Evidence of alias (u=1764044) long con scam!

[nullius]

All within the same thread:

the script usually works 9/10 times or more

the script fails 9/10 times

Pfft, numbers?  Who cares?

I'm really not interested in the mathematical mumbo jumbo...

Latest snapshot:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180302031007/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.0;all

(Thanks to suchmoon for having caught that.  Oops.)


@RGBKey, I seek your expertise for a gambling newbie question:  Is it mathematically possible to write a gambling script which loses 90% of the time on a site with a 1% house edge?

If not, Alia is scamming!  (Also, if so, Alia was scamming!)

[1715330895]

1715330895

[1715330895]

1715330895

[1715330895]

1715330895

[JayJuanGee]

Jeez. I noticed that account in theymos's red trust, thought it was funny, gave it merit. Don't read into it too much. I'm sure theymos can IP check.

Also, if you guys still believe I am a scammer, even after I repaid aTriz $2,000 even after he broke the contract then you are all braindead. RIP

Ms. Zombie Horse,

as it has been explained in my PM to you, and also much more eloquently by ibminer two posts above, you're a scammer for reasons that have nothing to do with aTriz.

A bank robber who donates to a charity is still a bank robber.

Please use fewer fallacies and less whining in your next bank robbery scam attempt.

Thanks.
--sm.

You should have a slogan for ur selfie, Sm.... that is: "I am helping scammers to scam moar gooder.. one scammer at a time."    

[alia]

All within the same thread:

the script usually works 9/10 times or more

the script fails 9/10 times

Pfft, numbers?  Who cares?

I'm really not interested in the mathematical mumbo jumbo...

Latest snapshot:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180302031007/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.0;all

(Thanks to suchmoon for having caught that.  Oops.)


@RGBKey, I seek your expertise for a gambling newbie question:  Is it mathematically possible to write a gambling script which loses 90% of the time on a site with a 1% house edge?

If not, Alia is scamming!  (Also, if so, Alia was scamming!)

Anecdotal/empirical evidence

[suchmoon]

You should have a slogan for ur selfie, Sm.... that is: "I am helping scammers to scam moar gooder.. one scammer at a time."    

LOL they never listen anyway so I'm like the worst tutor ever.

[JayJuanGee]

So. If a user Skypes me and verifies my identity, I can magically steal theirs! Because fuck logic

I didn't say anything about stealing identity, you're twisting it again. Learning someone's identity and stealing it (i.e. impersonating) is not the same.

And yes, if e.g. I would skype you, you could learn my identity. I think you even admitted yourself somewhere in this whole shitshow that Skype is not good for anonymity, I just can't be arsed to find it now. So no reasonable person would do it and you know that. You're just looking for idiots now or playing some game where you'll claim a win because no one else wanted to participate.

Jesus... I meant a one-way Skype call, retard.

A one-way call might be one in which you and your brother would be on camera, and the forum member calling you would not be on camera, right? 

The only verification of identity (or attempt to accomplish such) would be for you to answer various questions (and show various things, perhaps?) in a live kind of format. 

At this point, do you really believe that any attempt at video verification process would even be useful to clarify anything in your favor, because there seems to be so much damning information out there about you that pretty much establishes that you could not be who you claim to be (innocent 19 year old college girl with a 15 year old brother living under the same roof).  You just seem to come off as way too sophisticated and worldly experienced to be able to also fit the innocent girl status.

[alia]

So. If a user Skypes me and verifies my identity, I can magically steal theirs! Because fuck logic

I didn't say anything about stealing identity, you're twisting it again. Learning someone's identity and stealing it (i.e. impersonating) is not the same.

And yes, if e.g. I would skype you, you could learn my identity. I think you even admitted yourself somewhere in this whole shitshow that Skype is not good for anonymity, I just can't be arsed to find it now. So no reasonable person would do it and you know that. You're just looking for idiots now or playing some game where you'll claim a win because no one else wanted to participate.

Jesus... I meant a one-way Skype call, retard.

A one-way call might be one in which you and your brother would be on camera, and the forum member calling you would not be on camera, right? 

The only verification of identity (or attempt to accomplish such) would be for you to answer various questions (and show various things, perhaps?) in a live kind of format. 

At this point, do you really believe that any attempt at video verification process would even be useful to clarify anything in your favor, because there seems to be so much damning information out there about you that pretty much establishes that you could not be who you claim to be (innocent 19 year old college girl with a 15 year old brother living under the same roof).  You just seem to come off as way too sophisticated and worldly experienced to be able to also fit the innocent girl status.

If I'm sophisticated and have lots of worldly experience, that makes me 15 y/o boy and not a 19 y/o girl. Best. Logic.

Yes, that is EXACTLY the kind of Skype call I want.

[JayJuanGee]

So. If a user Skypes me and verifies my identity, I can magically steal theirs! Because fuck logic

I didn't say anything about stealing identity, you're twisting it again. Learning someone's identity and stealing it (i.e. impersonating) is not the same.

And yes, if e.g. I would skype you, you could learn my identity. I think you even admitted yourself somewhere in this whole shitshow that Skype is not good for anonymity, I just can't be arsed to find it now. So no reasonable person would do it and you know that. You're just looking for idiots now or playing some game where you'll claim a win because no one else wanted to participate.

Jesus... I meant a one-way Skype call, retard.

A one-way call might be one in which you and your brother would be on camera, and the forum member calling you would not be on camera, right?  

The only verification of identity (or attempt to accomplish such) would be for you to answer various questions (and show various things, perhaps?) in a live kind of format.  

At this point, do you really believe that any attempt at video verification process would even be useful to clarify anything in your favor, because there seems to be so much damning information out there about you that pretty much establishes that you could not be who you claim to be (innocent 19 year old college girl with a 15 year old brother living under the same roof).  You just seem to come off as way too sophisticated and worldly experienced to be able to also fit the innocent girl status.

If I'm sophisticated and have lots of worldly experience, that makes me 15 y/o boy and not a 19 y/o girl. Best. Logic.

Yes, that is EXACTLY the kind of Skype call I want.

Well, at least that clarifies what you had meant by "one-way", but I question whether you have not dug yourself in so deeply into a large number of seemingly contradictory assertions and even outrageous slandering of other forum members that such an identity verification process, if it were to occur, or if any trusted forum member would be willing to agree to such, would help you in any way.  

Currently you have 11 negative trusts from trusted members, and some of those negatives would likely not even resolve if you were able to pull off a successful identity verification video interview, if one were to occur.   I mean the trusted members seem to be very very very (and maybe even more veries) repelled by your contradictory and aggressive conduct.  Surely, each of those trusted members would need to be satisfied that your reputation could be redeemed (somewhat) through such an identity verification video move...   Seems like half or nearly half  of those negative taggers have asserted that a video verification with you would be a BIG ASS waste of time.  Right?   Seems like spinning wheels, no?  

Sophisticated comes from age, experience and education and is not really an age or gender matter, but whatever your combination does not add up and seems to be unduly contradictory, whether that is 15 year old boy or 19 year old girl or some other demographic category.

[alia]

So. If a user Skypes me and verifies my identity, I can magically steal theirs! Because fuck logic

I didn't say anything about stealing identity, you're twisting it again. Learning someone's identity and stealing it (i.e. impersonating) is not the same.

And yes, if e.g. I would skype you, you could learn my identity. I think you even admitted yourself somewhere in this whole shitshow that Skype is not good for anonymity, I just can't be arsed to find it now. So no reasonable person would do it and you know that. You're just looking for idiots now or playing some game where you'll claim a win because no one else wanted to participate.

Jesus... I meant a one-way Skype call, retard.

A one-way call might be one in which you and your brother would be on camera, and the forum member calling you would not be on camera, right?  

The only verification of identity (or attempt to accomplish such) would be for you to answer various questions (and show various things, perhaps?) in a live kind of format.  

At this point, do you really believe that any attempt at video verification process would even be useful to clarify anything in your favor, because there seems to be so much damning information out there about you that pretty much establishes that you could not be who you claim to be (innocent 19 year old college girl with a 15 year old brother living under the same roof).  You just seem to come off as way too sophisticated and worldly experienced to be able to also fit the innocent girl status.

If I'm sophisticated and have lots of worldly experience, that makes me 15 y/o boy and not a 19 y/o girl. Best. Logic.

Yes, that is EXACTLY the kind of Skype call I want.

Well, at least that clarifies what you had meant by "one-way", but I question whether you have not dug yourself in so deeply into a large number of seemingly contradictory assertions and even outrageous slandering of other forum members that such an identity verification process, if it were to occur, or if any trusted forum member would be willing to agree to such, would help you in any way.  

Currently you have 11 negative trusts from trusted members, and some of those negatives would likely not even resolve if you were able to pull off a successful identity verification video interview, if one were to occur.   I mean the trusted members seem to be very very very (and maybe even more veries) repelled by your contradictory and aggressive conduct.  Surely, each of those trusted members would need to be satisfied that your reputation could be redeemed (somewhat) through such an identity verification video move...   Seems like half or nearly half  of those negative taggers have asserted that a video verification with you would be a BIG ASS waste of time.  Right?   Seems like spinning wheels, no?  

Sophisticated comes from age, experience and education and is not really an age or gender matter, but whatever your combination does not add up and seems to be unduly contradictory, whether that is 15 year old boy or 19 year old girl or some other demographic category.

I know. I have no hope of getting the red off. That is further proof that I am not a scammer (knowing that fact I still did a refund)

Whatever, this account is useless to me.

[suchmoon]

Well, at least that clarifies what you had meant by "one-way", but I question whether you have not dug yourself in so deeply into a large number of seemingly contradictory assertions and even outrageous slandering of other forum members that such an identity verification process, if it were to occur, or if any trusted forum member would be willing to agree to such, would help you in any way.  

Currently you have 11 negative trusts from trusted members, and some of those negatives would likely not even resolve if you were able to pull off a successful identity verification video interview - I mean they seem to be very very very (and maybe even more veries) repelled by your contradictory and aggressive conduct.  Surely, each of those trusted members would need to be satisfied that your reputation could be redeemed (somewhat) through such an identity verification video move...   Seems like half or nearly half  of those negative taggers have asserted that a video verification with you would be a BIG ASS waste of time.  Right?   Seems like spinning wheels, no?  

I have already stated quite clearly that my neg will stay as it's not based on the aTriz drama or on identity questions. It's based on the scammy gambling script.

Some others expressed similar POV. This Skype thing is pointless for any practical purpose, just like the gambling "proof" thread.

I know. I have no hope of getting the red off. That is further proof that I am not a scammer (knowing that fact I still did a refund)

Whatever, this account is useless to me.

Great. Bye. Good luck in school.

[alia]

Well, at least that clarifies what you had meant by "one-way", but I question whether you have not dug yourself in so deeply into a large number of seemingly contradictory assertions and even outrageous slandering of other forum members that such an identity verification process, if it were to occur, or if any trusted forum member would be willing to agree to such, would help you in any way.  

Currently you have 11 negative trusts from trusted members, and some of those negatives would likely not even resolve if you were able to pull off a successful identity verification video interview - I mean they seem to be very very very (and maybe even more veries) repelled by your contradictory and aggressive conduct.  Surely, each of those trusted members would need to be satisfied that your reputation could be redeemed (somewhat) through such an identity verification video move...   Seems like half or nearly half  of those negative taggers have asserted that a video verification with you would be a BIG ASS waste of time.  Right?   Seems like spinning wheels, no?  

I have already stated quite clearly that my neg will stay as it's not based on the aTriz drama or on identity questions. It's based on the scammy gambling script.

Some others expressed similar POV. This Skype thing is pointless for any practical purpose, just like the gambling "proof" thread.

I know. I have no hope of getting the red off. That is further proof that I am not a scammer (knowing that fact I still did a refund)

Whatever, this account is useless to me.

Great. Bye. Good luck in school.

No problem. Some people enjoy evidence and rationality; OgNasty and QS come to mind. Others such as yourself... plague to this planet. Good luck to you too (if only I meant it)

[nullius]

All within the same thread:

the script usually works 9/10 times or more

the script fails 9/10 times

Pfft, numbers?  Who cares?

I'm really not interested in the mathematical mumbo jumbo...

Latest snapshot:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180302031007/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.0;all

(Thanks to suchmoon for having caught that.  Oops.)


@RGBKey, I seek your expertise for a gambling newbie question:  Is it mathematically possible to write a gambling script which loses 90% of the time on a site with a 1% house edge?

If not, Alia is scamming!  (Also, if so, Alia was scamming!)

Anecdotal/empirical evidence

“Anecdotal/empirical evidence”, says the individual who claims that the “evidence” of 20 gambling runs of your script would override the laws of mathematics.  (As RGBKey calculated, you would have a 29.4% chance of “proof” by blind luck.)

Or do your words “anecdotal/empirical evidence” refer to something else?  It’s a bit ambiguous; and you have a recent history of word-conflation and patent self-contradiction to the point of nonsense:

Typo I meant wins 9/10 times

That makes no sense in the context:

2) Since the script wins 9/10 times, I don't want to lose my coin. I will never use the script on significant amounts of money, unless it's for investors

This makes sense in the context:

2) Since the script fails 9/10 times, I don't want to lose my coin. I will never use the script on significant amounts of money, unless it's for investors

So maybe add to this:

I'm really not interested in the mathematical mumbo jumbo...

...also this:

I'm really not interested in the reading comprehension mumbo jumbo...

Latest snapshot:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180302042930/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.0;all

A one-way call might be one in which you and your brother would be on camera, and the forum member calling you would not be on camera, right?  

The only verification of identity (or attempt to accomplish such) would be for you to answer various questions (and show various things, perhaps?) in a live kind of format.  

At this point, do you really believe that any attempt at video verification process would even be useful to clarify anything in your favor, because there seems to be so much damning information out there about you that pretty much establishes that you could not be who you claim to be (innocent 19 year old college girl with a 15 year old brother living under the same roof).  You just seem to come off as way too sophisticated and worldly experienced to be able to also fit the innocent girl status.

If I'm sophisticated and have lots of worldly experience, that makes me 15 y/o boy and not a 19 y/o girl. Best. Logic.

Yes, that is EXACTLY the kind of Skype call I want.

Alia, I hate to tell you this, but I’m probably the only user on this forum who still gives so much as three damns about whether you are favours, or favours’ big sister.

I do still want to resolve that.  Not sure how.  Won’t expend too much effort on my own part; to use a concept you understand (from econ class—and otherwise), what incentive do I have?  But if you’re really a 19-year-old girl rather than an all-around lying sack of shit with external plumbing, I don’t want to leave you in some Kafkaesque situation where you can’t prove you’re not your scamming little bro’.  Call it the principle of the matter.

Not going to help you with the mathematically impossible gambling script or your flip-flops there.  Obviously.

[actmyname]

Anecdotal/empirical evidence

Which is insubstantial when verifying the success of a script.

I can run a script 2 times, get a positive profit on the second run and claim a 100% chance of success.

My sample size contains only that very last one. It's anecdotal evidence.

[alia]

Anecdotal/empirical evidence

Which is insubstantial when verifying the success of a script.

I can run a script 2 times, get a positive profit on the second run and claim a 100% chance of success.

My sample size contains only that very last one. It's anecdotal evidence.

Excellent point. But if I profit 100 times for myself and 100 times for investors, even if it is against math, I'm happy. And it is not against math - check out combined probability.

[nullius]

Anecdotal/empirical evidence

Which is insubstantial when verifying the success of a script.

I can run a script 2 times, get a positive profit on the second run and claim a 100% chance of success.

My sample size contains only that very last one. It's anecdotal evidence.

Now, I’m confused (per my above post).  Usually, when somebody in such a context calls out “anecdotal” evidence, it’s a criticism.  Thus, my assumption that she was referring to something which I put forth.  Her statement was ambiguous in the context.

Whereas if she was referring to her purported attempt to empirically disprove the laws of mathematics—well, RGBKey already calculated that she would have a 29.4% probability of meeting all her stated “proof” criteria by blind luck.  —  And as I noted, she was only risking a total of 0.00004 BTC, plus her promise to abandon a useless user account here.

29.4% probability of success, little to no downside risk—what an empirical “proof”!

[alia]

Anecdotal/empirical evidence

Which is insubstantial when verifying the success of a script.

I can run a script 2 times, get a positive profit on the second run and claim a 100% chance of success.

My sample size contains only that very last one. It's anecdotal evidence.

Now, I’m confused (per my above post).  Usually, when somebody in such a context calls out “anecdotal” evidence, it’s a criticism.  Thus, my assumption that she was referring to something which I put forth.  Her statement was ambiguous in the context.

Whereas if she was referring to her purported attempt to empirically disprove the laws of mathematics—well, RGBKey already calculated that she would have a 29.4% probability of meeting all her stated “proof” criteria by blind luck.  —  And as I noted, she was only risking a total of 0.00004 BTC, plus her promise to abandon a useless user account here.

29.4% probability of success, little to no downside risk—what an empirical “proof”!

The downside isn't my money. It's my rep. If the script doesn't work I'll admit I'm a scammer and fuck off forever.

[nullius]

Anecdotal/empirical evidence

Which is insubstantial when verifying the success of a script.

I can run a script 2 times, get a positive profit on the second run and claim a 100% chance of success.

My sample size contains only that very last one. It's anecdotal evidence.

Now, I’m confused (per my above post).  Usually, when somebody in such a context calls out “anecdotal” evidence, it’s a criticism.  Thus, my assumption that she was referring to something which I put forth.  Her statement was ambiguous in the context.

Whereas if she was referring to her purported attempt to empirically disprove the laws of mathematics—well, RGBKey already calculated that she would have a 29.4% probability of meeting all her stated “proof” criteria by blind luck.  —  And as I noted, she was only risking a total of 0.00004 BTC, plus her promise to abandon a useless user account here.

29.4% probability of success, little to no downside risk—what an empirical “proof”!

The downside isn't my money. It's my rep. If the script doesn't work I'll admit I'm a scammer and fuck off forever.

What “rep”?

Your “rep” here is deeply in the negative.  You have less than nothing to lose in terms of reputation!

[alia]

Anecdotal/empirical evidence

Which is insubstantial when verifying the success of a script.

I can run a script 2 times, get a positive profit on the second run and claim a 100% chance of success.

My sample size contains only that very last one. It's anecdotal evidence.

Now, I’m confused (per my above post).  Usually, when somebody in such a context calls out “anecdotal” evidence, it’s a criticism.  Thus, my assumption that she was referring to something which I put forth.  Her statement was ambiguous in the context.

Whereas if she was referring to her purported attempt to empirically disprove the laws of mathematics—well, RGBKey already calculated that she would have a 29.4% probability of meeting all her stated “proof” criteria by blind luck.  —  And as I noted, she was only risking a total of 0.00004 BTC, plus her promise to abandon a useless user account here.

29.4% probability of success, little to no downside risk—what an empirical “proof”!

The downside isn't my money. It's my rep. If the script doesn't work I'll admit I'm a scammer and fuck off forever.

What “rep”?

Your “rep” here is deeply in the negative.  You have less than nothing to lose in terms of reputation!

Oh well, I can extend the 10 days to 100 days, wouldn't make much of a difference.

[RGBKey]

@RGBKey, I seek your expertise for a gambling newbie question:  Is it mathematically possible to write a gambling script which loses 90% of the time on a site with a 1% house edge?

If not, Alia is scamming!  (Also, if so, Alia was scamming!)

Of course. Betting on a 9.9x multiplier has a 10% chance to win, which would lose 90% of the time on average.

[Quickseller]

Honestly, at this point it looks like alia is just trolling. I don’t think there is anything that can be said or shown that will change my (or anyone’s) opinion about her status as a scammer. The points that she is trying to prove are moot.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Honestly, at this point it looks like alia is just trolling. I don’t think there is anything that can be said or shown that will change my (or anyone’s) opinion about her status as a scammer. The points that she is trying to prove are moot.

Exactly this. She is fixated on a Skype call, but even if she proves she is a 19 year old girl, we still know that a known scammer (her/brother/someone else) uses her computer, accounts and wallets. It changes nothing, not even mentioning the scam gambling script.