yahoo62278 and Yobit

[Lauda]

After reading through this thread and seeing livecoin admit to holding the users account "hostage" until he removes all the negative press against them, I've formed the opinion that all users should cease wearing the advertisement for them and the campaign should be closed.
-snip-
Can someone link me to all flags against this exchange, i'll give some support. I would also like to ask community opinion on the campaign continuing?

This is it. Way more that sufficient for proper referencing and proof that there is no "opinion" here. The word "opinion" is being used to justify or well avoid using the wording 'financial-motivation', i.e. greed. Nice find.

[1714900011]

1714900011

[1714900011]

1714900011

[eddie13]

This situation has shown two things:

• The DT system is selectively hypocritical (as outlined by you in your argument). Actually, I'm certain that Yobit is by far a worse scam than Livecoin is and that if we assessed the metrics this would be objectively proven true.
• Almost nothing can be done against highly entrenched DT1 members that are financially motivated, especially if there are also other notable members on the payroll (merit source, DT2, other).

I thought just accepting/ignoring the campaign was hypocritical after seeing before so many campaigns forced out for less and have seen so many users tagged up for "advertising scams"..

Then it became too blatantly hypocritical when many in DT were in favor of selectively tagging some advertisers but not others for the same thing..

Just before chaos ensued to find consensus discovery of this situation they coincidentally and conveniently decided to call the campaign quits right in the nick of time..
Hmm..

I suppose it's good that the chaos has been avoided but it leaves some questions unanswered..

______________________________________________-

This is it. Way more that sufficient for proper referencing and proof that there is no "opinion" here. The word "opinion" is being used to justify or well avoid using the wording 'financial-motivation', i.e. greed. Nice find.

You know Lauda..
This reminds me of a similar situation we had to hash out with some drama over advertising another exchange that was thought to be and turned out to be a scam.. P2PB2B

I forced them to start an escrowed campaign. (Still waiting)
There are a lot of scam accusations and some People think that this exchange is a scam (Including me).

Thinking it's a scam but wanting it to campaign anyway..

Where many "opinions" thought it was a "scam" but it was going to be advertised anyway, even pushed by those who thought it was a scam themselves (DT1 members), which I found hypocritical and possibly due to "'financial-motivation', i.e. greed" as you say, and in the end it turned out to be proven scam beyond doubt with fake team members and all..

And I took red tags from YOU over that hypocritical situation even though in the end it was definitely a scam and even to this day I have a negative-neutral over it..

Maybe you should get over that situation and admit that me speaking up against the hypocrisy THERE was also the right thing to do and which led to the right outcome..

___________________________________________


Once again, ME pointing out this case of hypocrisy in this Yobit campaign is what lead to this thread, and possibly their closing up shop here.. Just the same as my voicing similar concerns played a large part in stopping P2PB2B..

You're all welcome for my fine community services of questioning hypocrisy at great risk to my own reputation to keep DT straight.. Here, there, and elsewhere..

Wither you like it in one situation but not in another, I don't know what to tell you about that..

[TECSHARE]

This is what allowing arbitrary enforcement of rules gets us. Endless punitive punishments, disputes, selective enforcement, manipulation, and abuse of the system. Unless it is clear cut and demonstrated directly with facts, not suspicions, not guesses, not theories or association. Facts.

[Lauda]

This is it. Way more that sufficient for proper referencing and proof that there is no "opinion" here. The word "opinion" is being used to justify or well avoid using the wording 'financial-motivation', i.e. greed. Nice find.

You know Lauda..
This reminds me of a similar situation we had to hash out with some drama over advertising another exchange that was thought to be and turned out to be a scam.. P2PB2B

I forced them to start an escrowed campaign. (Still waiting)
There are a lot of scam accusations and some People think that this exchange is a scam (Including me).

Thinking it's a scam but wanting it to campaign anyway..

Where many "opinions" thought it was a "scam" but it was going to be advertised anyway, even pushed by those who thought it was a scam themselves (DT1 members), which I found hypocritical and possibly due to "'financial-motivation', i.e. greed" as you say, and in the end it turned out to be proven scam beyond doubt with fake team members and all..

And I took red tags from YOU over that hypocritical situation even though in the end it was definitely a scam and even to this day I have a negative-neutral over it..

Maybe you should get over that situation and admit that me speaking up against the hypocrisy THERE was also the right thing to do and which led to the right outcome..

Wrong. I received $0 and had next to no monetary incentive to help them out. How much did mr. Yahoo receive? You projecting your own belief of hypocrisy on me is your own issue. You speaking out there was one of the vilest displays of spite and hypocrisy (and I surely hope not trolling) that I have been on the receiving end of.
I hereby ask OP to delete any off-topic posts, including those attempting to discuss irrelevant parties. Open your own thread.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I will however question why there is no pressure on yahoo to stop managing the campaign

I'm pretty sure there was pressure put on him to stop managing it--but as of right now the campaign is closed anyway if I'm not mistaken, so no more pressure need be applied.  I'm actually glad Yobit decided to end it before this issue blew up more than it needed to. 

I've had mixed feelings about members getting tagged because of what they're advertising in their signature space and with this Yobit thing I've been going back and forth in my mind as to whether there's an actual Ponzi scheme going on with the investbox--and yes, I've read posts made by o_e_l_e_o and others about it and it's started to look and quack like a duck if you know what I mean.

I wouldn't be able to bring myself to tag Yahoo62278 anyway, even if he wore the Yobit signature.  That would be based on his long history of trustworthiness and the little doubt in my mind that remains that Yobit is approaching full scammer status. 

And I'm certainly not defending the manipulation which Yobit used to advertise their exchange. 

Yeah, this has been a weird situation all around.  They definitely were sneaky when they switched from the cryptotalk sig to the investbox one, and I'll bet a lot of people didn't even know what it was they were advertising exactly.  Ah....it's making my head spin.

[eddie13]

Wrong. I received $0 and had next to no monetary incentive

I wasn't necessarily talking about you having the monetary incentive there.. More about the user I quoted the hypocrisy of there..

BTW you're welcome for me keeping YOU out of near the same situation that yahoo got himself into here..

Can't you get over it and just admit that questioning hypocrisy is the right thing to do?
Your post I quoted first gave me hope that you would..

I hereby ask OP to delete any off-topic posts, including those attempting to discuss irrelevant parties. Open your own thread.

My posts questioning hypocrisy are STILL too dangerous to be allowed to exist eh?

[Lauda]

Can't you get over it and just admit that questioning hypocrisy is the right thing to do?
Your post I quoted first gave me hope that you would..

It is, but you haven't really ever actually done it other than selectively, meaning hypocritically, i.e. you haven't done it. That's the distinction between our views on this matter. Once you uniformly apply "questioning hypocrisy" then can it only be actual questioning of hypocrisy, otherwise it's just yet another (disguised) hypocritical action.

[eddie13]

It is, but you haven't really ever actually done it other than selectively

How about you ask JollyGood if he thinks I was selectively attacking him over this selectively tagging specific Yobit advertisers VS all debate..
We have mutual respect, mutual inclusions, and he can take some good debate without getting all offended over it..

without causing massive retaliation .. . . . (i.e. chaos)

Retaliation for doing the right thing is a bitch isn't it..

[TECSHARE]

Yobit, on the other hand, started out advertising their competing forum, then sneakily attempted to connive all the participants to advertise their X10 scam.  Yahoo62278 didn't apply that signature to his account, and even put in the effort to convince Yobit to retract and replace it.  At this point the two; LiveCoin and Yobit signature campaigns can more closely be compared.

I'll only respond to this one, not looking to pick a fight with anyone or cause any drama.

I would say that knowing it was YoBits forum it kind of defeats the idea of "Well I only marketed this part of it". We all knew it was yobits forum, we all knew they were pushing their x10 scam on that forum and so I see no reason why it would be acceptable to market their "lesser evil" side. But that's the thing about opinions right? We all have one and sometimes (or most times) we'll disagree .

I'm not defending Yahoo62278's decision to wear the signature himself, I would not have done so in his situation.  And I'm certainly not defending the manipulation which Yobit used to advertise their exchange.  If I had to pick the more productive method with which the two scenarios were handled, I believe you handled the LiveCoin debacle with more honor and dignity.  But that's not to take anything away from Yahoo62278, he volunteered for a job that would make me cringe, and did it remarkably. 

I will however defend the choice by DT members to not tag Yahoo62278.  I think it shows restraint and care.  Like I said, I'm convinced both exchanges are scams, but I won't use my position to force others to agree with me.  I will always allow room for disagreement and difference of opinion.

Yes, restraint and care for the special people. Everyone else can go fuck themselves. Funny how you managed to work out a way to make selective enforcement sound like a positive.

[Lauda]

Yobit, on the other hand, started out advertising their competing forum, then sneakily attempted to connive all the participants to advertise their X10 scam.  Yahoo62278 didn't apply that signature to his account, and even put in the effort to convince Yobit to retract and replace it.  At this point the two; LiveCoin and Yobit signature campaigns can more closely be compared.

I'll only respond to this one, not looking to pick a fight with anyone or cause any drama.

I would say that knowing it was YoBits forum it kind of defeats the idea of "Well I only marketed this part of it". We all knew it was yobits forum, we all knew they were pushing their x10 scam on that forum and so I see no reason why it would be acceptable to market their "lesser evil" side. But that's the thing about opinions right? We all have one and sometimes (or most times) we'll disagree .

I'm not defending Yahoo62278's decision to wear the signature himself, I would not have done so in his situation.  And I'm certainly not defending the manipulation which Yobit used to advertise their exchange.  If I had to pick the more productive method with which the two scenarios were handled, I believe you handled the LiveCoin debacle with more honor and dignity.  But that's not to take anything away from Yahoo62278, he volunteered for a job that would make me cringe, and did it remarkably.  

I will however defend the choice by DT members to not tag Yahoo62278.  I think it shows restraint and care.  Like I said, I'm convinced both exchanges are scams, but I won't use my position to force others to agree with me.  I will always allow room for disagreement and difference of opinion.

Yes, restraint and care for the special people. Everyone else can go fuck themselves. Funny how you managed to work out a way to make selective enforcement sound like a positive.

Surprisingly, this might be a first, but I actually agree with you in regards to what DireWolfM14 said. They are essentially giving Yahoo a pass, one which was not given to Hhampuz and many many others. But it's all alright under the pretense of "opinions". This does not excuse or make any of this acceptable, but reinforces DireWolfM14's own and other people's hypocrisy.
I'd be surprised if the bolded part doesn't land more exclusions. I'd also expect both retaliatory ratings and exclusions for whoever goes after Yahoo. But this is all fine since nobody did anything wrong, they just had a (financially-motivated) opinion. 

[eddie13]

Yes, restraint and care for the special people. Everyone else can go fuck themselves. Funny how you managed to work out a way to make selective enforcement sound like a positive.

Surprisingly, this might be a first, but I actually agree with you in regards to what DireWolfM14 said. They are essentially giving Yahoo a pass, one which was not given to Hhampuz and many many others. But it's all alright under the pretense of "opinions". This does not excuse or make any of this acceptable, but reinforces DireWolfM14's own and other people's hypocrisy.
I'd be surprised if the bolded part doesn't land more exclusions. I'd also expect both retaliatory ratings and exclusions for whoever goes after Yahoo. But this is all fine since nobody did anything wrong, they just had a (financially-motivated) opinion.  

I agree also..

You can add TP to that list...

I wouldn't be able to bring myself to tag Yahoo62278 anyway
That would be based on his long history of trustworthiness

IMO "reputable" users should be held to higher standards than your average shitposter, but that seems to often be the opposite of the case..

All too often unpopular or average users are destroyed for things the "buddies" would get a pass on..

[Lauda]

Yes, restraint and care for the special people. Everyone else can go fuck themselves. Funny how you managed to work out a way to make selective enforcement sound like a positive.

Surprisingly, this might be a first, but I actually agree with you in regards to what DireWolfM14 said. They are essentially giving Yahoo a pass, one which was not given to Hhampuz and many many others. But it's all alright under the pretense of "opinions". This does not excuse or make any of this acceptable, but reinforces DireWolfM14's own and other people's hypocrisy.
I'd be surprised if the bolded part doesn't land more exclusions. I'd also expect both retaliatory ratings and exclusions for whoever goes after Yahoo. But this is all fine since nobody did anything wrong, they just had a (financially-motivated) opinion.  

I agree also..

You can add TP to that list...

I wouldn't be able to bring myself to tag Yahoo62278 anyway
That would be based on his long history of trustworthiness

IMO "reputable" users should be held to higher standards than your average shitposter, but that seems to often be the opposite of the case..

All too often unpopular or average users are destroyed for things the "buddies" would get a pass on..

That's unfortunate..

Well I'd be willing to forgive based on a long history of trustworthiness for errors, but this comes no surprise as I'm offering forgiveness to my arch-enemy Quickseller. However, in this case Yahoo actively avoided taking action for a very long time despite pressure and evidences of Yobit scamming / the x10 being a scam/ponzi, etc. This is not acceptable, and does not even come close to occasional errors, but rather a willingness to either consistently sell out (directly, indirectly, consciously or unconsciously - it does not matter, I don't care if one can't admit to themselves that they have been bought) or that their whole judgement is fundamentally flawed (and always has been).

[Quickseller]

Yahoo was saying that he supports the campaign shutting down and that he would support flags against Yobit. I noticed that he kept wearing his signature but any pressure he had to shut down the campaign went away. At or around the same time, he also said he was no longer the campaign manager, but that was quickly shown to be false.

For some of the participants, it may not be unreasonable to argue that they believe Yobit isn’t a scam (I would strongly push back against this assertion), but yahoos statements reflect this is not the case for him. He acknowledged that Yobit is a scam exchange but not only kept the campaign open, but wrote misleading statements that he was closing the campaign and continued to personally advertise for them.

Conclusions I have come to regarding these changes.

1. looks as though the cryptotalk campaign is over
2. my contract with them has ended

Two days later...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5188047.msg53431322#msg53431322

Other new updates, I now have direct contact with yobit account via telegram. This should help with getting the balance refilled faster when it empties. No guarantees of course but it was a requirement for me to continue.

[eddie13]

No offence DWM14 and TP.. I just disagree on the preferential treatment stance..

in this case Yahoo actively avoided

Notice he doesn't even have the balls to reply here..
A familiar tactic of avoidance often seen in situations involving financial motivation..

[Lauda]

No offence DWM14 and TP.. I just disagree on the preferential treatment stance..

This. Evidently I have also noticed how people shift entirely just based on political disagreements and whatnot (things not relating at all to someone's judgement), i.e. this thing called "long history of trustworthiness" is also only hypocritically used (this does not refer to TP per say, I just used his wording because it was quickly available to make a point).

in this case Yahoo actively avoided

Notice he doesn't even have the balls to reply here..
A familiar tactic of avoidance often seen in situations involving financial motivation..

Turn a blind eye, maybe say that you were busy or were at your "gf" and had no internet even though this never happened before, until only.
Here I am, standing on the sidelines, condemning my own (previously-referred to as) "gang members" together with one of my strongest opponents, eddie13, TECSHARE, Quickseller. I would have never thought such a situation would (or even could) come. It is a display of utter failure of DT1, especially the most entrenched individuals. I have yet to see anybody from this ranking to act accordingly because we all (and don't lie to yourself gentlemen and ladies) know that what was done here was wrong on many levels both from a legal and justice view.
Therefore, I shall continue to wait to see if anybody will "redeem" this false illusion that DT1 is trustworthy or has rational/uniform enforcement.

[Stedsm]

I'm biased on this issue based on the fact that even if Yahoo wore a scam exchange's signature (based on factual open scam accusations against that exchange), I guess he did wrong but it may also have been asked by the company to be giving him a better financial deal he's ought to take, so he took. Another view of me looking into this is that fact we all can't deny, and i.e.; Yahoo didn't leave a single spammer aside and banged banned almost each and every of them and played his part in keeping the forum as clean as possible. Now, what could he do if the list has around 300-500 (and even more) people who joined the campaign? Is it an easy task to watch all of them? Still he banned a lot of accounts, so it'll be quite more of a dishonor to tag him. Biased as I said before.

[Lauda]

I'm biased on this issue based on the fact that even if Yahoo wore a scam exchange's signature (based on factual open scam accusations against that exchange), I guess he did wrong but it may also have been asked by the company to be giving him a better financial deal he's ought to take, so he took. Another view of me looking into this is that fact we all can't deny, and i.e.; Yahoo didn't leave a single spammer aside and banged banned almost each and every of them and played his part in keeping the forum as clean as possible. Now, what could he do if the list has around 300-500 (and even more) people who joined the campaign? Is it an easy task to watch all of them? Still he banned a lot of accounts, so it'll be quite more of a dishonor to tag him. Biased as I said before.

Completely off-topic and unrelated. His "banning of spammer" does not excuse his active and passive support of the ponzi scam.

[Stedsm]

I'm biased on this issue based on the fact that even if Yahoo wore a scam exchange's signature (based on factual open scam accusations against that exchange), I guess he did wrong but it may also have been asked by the company to be giving him a better financial deal he's ought to take, so he took. Another view of me looking into this is that fact we all can't deny, and i.e.; Yahoo didn't leave a single spammer aside and banged banned almost each and every of them and played his part in keeping the forum as clean as possible. Now, what could he do if the list has around 300-500 (and even more) people who joined the campaign? Is it an easy task to watch all of them? Still he banned a lot of accounts, so it'll be quite more of a dishonor to tag him. Biased as I said before.

Completely off-topic and unrelated. His "banning of spammer" does not excuse his active and passive support of the ponzi scam.

Meaning whatever he has done for the community as well as the forum since years shouldn't be counted as well against what was committed now? Couldn't his signature be the requirement by Yobit guys to pay him a good package as I stated before?

[Lauda]

I'm biased on this issue based on the fact that even if Yahoo wore a scam exchange's signature (based on factual open scam accusations against that exchange), I guess he did wrong but it may also have been asked by the company to be giving him a better financial deal he's ought to take, so he took. Another view of me looking into this is that fact we all can't deny, and i.e.; Yahoo didn't leave a single spammer aside and banged banned almost each and every of them and played his part in keeping the forum as clean as possible. Now, what could he do if the list has around 300-500 (and even more) people who joined the campaign? Is it an easy task to watch all of them? Still he banned a lot of accounts, so it'll be quite more of a dishonor to tag him. Biased as I said before.

Completely off-topic and unrelated. His "banning of spammer" does not excuse his active and passive support of the ponzi scam.

Meaning whatever he has done for the community as well as the forum since years shouldn't be counted as well against what was committed now? Couldn't his signature be the requirement by Yobit guys to pay him a good package as I stated before?

Read this part again.

However, in this case Yahoo actively avoided taking action for a very long time despite pressure and evidences of Yobit scamming / the x10 being a scam/ponzi, etc. This is not acceptable, and does not even come close to occasional errors, but rather a willingness to either consistently sell out (directly, indirectly, consciously or unconsciously - it does not matter, I don't care if one can't admit to themselves that they have been bought) or that their whole judgement is fundamentally flawed (and always has been).

[suchmoon]

Let's not forget to red-tag and/or exclude theymos for allowing all sorts of scams to happen here and for making money off the traffic generated by said scams, including Yobit, Livecoin, Cryptsy, Mt. Gox.