Hhampuz embezzling signature campaign funds from BestMixer

[Stedsm]

The repayment happened either directly or indirectly with BestMixer money— meaning that he may have run the specific inputs through one or more mixers before repaying the loan and he may have used BestMixers money to pay other bills/expenses and as a result was able to use other inputs to repay the loan that he would have otherwise used to pay those bills.

Ok, let's assume what you're saying is right and again, Hhampuz used BestMixer's money and circulated in such a way that the coins were sent to DarkStar_ through a mixer, any evidence on that? Can you prove that the addresses Hhampuz sent back the coins to, belongs to Chipmixer? And btw, as you already know too much about him, I guess you're falling for Hhampuz generally.  <3

I don’t think he would have taken the loan if he knew about BestMixer closing in advance. Others bringing this up are trying to create a distraction.

Please decide to whether you're trying to accuse him of his "SCAM* or complimenting him side by side.

Well, as you said you've got txid, why are you crossing your own words (by putting those IDs in suspense) and saying that he purchased Chips from Chipmixer which ended (specifically, landed) to DarkStar's address/es? You should really come up with great evidence to prove him guilty, else you're again trying to harm "just another guy's" reputation here.

I am not sure what you mean here. There is evidence that Hhampuz
*had a loan outstanding as of when BestMixer closed down.
*moved the money belonging to BestMixer to a mixer (chipmixer) immediately after BestMixer closed.

There is also evidence that Hhampuz earns his living from his business here and as such he cannot use all of his earnings to repay any loan he takes out. He must use some of his earnings to pay for things like rent, food, utilities and other bills he may have. 

Once again I'd like to reiterate here that there are no valid evidences which prove your accusations to be correct and you're just shooting arrows in the dark. Assumptions can't help you ruin anybody's reputation.

True, people here can easily use more than 10s of 100s of addresses every single day, so it's not really easy for anyone to "assume" about anybody's spends and earnings here.

How wicked is it QS when you first claim things like you know everything and then speak about assumptions. Assumptions are not gonna work but proofs, to let you make us believe that what you're saying is actually true. I've not personal grudges with you whatsoever, but I guess we need some more drama here eh! 

See above. The specific fact set that can be proven will allow a reasonable person to conclude that Hhampuz stole money for his personal use.

So, guess I've made up my mind on him not to be guilty?
Maybe, but this is not something of a partial decision and I don't have any personal issues with you as well.
About being reasonable to come to any conclusions, I guess I'm too expensive to be able to reach one.

[1714125279]

1714125279

[1714125279]

1714125279

[1714125279]

1714125279

[1714125279]

1714125279

[1714125279]

1714125279

[Quickseller]

As for the circumstantial evidence link... there is some substance to it but it is marginal, in my opinion.

I'm not quite sure why the funds moved but here's something of note:

Assuming a steady income of bitcoin, Hhampuz has the ability to repay the loan.
The loan terms are unknown therefore we cannot conclude anything of the date of repayment.
We can assume but we do not know how much bitcoin Hhampuz has in any alternative wallets.
We can assume but we do not know how much bitcoin Hhampuz makes in a given period of time.
We can assume but we cannot conclude.

The repayment txid was dfa7b822da1192bde63f71d881b3141aa33c1273ea85c6c3951c2b2c43c7bf3c. I know this because Darkstar_ previously had BTC at the repayment address and sent BTC from that address to a deposit address of an exchange/website. Darkstar_ has sent other BTC from known addresses of his to the same deposit address in the past. The transaction that repaid the loan was from known addresses belonging to Hhampuz.

Based on the above, the repayment amount was 0.55BTC and was done on June 7. The blockchain evidence supports the loan amount being 0.5BTC being taken out on May 10. This means Hhampuz paid 10% interest, or 0.05BTC in interest.

The reason why someone would take out a loan is because they want (or need) to pay for something that exceeds the amount of money they have (except for margin loans). There are some exceptions to this, however none would apply when interest, and certainly not 10% interest is being paid. The high price of BTC was ~$7,280, so Hhampuz took out a loan of about $3,640, or whatever that is in Euros. The low price on June 7 was around $7,800, so he paid $390 for the loan.

Hhampuz confirmed that he makes a living off of "reading posts", so he would need to use his income from the forum to repay the loan, plus pay his bills for the last month.

It is a safe assumption that without the loan, Hhampuz would not have had any personal BTC or personal fiat money unless he were to skip paying some bill/expense, because otherwise he would not have been willing to pay the nearly $400 for the privilege of taking out the loan. This is an assumption, but it would be illogical to say otherwise.

I documented above that Hhampuz has the following income from managing signature campaigns:
*0.0225BTC/week from managing the BitcoinCasino.com campaign
*0.02BTC/week from managing the PlayBetr campaign
*What appears to be an average of 0.055BTC/week from managing the LiveCoin campaign

A review of the BitBlender signature campaign thread reveals that campaign funds were being paid out of this wallet, which reflects payments to Hhampuz's known address in the amount of approximately 0.045BTC per week.

I reviewed his thread created, and was unable to locate any other campaigns he was running as of when he took out the loan.

Based on the above, I would say, he was making approximately 0.1425BTC per week managing signature campaigns. Although one campaign ended 3 weeks after Hhampuz took out the loan, and the BitcoinCasino.com signature campaign is now closed.

Based on the above, Hhampuz only made 0.525BTC managing signature campaigns in the 4 weeks prior to repaying the loan. He may earn an additional 0.08 per month wearing his paid signature, which would raise his total earnings to 0.605BTC.

The 0.55BTC he paid Darkstar_ made up just under 91% of his documented earnings, and the interest alone made up around 8% of his earnings. The argument that he made more than enough to repay the loan does not hold water because he needs to pay his living expenses during this time. 

[TheNewAnon135246]

Don't you ever get tired spending so much time at proving absolutely nothing?

[marlboroza]

~

So you came to conclusion that Hhampuz repaid loan and earns 0.5btc+ per month. I am still missing embezzling part.

If owner is unknown, again, to whom will Hhampuz return money? If I borrow someone money and I disappear, how will someone reach me if no one can find me and I don't contact anyone?

(assuming that hhampuz didn't return money)

[bones261]

~snip~

You forgot about the Fortune Jack campaign. However, the participants are paid via their Fortune Jack account. Each participant gets .02 BTC per week. Hhampuz probably gets more than that...

[Quickseller]

~snip~

You forgot about the Fortune Jack campaign. However, the participants are paid via their Fortune Jack account. Each participant gets .02 BTC per week. Hhampuz probably gets more than that...

I accounted for his FJ signature:

He may earn an additional 0.08 per month wearing his paid signature,

I am not sure why you believe he is getting paid more than 0.02/week. The majority of his posts are one liners that don't have any real insight, nor is any real effort put into his posts. I don't see why any reasonable person would even accept him into a signature campaign that isn't accepting anyone with a pulse.

The loan does give a motive for Hhampuz to steal from BestMixer, however proving the existence of the loan or that hhampuz would not otherwise be able to repay the loan is not necessary to prove that money was stolen from BestMixer. There remains blockchain evidence that Hhampuz stole money from the BestMixer signature campaign and moved it to chipmixer to hide where it went next.

[TheNewAnon135246]

Or he simple mixed and moved the funds to protect his employer?

I really don't see why you are making a big deal out of this while you still only have circumstantial evidence. It's not like he accepted 20 BTC, which were likely stolen prior to accepting them, from a well known scammer to perform a task, fail to complete it and never repay the funds.

[marlboroza]

~

Ok. I think you didn't see this:

If owner is unknown, again, to whom will Hhampuz return money? If I borrow someone money and I disappear, how will someone reach me if no one can find me and I don't contact anyone?

(assuming that hhampuz didn't return money)

[actmyname]

Or he simple mixed and moved the funds to protect his employer?

Ah, this makes sense.



The issue with using fragmented circumstantial evidence is that you are using portions of the whole picture. If we think about how cherry-picking statistics can bring about false truths, then there is the possibility thereof with a similar cherry-picking of circumstantial evidence.

The scenario: it's possible but uncertain.

[Quickseller]

Or he simple mixed and moved the funds to protect his employer?

Ah, this makes sense.

I don't think that makes sense. Maybe I should clarify, that this is not at all logical. BestMixer would not benefit to having the money hidden because the fact the money exists is still public.

With the money hidden from public view, his employer does not know if Hhampuz has any intention of repaying the excess money, and his former employer will need to take a risk to even ask for the money back. Further, mixing the coins can be trivially done by BestMixer themselves when the money is returned.

As I have previously stated, when dealing with other people's money, you should not get the benefit of the doubt. Hhampuz has not even bothered to respond to this thread in a meaningful way or otherwise, instead he has relied on various proxies to either try to derail the thread or to give ludicrous explanations. Nor has Hhampuz bothered to even confirm he will return the money to BestMixer promptly upon their request for him to do so. I would point out that it is pretty standard for the default response to a scam accusation is to leave negative trust until a response is given.

~

Ok. I think you didn't see this:

If owner is unknown, again, to whom will Hhampuz return money? If I borrow someone money and I disappear, how will someone reach me if no one can find me and I don't contact anyone?

(assuming that hhampuz didn't return money)

If Hhampuz does not know where to return the money to, he should keep it exactly where it was. If there is some reason why he needs to move the money, for example to move it to cold storage, he should provide public notice so the owner can be aware of the move, even if not logged in. If the owner has previously agreed to pay a minimum fee that Hhampuz intends on continuing to charge, he should similarly provide public notice so the owner has a way to be aware they need to ask for their money to be returned or else continue incurring these charges.

[actmyname]

I don't think that makes sense. Maybe I should clarify, that this is not at all logical. BestMixer would not benefit to having the money hidden because the fact the money exists is still public.

Would they benefit from having the location of the money as an unknown to the public?

After all, you presume it resides with DarkStar_ now as a result of Hhampuz's loan. What if this is not the case?

[Quickseller]

I don't think that makes sense. Maybe I should clarify, that this is not at all logical. BestMixer would not benefit to having the money hidden because the fact the money exists is still public.

Would they benefit from having the location of the money as an unknown to the public?

No. The existence of the money is still known to the public. Once you disclose the existence of the money publicly, you lose the benefit of hiding its exact location. As previously stated, it would be trivial for BextMixer to later mix the money themselves once returned to them.

After all, you presume it resides with DarkStar_ now as a result of Hhampuz's loan. What if this is not the case?

Hhampuz has other bills. The money could have been used to pay for his various living expenses so that his forum earnings could be used to solely repay the loan.

[actmyname]

Once you disclose the existence of the money publicly, you lose the benefit of hiding its exact location.

What?

[TheNewAnon135246]

Hhampuz has not even bothered to respond to this thread in a meaningful way

Double standards as usual.

There allegations in the OP are so outrageous that they do not deserve to be acknowledged, to the extent that the OP is likely operating in bad faith (in multiple ways).

[bones261]

I am not sure why you believe he is getting paid more than 0.02/week. The majority of his posts are one liners that don't have any real insight, nor is any real effort put into his posts. I don't see why any reasonable person would even accept him into a signature campaign that isn't accepting anyone with a pulse.

The loan does give a motive for Hhampuz to steal from BestMixer, however proving the existence of the loan or that hhampuz would not otherwise be able to repay the loan is not necessary to prove that money was stolen from BestMixer. There remains blockchain evidence that Hhampuz stole money from the BestMixer signature campaign and moved it to chipmixer to hide where it went next.

Hhampuz is the campaign manager for the Fortune Jack signature campaign. Each participant gets paid .02 BTC per week. I would think the campaign manager would get paid more than the participants. Especially since he is also wearing the signature.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3248711.0

[suchmoon]

I would point out that it is pretty standard for the default response to a scam accusation is to leave negative trust until a response is given.

Let us know when you have a viable scam accusation then, with facts and proof and stuff. So far all we can see is just some speculation based on your assumption that Hhampuz was not authorized to move the funds. There is no plausible reason to think that way. He was entrusted with far larger amounts even in that same campaign. He can surely be trusted to handle the remaining 0.5 BTC the way he's supposed to, whether it needs to be returned to BestMixer, or held for a while, or converted to fiat, or if that's his compensation or perhaps half a dozen other possible reasons.

Embezzlement wouldn't be the first thought for a reasonable observer but for you it's the only thought. Something's seriously wrong with the way you're put together. If you directed this much effort into finding a job you could be doing much better than you did with the Livecoin signature.

[The-One-Above-All]

I would point out that it is pretty standard for the default response to a scam accusation is to leave negative trust until a response is given.

Let us know when you have a viable scam accusation then, with facts and proof and stuff. So far all we can see is just some speculation based on your assumption that Hhampuz was not authorized to move the funds. There is no plausible reason to think that way. He was entrusted with far larger amounts even in that same campaign. He can surely be trusted to handle the remaining 0.5 BTC the way he's supposed to, whether it needs to be returned to BestMixer, or held for a while, or converted to fiat, or if that's his compensation or perhaps half a dozen other possible reasons.

Embezzlement wouldn't be the first thought for a reasonable observer but for you it's the only thought. Something's seriously wrong with the way you're put together. If you directed this much effort into finding a job you could be doing much better than you did with the Livecoin signature.

Hold on suchmoon. How about you tell your pals to stick to the SAME super strict standards for making allegations? they just tell outright lies. QS's case seems plausible and undeniable in certain respects.

Please stop pushing double standards and moving the goal posts to suit you and your friends.

This latest action by hhampuz along with his support for doxing a forum treasurer would be grounds enough for red trust by your pals.

That's without him refusing to provide a transparent set of rules and guidelines to apply equally to all members for his campaigns so we can see he is not gaming his position and acting in a corrupt manner.

Now he is trust abusing other members on super weak sauce grounds likely trying to discourage others for speaking up.

This all looks like behavior projects will seek to distance themselves from. We will be raising these observable instances with them to get their own comments.

[suchmoon]

Hold on suchmoon. How about you tell your pals to stick to the SAME super strict standards for making allegations?

Not sure who you think my "pals" are but I've been against giving red trust for opinions/trolling and haven't red-trusted you for your incessant trolling, sockpuppeting, or red trust evasion.

However in return for me advocating marlboroza to remove your red trust you just increased your attacks on me so I'm not going to fault any "pals" for treating you as an utterly insane untrustworthy troll, particularly with the new meaning of red trust ("high-risk"). I can understand why some users would see dealing with you as high-risk, even though I think you're just a hyperactive shitposter with an axe to grind. I don't think you would be able to scam anyone so I don't support it the yellow box but not going to oppose it either.

None of this has anything to do with the topic though. Not going to feed you here anymore, please find an appropriate place to vent your grievances.

[The-One-Above-All]

Hold on suchmoon. How about you tell your pals to stick to the SAME super strict standards for making allegations?

Not sure who you think my "pals" are but I've been against giving red trust for opinions/trolling and haven't red-trusted you for your incessant trolling, sockpuppeting, or red trust evasion.

However in return for me advocating marlboroza to remove your red trust you just increased your attacks on me so I'm not going to fault any "pals" for treating you as an utterly insane untrustworthy troll, particularly with the new meaning of red trust ("high-risk"). I can understand why some users would see dealing with you as high-risk, even though I think you're just a hyperactive shitposter with an axe to grind. I don't think you would be able to scam anyone so I don't support it the yellow box but not going to oppose it either.

None of this has anything to do with the topic though. Not going to feed you here anymore, please find an appropriate place to vent your grievances.

Your pals are those you have obviously been including on to DT all this time knowing they are PROVEN scammers and liars , as well as having a ton of other financially motivated dirt attached to them. People you try to stab theymos in the back over to avoid excluding them as proven scammers and liars - like lauda.

Don't bullshit people - you are smart enough (just) not to blatantly abuse the old trust system but then want to get those people banned for fighting for a 2 000 000 000 USD compensation offer  LOL the compensation offer that your scamming pal lauda was trying to prevent the board having. Yeah support those who try to scam the board out of a 2 000 000 000 usd compensation offer (whilst talking up his scam coins) but those fighting for compensation and the truth to be known,  and fair distribution on MANY other projects are untrustworthy LOL

You selectively try to bring your STRICT 100% PROOF or not guilty rules against you and your pals but here you openly make accusations where there can be NO PROOF.

High risk financially for whistle blowing on your friends and ensuring they don't benefit from the double standards you push. LOL

Bring the trolling examples or else I will have to make you number 2 on the trolling trolling trolls thread.

You were treated with gracious respect by the true legend before you started attacking him so fuck off pretending you got turned on for being "nice " to him. You are the back stabber as we just noticed when you tried to spin theymos's gracious back door ejection of lauda the scammer and trust abuser as a sneaky devious and heavy handed tactic. He should have just black listed the vile scamming shit stain and not given you the opportunity to try and cast him in a poor light over it for being nice.

HHampuz looks dirty EVEN IF IT IS NOT PROVEN based on the items I have previously detailed. There is no point disputing it. Or if you wish to then go ahead, just gives up more chance to harp on about all of those points that look NEGATIVE.

Any non gang member would certainly have a lemons flag at minimum for that ton of shit if they had their way.

Your gang have been spouting for months that a person that may possibly dox should have a tag. HHampuz supported the doxing of a forum treasurer thus endangering him and the entire boards funds.
 

Start applying THE SAME STANDARDS to all members or keep on facing us calling you out as a double standards manipulative fat piece of shit proxy puppet of lauda/possible alt.  You were previously found kissing theymos's ass on everything (that suited your agenda ie crap gamed merit system, or anything else your or your pals coudl weaponize for your own ends) until LAUDA suddenly got called into question. You did not hesitate to back stab theymos directly and publicly. That revealed you for who you really are. It was the best thing that could have happened actually. You are more dangerous than Lauda, he is blatant and open about his abuse and not that careful about lying and scamming. You are far more devious and sneaky. Perhaps 2 different sides to the same coin.

Bring the trolling specific examples. So we can debunk your claims.

Start being fair or just keep getting derided and crushed in public by OBSERVABLE INSTANCES!!!!  your call.

[suchmoon]

stab theymos in the back
kissing theymos's ass

This right here seems to be your problem. Disagreeing with someone is stabbing in the back, and agreeing with someone is asskissing. You'll be ridiculed here for as long as you're unable to figure out that there's stuff between those extremes.

You might want to get back on topic though. Last I heard you're on thin ice as far as shitposting goes.