Why aren't obvious scammers banned?

[Dig Bicks]

Why aren't the obvious scammers banned from this forum?  I was reading through scam accusations and have come across a lot of serious cases.  For example this user is a scammer that stole 20 btc https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=358020

I would consider these type of people much more harmful than someone that plagiarizes.

[1713572150]

1713572150

[1713572150]

1713572150

[1713572150]

1713572150

[1713572150]

1713572150

[1713572150]

1713572150

[pugman]

Forum doesn't moderate scams. Its up to each individual to determine if a person is going to scam or not. The forum doesn't act as a judge,jury or executioner.

[Anduck]

Forum doesn't moderate scams. Its up to each individual to determine if a person is going to scam or not. The forum doesn't act as a judge,jury or executioner.

The question is why.

Forum used to moderate scams, but doesn't do it currently. The main reason for that, if I recall right, is that determining if someone is a scammer can be quite subjective, framing someone as a scammer is relatively easy (so abuse surface is significant) and it also takes a lot of time.

Sometimes the community at large can be very wrong. Cultural differences exist too -- something that's scamming in the western countries is nowhere near scamming in eastern -- and vice versa. For example, you may remember the OKCoin domain usage contract with likely faked signatures... People said that it's normal business in China. Maybe it is partially, maybe not, but that is just an example of possible cultural differences. Not always easy to mark someone as a scammer.

[hilariousetc]

Why aren't the obvious scammers banned from this forum?  I was reading through scam accusations and have come across a lot of serious cases.  For example this user is a scammer that stole 20 btc https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=358020

I would consider these type of people much more harmful than someone that plagiarizes.

Quickseller didn't steal 20 bitcoins. He was "given" 20 bitcoins in order to peruse legal action against vod which never happened nor were the coins returned up until very recently I believe. However, I say "given" because it is very likely that QS and Tf were one and the same (the guy who sent him the coins in the first place), so the deal was just a fraud in order to scare vod. So maybe that's why staff don't moderate scams because they're not always black and white or open and shut cases.

[minifrij]

To go over each case, look at it, determine whether or not the user deserves to be banned and ban them would take an enormous amount of time and effort. More than the mods or admins care to put in, I'm sure.

[seoincorporation]

Why aren't the obvious scammers banned from this forum?  I was reading through scam accusations and have come across a lot of serious cases.  For example this user is a scammer that stole 20 btc https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=358020

I would consider these type of people much more harmful than someone that plagiarizes.

Everything has its nuances and we are not legal experts or advisors in here. I think that no-one in the forum should be able of acting like one. Now, Scam accusations are useful to see what`s going on with a user before making any agreement, as well as the trust system. But, we are not lawyers, so, how can you determine if there is enough proof and maybe vanish an innocent guy? Who will throw the very first stone if we decide to stone someone?

This is not an Inquisitorial place, but a free one. I think the Trust system, as well as the Scam Accusation board, are fairly enough to help people to come to their very own conclusions. Now, it will be, no doubt, a personal interpretation.

[Pesh]

Well it's partly because scammers aren't entirely obvious. Though most have similar shit posts a large majority have taken the time to make the project as convincing as it possibly can be. I remember just last week a coin called EAZY coin had been reported a scam because the developer deleted the discord channel. A month or two before that another coin called ALMEX had it's developer leave for some odd reason even though the project was thriving in terms of trade volume and coin price. Then there was SPARKS coin. The developer also left most likely because of the price drop but a scam is a scam non the less. There is a new community taking that over though, which by the way, are doing a wonderful job of taking it to the next level.

[mobilazy]

People have to do their own research and not rely on moderators to do the job for them. Luckily we have DT to tag scammers but I wouldn't trust them either blindly. ICOs are 90% scam so following this logic all people promoting scammy ICOs in their signatures should be banned as well.

[The Cryptovator]

Why aren't the obvious scammers banned from this forum?  I was reading through scam accusations and have come across a lot of serious cases.  For example this user is a scammer that stole 20 btc https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=358020

I would consider these type of people much more harmful than someone that plagiarizes.

Scam are not moderated by forum. But I don't know exactly why. There are many case that well proven scammer with solid evidence. Why they should not be ban from forum ? Is red tag from DT enough ? Scammer will take chance to scam other. Although it's very hard to prove scammer. But those case are clear & there is good evidence, I think they should be ban. So that he can't scam again by same account. I know scammer might be create an new account but it will not trustworthy.

[bittraffic]

OP looks like trying to justify being a shit copy poster than an alleged scammer.

There had been tons of scam here in the forum but we can not say for sure whether its true. The only that can be proved is the connection between wallets as proof coins are being sent and received but the details between can be something to analyzed because it could only be a clown show.

[Steamtyme]

On the surface it seems easy enough; but after being here a while and seeing the elaborate lengths people will go to I can see why the forum would wash it's hands of it.

On the flip side of that they do not moderate anyone calling out scams. Everyone and anyone has the ability to shed light on anything that doesn't seem above board and a discussion can ensue.

 Is red tag from DT enough ?

It should. This is a bright red mark saying "look at me". The feedback should have a reference. If this isn't enough to make you want to deal elsewhere then I don't know what to say. Note there are usually many other options available...some of them even legit.

[xtraelv]

What is a scam and who decides it is a scam ?

Some scams are obvious but others are not. Once you start moderating scams it can quickly become extremely complex.

Some people call bitcoin a scam. Some people call bcash a scam - some people call it bitcoin cash.

Some people call Ripple a scam. Where do you draw the line ?

Cloud-mining contracts ? Short term mining contracts ? HYIP ? Pump and dump groups ? Crypto exchanges ? Tax collectors ?

The trust system - while not perfect - works fine in identifying and warning people of potential issues and scams.

The reality is that people need to educate themselves on how to spot scams, keep their crypto safe, use escrow and do their own research.

[hilariousetc]

OP looks like trying to justify being a shit copy poster than an alleged scammer.

There had been tons of scam here in the forum but we can not say for sure whether its true. The only that can be proved is the connection between wallets as proof coins are being sent and received but the details between can be something to analyzed because it could only be a clown show.

Op is almost certainly just a throwaway alt account.

Scam are not moderated by forum. But I don't know exactly why. There are many case that well proven scammer with solid evidence. Why they should not be ban from forum ? Is red tag from DT enough ? Scammer will take chance to scam other. Although it's very hard to prove scammer. But those case are clear & there is good evidence, I think they should be ban. So that he can't scam again by same account. I know scammer might be create an new account but it will not trustworthy.

It still takes time to investigate and verify and would just be too much work. If someone gets scammed by someone who has negative feedback then that's probably their own fault. We really can't be expected to babysit every user here and each individual is responsible for their own money and what they do with it.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

The question is why.

That's always been my question, though I've heard many answers I don't totally agree with.  But ultimately it doesn't matter if I agree or not--it is what it is, and you really have to be skeptical of things that seem too good to be true and to do deals cautiously.  A lot of the folks I see getting scammed haven't even looked at people's feedback or ignored warning signs if they were visible, or they didn't use escrow.

Now, QS didn't steal that 20BTC, but he was involved in a pretty big scam accusation.  The bottom line is that there aren't going to be any consequences from the forum if people scam.  On the other hand, I do miss the old scammer tag.  That was before I registered here, and I don't even know how one went about earning it, but I think it sent a stronger message than the current under-the-avatar trust score.

<snip>

If Theymos wanted to, he could come up with a list of things that are and aren't acceptable.  It might not be easy, and it might not please everyone, but he could do it instead of doing nothing.  I mean, that's what laws are--they're written rules describing behavior that isn't acceptable.  Lawmakers don't throw up their hands at the complexity of the legal system and decide to not prohibit certain things as a result.

[xtraelv]

If Theymos wanted to, he could come up with a list of things that are and aren't acceptable.  It might not be easy, and it might not please everyone, but he could do it instead of doing nothing.  I mean, that's what laws are--they're written rules describing behavior that isn't acceptable.  Lawmakers don't throw up their hands at the complexity of the legal system and decide to not prohibit certain things as a result.

Once you start censorship it opens up a whole new can of worms.

If you censor some scams but not others it can provide a false sense of security.

Banning copy-pasting is not censoring because they have nothing unique to say.

It is also a matter of "proof" and "liability". Copy-pasting when caught is fairly clear cut.

Once you start censoring scams you are accepting some sort of responsibility for the safety of the users.

The whole bitcoin thing came from the Cypherpunk movement - which tends to have a free speech and libertarian viewpoint on life.

Once you start censoring it very quickly turns into over-reach.

The reality is that most users that get banned probably re-incarnate as another account anyway.

A known & tagged scammer is better than an unknown & untagged scammer.

Lawmakers often over-reach. The powers they give their "henchmen" often affect ordinary citizens. (I'm not only talking of developed democratic countries)

To make something illegal - lawmakers only have to declare it to be illegal. Lawmakers only pursue "crime" if it is in their self interest.


The average CEO salary is more than 531 times that of the average hourly worker.
Politicians get a regular pay rise  -but for other Government workers it is "not affordable".
Some wealthy executives pay less tax than a laborer.
Some drugs with minimal risk are illegal - while other drugs with high risks can be prescribed by your doctor.
Euthanasia, and suicide are illegal in most countries - but the death penalty or "shooting by police" is not illegal in some of those countries.
Some large corporations pay no taxes without breaking the law.
Some legal action can leave an innocent person broke.

[xhomerx10]

Those are all good points but I would like to rebut:

 The censorship "can of worms" has already been opened by allowing locked/self-moderated sales threads to proliferate.

 If mods cannot remove scammers' threads because it would appear as censorship, why is it that scammers can create locked/self-moderated threads to sell their scams?  That is censorship since in this case, the most direct feedback mechanism has been disabled for all other users.  Using this tactic, the OP is now able to utilize sock puppets which can post direct feedback in this otherwise locked thread in order to make himself appear legitimate.  Other members are left with secondary avenues to sound an alarm such as the trust system (which is also unmoderated and rather unreliable) or perhaps the scam accusations thread.  These methods are not nearly as effective as the direct method of posting within the alleged scammer's thread.  You've in effect allowed the OP to create a barrier around the offending activity while having free speech zones miles away_{metaphorically speaking} from the potential scam activity.

 Case in point -

Skeptical One has this locked thread in which they sell gift cards which may or may not be legitimate.  Within this locked thread, a couple of newbie members, using names to make them appear as forum moderators even, have somehow posted direct feedback vouching for Skeptical One's wares.  I use the secondary methods available to me to alert potential victims by tagging the OP and their sock puppets but it's clearly not effective as evidenced by the positive feedback I am given by Skeptical One who is obviously emboldened by the lack of moderation as well as his ability to easily censor naysayers as witnessed in the PM he also sent to me:

 

 I'm not asking to ban anyone, I'm simply saying that the playing field needs to be leveled to allow for direct and open discussion.  Censorship is a reality on this forum but it is skewed in favour of the scammers.

edit: BBcode repair

[xtraelv]

Those are all good points but I would like to rebut:

 The censorship "can of worms" has already been opened by allowing locked/self-moderated sales threads to proliferate.

 If mods cannot remove scammers' threads because it would appear as censorship, why is it that scammers can create locked/self-moderated threads to sell their scams?  That is censorship since in this case, the most direct feedback mechanism has been disabled for all other users.  Using this tactic, the OP is now able to utilize sock puppets which can post direct feedback in this otherwise locked thread in order to make himself appear legitimate.  Other members are left with secondary avenues to sound an alarm such as the trust system (which is also unmoderated and rather unreliable) or perhaps the scam accusations thread.  These methods are not nearly as effective as the direct method of posting within the alleged scammer's thread.  You've in effect allowed the OP to create a barrier around the offending activity while having free speech zones miles away_{metaphorically speaking} from the potential scam activity.

 Case in point -

Skeptical One has this locked thread in which they sell gift cards which may or may not be legitimate.  Within this locked thread, a couple of newbie members, using names to make them appear as forum moderators even, have somehow posted direct feedback vouching for Skeptical One's wares.  I use the secondary methods available to me to alert potential victims by tagging the OP and their sock puppets but it's clearly not effective as evidenced by the positive feedback I am given by Skeptical One who is obviously emboldened by the lack of moderation as well as his ability to easily censor naysayers as witnessed in the PM he also sent to me:

 

 I'm not asking to ban anyone, I'm simply saying that the playing field needs to be leveled to allow for direct and open discussion.  Censorship is a reality on this forum but it is skewed in favour of the scammers.

edit: BBcode repair

Just open a scam accusation if there isn't one yet. Then post the link of the scam accusation as negative feedback on their profile and that of any of their sockpuppets.

A DT or several DTs will see it and tag them. That is how the system works with scammers.

You can either use the system how it currently works to your best ability or try to change it in a way that many others before you have suggested but is unlikely to get changed due to the reasons I outlined in the post above.

While it may be annoying when a scammer locks a thread on you - especially when they bait you like here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4432189.msg39850569#msg39850569
Then locked the thread and then got perma banned for other reasons.

Al Capone got jailed for tax evasion. If you see a scammer. Study the forum rules. If they break them - BAM! Get your fly swatter out.



Crypto is largely unregulated and web scam activity hard to enforce by law enforcement. (Who has jurisdiction over a scammer running a scam in a country where the law is not enforced on what happens on the internet, on a website of a service supplier that is decentralized - scamming a user that lives in a country where crypto may be illega ?l)  In the crypto world there is an endless supply of scammers. The state of anarchy appears to bring out the best and the worst in people.

[jenia2]

the short and simple answer:  theymos and cyrus simply don't care.

[xhomerx10]

Those are all good points but I would like to rebut:

 The censorship "can of worms" has already been opened by allowing locked/self-moderated sales threads to proliferate.

 If mods cannot remove scammers' threads because it would appear as censorship, why is it that scammers can create locked/self-moderated threads to sell their scams?  That is censorship since in this case, the most direct feedback mechanism has been disabled for all other users.  Using this tactic, the OP is now able to utilize sock puppets which can post direct feedback in this otherwise locked thread in order to make himself appear legitimate.  Other members are left with secondary avenues to sound an alarm such as the trust system (which is also unmoderated and rather unreliable) or perhaps the scam accusations thread.  These methods are not nearly as effective as the direct method of posting within the alleged scammer's thread.  You've in effect allowed the OP to create a barrier around the offending activity while having free speech zones miles away_{metaphorically speaking} from the potential scam activity.

 Case in point -

Skeptical One has this locked thread in which they sell gift cards which may or may not be legitimate.  Within this locked thread, a couple of newbie members, using names to make them appear as forum moderators even, have somehow posted direct feedback vouching for Skeptical One's wares.  I use the secondary methods available to me to alert potential victims by tagging the OP and their sock puppets but it's clearly not effective as evidenced by the positive feedback I am given by Skeptical One who is obviously emboldened by the lack of moderation as well as his ability to easily censor naysayers as witnessed in the PM he also sent to me:

 

 I'm not asking to ban anyone, I'm simply saying that the playing field needs to be leveled to allow for direct and open discussion.  Censorship is a reality on this forum but it is skewed in favour of the scammers.

edit: BBcode repair

Just open a scam accusation if there isn't one yet. Then post the link of the scam accusation as negative feedback on their profile and that of any of their sockpuppets.

A DT or several DTs will see it and tag them. That is how the system works with scammers.

You can either use the system how it currently works to your best ability or try to change it in a way that many others before you have suggested but is unlikely to get changed due to the reasons I outlined in the post above.

While it may be annoying when a scammer locks a thread on you - especially when they bait you like here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4432189.msg39850569#msg39850569
Then locked the thread and then got perma banned for other reasons.

Al Capone got jailed for tax evasion. If you see a scammer. Study the forum rules. If they break them - BAM! Get your fly swatter out.



Crypto is largely unregulated and web scam activity hard to enforce by law enforcement. (Who has jurisdiction over a scammer running a scam in a country where the law is not enforced on what happens on the internet, on a website of a service supplier that is decentralized - scamming a user that lives in a country where crypto may be illega ?l)  In the crypto world there is an endless supply of scammers. The state of anarchy appears to bring out the best and the worst in people.

 I probably should open a scam accusation thread.  I guess I'm being a little bit lazy

 

[BossMacko]

the short and simple answer:  theymos and cyrus simply don't care.

I think they do care that is why we have trust system that is visible for everyone who are using this forum to check before doing a trade with other person. Upon checking that user trust system it is full of negative trust comments especially from well known users here in Bitcointalk regarding that 20 BTC that he stole, no company or individual will ever trust him again. Also i am betting that right now this person have an alternate account here so even if admin ban that account it is useless.