"Last of the V8s" is filing fake scam reports

[Last of the V8s]

This was all hashed out in our thread very eloquently:

Patently false. I sold no-where near ~$5,000 USD of the top. Sold as it was crashing down from the top, and I started panicking.

Nowhere near $5000 off the top you say?  There's a quote below of you selling $1 million worth at $14.5k.  You sold around $5 million worth from what I can tell altogther while posting bull spam the entire time telling everyone else to buy or "hodl".  By your own admission in the quotes below, you were telling everyone else to buy or "hodl" after you had already extracted "an obsecene amount of fiat".  If you actually believed the price was going higher or even believed bitcoin was a store of value at all, you would be buying instead of selling.  Instead, you were dumping like mad and then posting bull spam while doing it and afterwards.  

 Ok. So it was "near $5,000" off the ATH then. Oops. Oh well  

 Not sure what your deal is with me. Or with yourself, for that matter.

 You make it sound like I was intentionally trying to fuck over this entire thread, or something, when I was genuinely caught up in the enthusiasm of the rally - Like most of the rest of the normal people in the thread.

 I appreciate you going through and digging through my history. That was a nice trip down memory line.

 Still failed to make whatever point you were trying to make, tho.

  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 I mean, do you have any fucking concept of meta at all ?

 Here you are, quite possibly one of the most un-hinged people on these entire forums, not to mention an utter failure of a human being, and you're chastising me for my exuberance during the rally, and making some bad calls mis-judging the momentum, and poorly-worded, boastful hubristic posts, while chatting with this community ?

 Yeah, I can admit to all that.

 On the other hand, we have you.

 Whose shit does not stink.

 At all.

 ok.gif

Jesus Bob.  YES.  He want's the whole thread to hate you and mistrust you.  To cause division.  Plus I imagine he is not fond of black folks.

Fuck him.  He is a liar and a troll.  He is either a myopic piece of shit who hates he sold his corn for silver, or a fucking psyop from somewhere.  I think the second is more likely than I would want it to be.

This is not about his hate agenda or his anti-bitcoin trolling, it's about him lying to pursue those agendas.
This is not his only lie by any means. There's more, even in this thread. You can't trust him, hence the red mark.

[1714823261]

1714823261

[1714823261]

1714823261

[1714823261]

1714823261

[cryptohunter]

V8 is now DT2, so it does effect his score....However, given r0ach's current stance on crytocurrency, I don't see exactly how this would impede him at all. Unless he is hoping to use bitcointalk to construct a network of people white men willing to do face to face commerce involving silver and gold bullion.

Exactly, r0ach is just a troll. I have no idea why he posts here. He enjoys ridiculing bitcoin too, his presence here is a total waste of his time. Life is too short!

We need to be very careful defining a troll. If a person presents an argument that you do not agree with then unless you can debunk it then it is not trolling.

Trolling is not so much of a worry as persons proliferating incorrect and misleading information that is observably proven incorrect or supporting those that do. Those are just slightly less damaging than scammers and way less detrimental to crypto than real trolls who are basically just piss takers.

@bones

I see nothing to say that he would be any more of a scammer than those that sound calm and reasonable. Scammers tend to be slick not be putting peoples backs up before they strike.

[bones261]

@bones

I see nothing to say that he would be any more of a scammer than those that sound calm and reasonable. Scammers tend to be slick not be putting peoples backs up before they strike.

     Given V8's response, I think it is best to let the WO regulars handle this in their own way. If Lauda wants to back it up, more power to her.

[DireWolfM14]

I was contemplating whether to act on this or not for a long time just like I did with bcash scammers. There you go.

As despicable as I find r0ach's comments and blatant bigotry, I am torn about the use of the trust system in this way.  However, bones261 makes a really good point.  I'm a fairly trusting person, but I would have a hard time trusting people who spew hate such as r0ach does.

But that's not the whole deal, is it?  r0ach is accusing another member of attempting to scam the whole community, which is an allegation for which he can only provide circumstantial evidence.  That makes this a different type of situation.  Spreading misinformation about another member should never be tolerated.

@r0ach, if you have a suspicion about another member, feel free to share it, but don't make it sound like it's a proven fact when the only "evidence" that exists is "he said/she said."

 

[TECSHARE]

No, Lauda has not given CryptopreneurBrainboss a negative rating. She has given R0ach a negative rating. However, if you want to become a white knight for realr0ach, please go ahead. I'm popping the popcorn, now.The stuff he posts on this forum would have gotten him banned on the vast majority of social media platforms. Him being allowed to continue to post here is a testament to how liberal bitcointalk is when it comes to letting people express their views.

Did I say Lauda negative rated CryptopreneurBrainboss? I don't know R0ach from a hole in the ground, and I am not white knighting for anything other than principles. This is not a question about how liberal this forum is, it is a question of this negative rating being abusive. I don't think people should be able to negative rate people just because they don't like something that they said, as I have explained before I advocate for a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws to be the standard for negative rating. He may be a racist asshole, but that doesn't make it open season on him for trust system abuse.

[bones261]

No, Lauda has not given CryptopreneurBrainboss a negative rating. She has given R0ach a negative rating. However, if you want to become a white knight for realr0ach, please go ahead. I'm popping the popcorn, now.The stuff he posts on this forum would have gotten him banned on the vast majority of social media platforms. Him being allowed to continue to post here is a testament to how liberal bitcointalk is when it comes to letting people express their views.

Did I say Lauda negative rated CryptopreneurBrainboss? I don't know R0ach from a hole in the ground, and I am not white knighting for anything other than principles. This is not a question about how liberal this forum is, it is a question of this negative rating being abusive. I don't think people should be able to negative rate people just because they don't like something that they said, as I have explained before I advocate for a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws to be the standard for negative rating. He may be a racist asshole, but that doesn't make it open season on him for trust system abuse.

Well, it all depends on what "principals" you think are more important. I can't believe the party of Lincoln has accommodated those with similar points of view to R0ach. That's what the Democratic party was supposed to be about...

[TECSHARE]

No, Lauda has not given CryptopreneurBrainboss a negative rating. She has given R0ach a negative rating. However, if you want to become a white knight for realr0ach, please go ahead. I'm popping the popcorn, now.The stuff he posts on this forum would have gotten him banned on the vast majority of social media platforms. Him being allowed to continue to post here is a testament to how liberal bitcointalk is when it comes to letting people express their views.

Did I say Lauda negative rated CryptopreneurBrainboss? I don't know R0ach from a hole in the ground, and I am not white knighting for anything other than principles. This is not a question about how liberal this forum is, it is a question of this negative rating being abusive. I don't think people should be able to negative rate people just because they don't like something that they said, as I have explained before I advocate for a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws to be the standard for negative rating. He may be a racist asshole, but that doesn't make it open season on him for trust system abuse.

Well, it all depends on what "principals" you think are more important. I can't believe the party of Lincoln has accommodated those with similar points of view to R0ach. That's what the Democratic party was supposed to be about...

I explained in detail what I meant by principles. I really don't see how political parties play into his discussion.

[jojo69]

Bitten off more than you can chew r0ach.

[bones261]

Well, it all depends on what "principals" you think are more important. I can't believe the party of Lincoln has accommodated those with similar points of view to R0ach. That's what the Democratic party was supposed to be about...

I explained in detail what I meant by principles. I really don't see how political parties play into his discussion.

That was probably the wrong tangent. I guess the main point is there is a quandary in my mind between the principles of free speech and the repugnant nature of what r0ach's fingertips unleash on the WO board. The members who regularly post on the WO board have been more than longsuffering with r0ach. He's lucky that this current account of his has only accumulated 2 red tags. I think anyone who would initiate a trade with him on this forum should take a glance at his post history, first. And Lauda has used his post history as the evidence link. It's probably all moot anyway, since I doubt r0ach will be doing any trades on this board considering that he thinks all cryptocurrencies are shit coins. Also, the WO board, where he posts almost exclusively, doesn't display trust ratings.

[realr0ach]

But that's not the whole deal, is it?  r0ach is accusing another member of attempting to scam the whole community, which is an allegation for which he can only provide circumstantial evidence.

I didn't "accuse" anyone of anything.  I said that Bob was posting "hodl", "to the moon", and bull spam the entire time he was dumping $5 million worth of digital shitcoins on people.  This is factually true.  Then I post quotes of HIMSELF in chronological order showing how he was doing so.  It's objective, factual reality, and this scumbag Last of the V8s still sits here and claims I'm lying when Bob provided the evidence for it himself in quotes of his own words.  

Then Bob comes and says yesterday he sold nowhere near $5000 of the top and I post a quote of him saying he sold $1 million at $14.5k catching him in a lie yesterday.  I don't have any agenda against this particular person, I'm just highlighting the fact you're all (particularly people like Last of the V8s) nothing but a bunch of pump and dump scammers lying about things like "decentralization" for your own financial self-interest.  Do you need those Bob quotes again?  I post something objectively true and Last of the V8s lies and files a scam report against me:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5117829.msg50053934#msg50053934

The problem with most of you people is that you have lied about things like "decentralization" so much you started to believe your own lies.  It's 100% impossible to create a decentralized digital currency.  Transaction validators are always designed to centralize.  Now you act like you're in a religious cult and that anyone who challenges your FALSE beliefs is the bad one.  You're operating under the 'maybe tommorow' scam.  Maybe tomorrow a random autistic person will alter the codebase and change bitcoin from something designed to centralize with no fundamentals to actually working like the whitepaper claims.  Anyone who has studied these issues long enough knows it's not possible.

[bones261]

nothing but a bunch of pump and dump scammers lying about things like "decentralization" for your own financial self-interest.  

Wouldn't that be your description of like 99.9% of all the people that post on bitcointalk?   You already became quite disenchanting with this whole cryptocurrency thing way back in the summer of 2016. Don't you think it's time to let go and move on to better things? Like figuring out ways to increase your silver hoard?

[cryptohunter]

edit i see that is not the case

[realr0ach]

nothing but a bunch of pump and dump scammers lying about things like "decentralization" for your own financial self-interest.  

Wouldn't that be your description of like 99.9% of all the people that post on bitcointalk?

That's why people like Last of the V8s are afraid of me.  His IQ is high enough to know I'm right, and he's completely incapable of putting up ANY type of argument against me ever time after time, so in order for him to not be a scammer himself, he has to pull Saul Alinsky communist tactics to try and un-person or defame me pretending that will allow his false reality to take precedent if I don't exist.  Then he can go about his business lying about things such as decentralization and trying to profit off pyramid schemes guilt-free if he's just capable of believing his own lies with nobody there to remind him they're lies.

[Last of the V8s]

Since op brought him up, further examples of jbreher's disingenuousness
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg50071754#msg50071754 v. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg50070092#msg50070092

Anyway, as to your lies, both of you, DT consensus is just that they don't merit negative trust.

before:



now:

[TECSHARE]

Well, it all depends on what "principals" you think are more important. I can't believe the party of Lincoln has accommodated those with similar points of view to R0ach. That's what the Democratic party was supposed to be about...

I explained in detail what I meant by principles. I really don't see how political parties play into his discussion.

That was probably the wrong tangent. I guess the main point is there is a quandary in my mind between the principles of free speech and the repugnant nature of what r0ach's fingertips unleash on the WO board. The members who regularly post on the WO board have been more than longsuffering with r0ach. He's lucky that this current account of his has only accumulated 2 red tags. I think anyone who would initiate a trade with him on this forum should take a glance at his post history, first. And Lauda has used his post history as the evidence link. It's probably all moot anyway, since I doubt r0ach will be doing any trades on this board considering that he thinks all cryptocurrencies are shit coins. Also, the WO board, where he posts almost exclusively, doesn't display trust ratings.

Frankly this seems like more of a moderation issue than a trust issue. If he is being disruptive of the overall forum people should be reporting him not tagging him.

[Last of the V8s]

Well, it all depends on what "principals" you think are more important. I can't believe the party of Lincoln has accommodated those with similar points of view to R0ach. That's what the Democratic party was supposed to be about...

I explained in detail what I meant by principles. I really don't see how political parties play into his discussion.

That was probably the wrong tangent. I guess the main point is there is a quandary in my mind between the principles of free speech and the repugnant nature of what r0ach's fingertips unleash on the WO board. The members who regularly post on the WO board have been more than longsuffering with r0ach. He's lucky that this current account of his has only accumulated 2 red tags. I think anyone who would initiate a trade with him on this forum should take a glance at his post history, first. And Lauda has used his post history as the evidence link. It's probably all moot anyway, since I doubt r0ach will be doing any trades on this board considering that he thinks all cryptocurrencies are shit coins. Also, the WO board, where he posts almost exclusively, doesn't display trust ratings.

Frankly this seems like more of a moderation issue than a trust issue. If he is being disruptive of the overall forum people should be reporting him not tagging him.

He cowers away in the Wall Observer thread which has special moderation rules



so we seem to be stuck with him.

[TECSHARE]

Well, it all depends on what "principals" you think are more important. I can't believe the party of Lincoln has accommodated those with similar points of view to R0ach. That's what the Democratic party was supposed to be about...

I explained in detail what I meant by principles. I really don't see how political parties play into his discussion.

That was probably the wrong tangent. I guess the main point is there is a quandary in my mind between the principles of free speech and the repugnant nature of what r0ach's fingertips unleash on the WO board. The members who regularly post on the WO board have been more than longsuffering with r0ach. He's lucky that this current account of his has only accumulated 2 red tags. I think anyone who would initiate a trade with him on this forum should take a glance at his post history, first. And Lauda has used his post history as the evidence link. It's probably all moot anyway, since I doubt r0ach will be doing any trades on this board considering that he thinks all cryptocurrencies are shit coins. Also, the WO board, where he posts almost exclusively, doesn't display trust ratings.

Frankly this seems like more of a moderation issue than a trust issue. If he is being disruptive of the overall forum people should be reporting him not tagging him.

He cowers away in the Wall Observer thread which has special moderation rules



so we seem to be stuck with him.

This place is crazy... like an old leaky boat in the cartoons where they keep patching holes with pieces of chewed gum and plugging fingers into a hole just for another to open up again. Just band-aids on top of band-aids while the system as a whole slowly loses its wheels one by one.

In this case I would suggest contacting the thread owner as it states in the screenshot...

[bones261]

This place is crazy... like an old leaky boat in the cartoons where they keep patching holes with pieces of chewed gum and plugging fingers into a hole just for another to open up again. Just band-aids on top of band-aids while the system as a whole slowly loses its wheels one by one.

In this case I would suggest contacting the thread owner as it states in the screenshot...

      Since the current designated thread owner, inforfront, is not staff, all that will result in will be a few of the most offending posts getting deleted. Since infofront is not staff, no other accelerated action can be taken. Since infofront is a volunteer, many of the offending posts can persist for hours, days or overlooked. By that time, more likely than not, an argument has already ensued and the damage is done. Also, infofront cannot be too heavy handed in the deleting of posts. Otherwise bitching of infringing on "freedom of speech" ensues.
      I know the arrangement for this thread appears a little odd. What happened is that the original op of the thread became inactive. It ended up becoming a great deal of work for the staff to moderate, so theymos locked it. However, the thread is quite popular and members wanted the thread reopened. So theymos unlocked the thread and appointed a new thread owner.
     Overall, the thread is a bit lively. However, then realr0ach comes in and shits in the pool.
   

[TECSHARE]

This place is crazy... like an old leaky boat in the cartoons where they keep patching holes with pieces of chewed gum and plugging fingers into a hole just for another to open up again. Just band-aids on top of band-aids while the system as a whole slowly loses its wheels one by one.

In this case I would suggest contacting the thread owner as it states in the screenshot...

      Since the current designated thread owner, inforfront, is not staff, all that will result in will be a few of the most offending posts getting deleted. Since infofront is not staff, no other accelerated action can be taken. Since infofront is a volunteer, many of the offending posts can persist for hours, days or overlooked. By that time, more likely than not, an argument has already ensued and the damage is done. Also, infofront cannot be too heavy handed in the deleting of posts. Otherwise bitching of infringing on "freedom of speech" ensues.
      I know the arrangement for this thread appears a little odd. What happened is that the original op of the thread became inactive. It ended up becoming a great deal of work for the staff to moderate, so theymos locked it. However, the thread is quite popular and members wanted the thread reopened. So theymos unlocked the thread and appointed a new thread owner.
     Overall, the thread is a bit lively. However, then realr0ach comes in and shits in the pool.
   

I have to ask then, all of this considered... what is wrong with using the ignore button?

[bones261]

I have to ask then, all of this considered... what is wrong with using the ignore button?

Because someone is bound to quote him. Many community members have encouraged ignoring him. However, some are prone to peek or are new and have no idea what is about to transpire. Then someone sees a quoted post, attacking them, their wife, their sex, or their race, and we're off to the races. Or it could all start from a simple counterpoint to one of his more "sane" posts attacking BTC and devolve from there.