? Have you extend trust to people who are untrustworthy?" -Webr3
Ahahahahahaha. Wow.

Edit3:
Ahem... Now that I've had a few deep breathes. Sorry for your loss, but it's a problem with Ripple, not TradeFortress.

He trusted TradeFortress, nobody else. Read the messages, DumbFruit. You apparently don't know much about what happened here and therefore I am asking you to actually read this thread and search info about this.

The constant inclination in the system would be to move debt of untrustworthy institutions, to trustworthy institutions.

Well can't you just do that with Ripple network? You choose who you trust. Please read more about how Ripple works and how the trust in Ripple works (how it's safely used).

[Anduck]

Just a few quotes by you from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=206948.0

Too bad I can't see the original first post because it's been edited and the topic is self moderated.

You mislead them purposely to think they would get something else than a DEBT issued by you.

Here it is:

To expose and bring awareness to the flaws in the Ripple payment system, I am giving away 1 BTC on Ripple.

This is a social experiment. Therefore, posts not consisting of an Ripple address to send 1 BTC to will be deleted.

How it works

1. Register for a bitcointalk.org forum account if you haven't
2. Complete the following steps in your light (not a full node) Ripple client:



So you can copy and paste the address we're sending your bitcoin from, it's rH3bZsvVUhzugvcYuJVoSYCEMHkfK6wHNv

3. Post your address here. I will send at least 1 BTC to your address.

That's it!

I suggest reading RippleScam.org afterwards. Please note that you must exchange your bitcoins with an liquidity provider (Ripple does this automatically, when paths are calculated) in order to withdraw them from a gateway.

[DumbFruit]

Oh I read it, believe me. As soon as they remove "liquidity provider" from the system entirely they will fix it.

People seem to forget that Ripple was around long before OpenCoin got their hands on it. Ripple doesn't require cryptocurrencies to do it's thing, but it didn't work. Why? Because The core concept of Ripple is entirely unworkable.

They pretend like Ripple just automates the way people treat each-other in the real world, and nothing could be farther from the truth.

Look at the assumptions Ripple makes;

1.) If I trust my brother, it must mean I trust my brother's debtors.

2.) Debt is time invariant. It assumes that money today is just as valuable as money at any given future date.

(As a combination of one and two, it assumes that all debt with the same principal are interchangeable.)

3.) The principal of the maximum loan I would give accurately reflects trust. Without interest, terms, or collateral.

4.) There is no moral hazard involved when a "liquidity provider" can always renege on it's debts and allow another "liquidity provider" fulfill it's obligations.

5.) Having more debt than currency is a good idea.


Then consider all the things they try to do to fix this problem;
-Beginning of list-
-They recommend that no one trust anyone but the gateways.
-End of list-

If that isn't a laughable admission of defeat, I don't know what is. There is no way to make Ripple work without automating the subjective valuation of debt between people, which just can't be done with today's technology (And maybe never.).

Webr3 was pompous and refused to believe that TradeFortress was showing everyone a real problem in Ripple. He lost bitcoins, and then TradeFortress returned what he lost, at which point he promptly did exactly the same thing and lost his bitcoins again. He gets a few laughs, but very little sympathy from me.

[ElectricMucus]

No they said don't trust people in the system you don't trust in reality.

TFs scheme only worked because noobs were stupid enough to think they can "sell" trust.

[murraypaul]

TFs scheme only worked because noobs were stupid enough to think they can "sell" trust.

This very board tells 'noobs' that TradeFortress is someone who can be trusted not to rip them off, because the default trust settings assigned to every new user give him something like a +17 trust rating.
So the lesson to 'noobs' is not to trust the trust system.

[ElectricMucus]

TFs scheme only worked because noobs were stupid enough to think they can "sell" trust.

This very board tells 'noobs' that TradeFortress is someone who can be trusted not to rip them off, because the default trust settings assigned to every new user give him something like a +17 trust rating.
So the lesson to 'noobs' is not to trust the trust system.

This was before the trust rating on the forum though.

I'd say the lesson is don't trust the default trust list. Dumbfruit is a TF sockpuppet btw, I recognize his style.

[murraypaul]

I'd say the lesson is don't trust the default trust list.

I agree, and I don't, but what else are brand new users meant to do?
They have to assume that the default they have been given are sensible.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

The OP who got "ripped off":

Webr3 was pompous and refused to believe that TradeFortress was showing everyone a real problem in Ripple. He lost bitcoins, and then TradeFortress returned what he lost, at which point he promptly did exactly the same thing and lost his bitcoins again. He gets a few laughs, but very little sympathy from me.

[ElectricMucus]

Lets see who has the last laughs shall we?