yahoo62278 and Yobit

[DireWolfM14]

I'm really having a hard time understanding why you guys feel that I'm being hypocritical in this situation.  I'm open to having my mind changed, and I mean that sincerely.

I strive to be consistent and restrained, and I feel like this is a demonstration of that effort.  I haven't had nearly as much interaction with yahoo62278 as I've had with Hhampuz, and I think of Hhampuz as a friend.  I really don't know yahoo62278 well enough to apply that label to him.  Yet, I've given both the benefit of the doubt, and attempt to treat them equally in what I think of as analogous scenarios.

@Lauda, @eddie13, I encourage you to explain why yahoo62278 deserves a red-tag, while those who supported LiveCoin don't.

@TECSHARE, I know you've been upset with me for the last few months, but if you can please stick to this particular subject and not conflate it with our other disagreements I'd like you to explain as well.  Who do you think I'm telling to "go fuck themselves?"

[1715270608]

1715270608

[1715270608]

1715270608

[Stedsm]

--snip--
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 person can't admit to themselves that they have been bought) or that their whole judgement is fundamentally flawed (and always has been).

I got your point there, but can you deny the fact that Yahoo also stood up against Yobit itself when they came up with their X10 shit without letting him know while they directly asked the users to immediately change their signatures when he was not online (or I can't say if that was all intentionally done). Yahoo asked Yobit guys to either change the signature back or he'd stop managing the campaign. Nonetheless, I don't think that if users are going to be tagged, yahoo will, by any means, be left by DTs though I'm seeing many DT members in favor of not tagging Yahoo and even the users because it was all a dubious act to make money 'on the verge of getting people's nerves stressed' as all I see it. It was all "Yobit" that I couldn't see any other signature as most members who posted in any threads in some highly-active-yet-spammed sections of the forum were wearing that X10 signature, the whole Bitcointalk forum was in Yobitious colors.

[Lauda]

@Lauda, @eddie13, I encourage you to explain why yahoo62278 deserves a red-tag, while those who supported LiveCoin don't.

Here are some:

• False equivalency. LiveCoin pressure was due to a singular instance of scamming and/or maybe some other previous situations. Yobit had many many more instances before the campaign was even taken over by Yahoo. Therefore:
  He accepted a much worse scamming entity[1].
• False equivalency #2. Both exchanges are shady, but Yobit is the one that was actively promoting their Ponzi scam. Even without advertising it here, he's knowingly diverting people to an entity one of whose products is the ponzi. You can't argue that a lot of people didn't get burned this way, not even with utopian wishful thinking.
• Why didn't he act between January 14th (although this issue being widely known started much earlier) and the point at which Yobit announced campaign termination? He actively avoided doing so, and avoided posting in this thread too.
• [1] See his own post in the LiveCoin situation (he wasn't managing that one, maybe that's why), i.e. it proves hypocrisy as well.

See the following two points:

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

A familiar tactic of avoidance often seen in situations involving financial motivation..

For the above, please don't waste my time with nonsense such as "active avoidance doesn't mean he's guilty". Of course it does not, but there has to be a strong reason to do so.

Update, see the following too (thanks Quicksie  ):

LiveCoin did not start out as a scam. After it turned out that LiveCoin was acting in an untrustworthy/scam manner, and once LiveCoin had the opportunity to defend itself, pressure was given to those who were advertising for LiveCoin and after a discussion, Hhampuz ended the campaign.

In the case of yahoo/Yobit, yahoo acknowledged that Yobit was a scam and decided to continue advertising for them. The difference is that those who were advertising for LiveCoin had not taken the position that it was a scam when they were advertising.

You can't seriously argue that this not only doesn't warrant negative ratings, but doesn't warrant exclusions either.
Also side note (not related directly to topic so I apologize): Please note the extreme lack of merits on very substantive posts from everyone against Yahoo (eddie, et. al. and me). There's no bias here, and all DT1 members are properly assessing the situation, right?

[TECSHARE]

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.

You say this like it is a joke, but this is the exact logic being used to tag anyone who wears specific signature banners people decide they don't like for whatever reason. It is just as retarded in that case. The solution? Stop justifying people being punished by guilt via association across the board.

@TECSHARE, I know you've been upset with me for the last few months, but if you can please stick to this particular subject and not conflate it with our other disagreements I'd like you to explain as well.  Who do you think I'm telling to "go fuck themselves?"

I am very much sticking to the subject. You are either a hypocrite with malleable constantly shifting standards to fit whatever suits you, or you are a useful dupe for others doing the same. It has nothing to do with being "upset" with you. I don't trust your ability for reason or judgement, and you are being treated as such.

[Quickseller]

LiveCoin did not start out as a scam. After it turned out that LiveCoin was acting in an untrustworthy/scam manner, and once LiveCoin had the opportunity to defend itself, pressure was given to those who were advertising for LiveCoin and after a discussion, Hhampuz ended the campaign.

In the case of yahoo/Yobit, yahoo acknowledged that Yobit was a scam and decided to continue advertising for them. The difference is that those who were advertising for LiveCoin had not taken the position that it was a scam when they were advertising.

[eddie13]

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.

Doing the right thing against the flow of your peers is admirable..

@Lauda, @eddie13, I encourage you to explain why yahoo62278 deserves a red-tag

The argument I think you are referring to is not wither or not to tag yahoo.

The argument that you cannot tag Yobit participants, even though you probably think you should, but can't because then you would also have to tag your buddie yahoo, is the point..

The "They deserve to be tagged but not yahoo because I like him" line of though is hypocritical because it is basically protecting your own buddies while you would otherwise have tagged them to hell..

If any Yobit advertisers should be tagged for advertising Yobit, yahoo should be the FIRST to be tagged, not the last or not tagged because of whatever excuses..
The same should be applied to all, and if anything, the most "reputable" users should be held to the highest standards, not excused from them..

My point is/was that if anyone should have been tagged for advertising Yobit (other than the X10ers), they should all be tagged equally including yahoo..

No preferential treatment.. You shouldn't tag someone you don't like while excusing your friend of the same actions..

[Stedsm]

I'm now clear with this thread that if Justice needs to be done, either it should be done in full or nothing.

That either DTs tag Yahoo if they are intended towards tagging the users who advertised Yobit in their signatures or none should be tagged. But what about those who were either banned by Yahoo or left the campaign themselves either before or after that X10 advertisement arrived? As they were also a part of Yobit's campaign some time before, should they also be tagged for advertising Yobit or they are set free? If so, how will they be found now?

[eddie13]

Please note the extreme lack of merits on very substantive posts from everyone against Yahoo (eddie, et. al. and me).

I'm used to it..
I get a share of merits here and there but I have found that posting dangerous opinions is definitely not the way to get merits from the usual sources, who don't want to be seen supporting or agreeing with said dangerous positions, no matter how high quality or high effort the posts are..

Widely agreeable posts get the merits.. Not minority opinions usually..

I'm now clear with this thread that if Justice needs to be done, either it should be done in full or nothing.

That either DTs tag Yahoo if they are intended towards tagging the users who advertised Yobit in their signatures or none should be tagged.

EXACTLY my point this entire time..

[Lauda]

Please note the extreme lack of merits on very substantive posts from everyone against Yahoo (eddie, et. al. and me).

I'm used to it..
I get a share of merits here and there but I have found that posting dangerous opinions is definitely not the way to get merits from the usual sources, who don't want to be seen supporting or agreeing with said dangerous positions, no matter how high quality or high effort the posts are..

Widely agreeable posts get the merits.. Not minority opinions usually..

I'm now clear with this thread that if Justice needs to be done, either it should be done in full or nothing.

That either DTs tag Yahoo if they are intended towards tagging the users who advertised Yobit in their signatures or none should be tagged.

EXACTLY my point this entire time..

I'll review the situation pertaining my future actions on the next update on Loyce's website. Another problem are people who do not act (e.g. remove inclusions), further giving credibility to these shady/scammy practices and creating a platform of support. In the same time, you can't tag these people or do anything because it isn't "proper use of the system" according to some. When all your systems fail you despite your potential actions being objectively just (by any conceivable metric of any honest and rational person), what do you do?

[Stedsm]

I'll review the situation pertaining my future actions on the next update on Loyce's website. Another problem are people who do not act (e.g. remove inclusions), further giving credibility to these shady/scammy practices and creating a platform of support. In the same time, you can't tag these people or do anything because it isn't "proper use of the system" according to some. When all your systems fail you despite your potential actions being objectively just (by any conceivable metric of any honest and rational person), what do you do?

Can it be done what's said by suchmoon, Lauda?

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.

Could this be the best practice according to you? Because theymos is the first person who can be called as the "Father" of this forum and nothing here is being done under his nose, everything is transparent. Why didn't he react? Why didn't he stop Yobit this time? Or even when they started spreading their X10 shit over here? I'm not trying to point my fingers on theymos but when it's all about justice, he also needs to be scrutinized for allowing such ponzis here, no?

[Lauda]

I'll review the situation pertaining my future actions on the next update on Loyce's website. Another problem are people who do not act (e.g. remove inclusions), further giving credibility to these shady/scammy practices and creating a platform of support. In the same time, you can't tag these people or do anything because it isn't "proper use of the system" according to some. When all your systems fail you despite your potential actions being objectively just (by any conceivable metric of any honest and rational person), what do you do?

Can it be done what's said by suchmoon, Lauda?

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.

Could this be the best practice according to you? Because theymos is the first person who can be called as the "Father" of this forum and nothing here is being done under his nose, everything is transparent. Why didn't he react? Why didn't he stop Yobit this time? Or even when they started spreading their X10 shit over here? I'm not trying to point my fingers on theymos but when it's all about justice, he also needs to be scrutinized for allowing such ponzis here, no?

You're confusing theymoses position as an admit with his DT1 position. For this particular case, as a DT1 (or well currently DT2 in this rotation) member he's just as guilty as the rest are (not more). As an admin, he's not guilty as he's been uniformly applying the policy of allowing scammers to scam and creating a trust system for this. Albeit, he could do a lot more than he isn't doing in this regard but it's irrelevant to this case. Again, false equivalency where Yahoo actively avoided to act when he should have due to financial motivation and nothing else. Theymos did not and does not act for completely different reasons, reasons which do not make him untrustworthy.

[suchmoon]

what do you do?

Do: tilde the shit out of them and make a strong case for others to follow.
Don't: red-trust for disagreements.

Come on, it's not rocket surgery. There are 100 users in DT1 but in most cases you need only like 5 or 10 to make a difference. Yahoo is +14 so 8 flips would do it. I haven't heard anything to convince me to flip yet so don't count on me. From what I've seen he put a lot of effort to clean that campaign up, including removal of the X10 signature, so I still trust his judgement.

Nor would I red-trust anyone for carrying the Yobit signature. It's safe to assume that most campaign participants are just being unmitigated lemmings, like iluvbitcoins helpfully showed us.

[Lauda]

what do you do?

Do: tilde the shit out of them and make a strong case for others to follow.
Don't: red-trust for disagreements.

Come on, it's not rocket surgery. There are 100 users in DT1 but in most cases you need only like 5 or 10 to make a difference. Yahoo is +14 so 8 flips would do it. I haven't heard anything to convince me to flip yet so don't count on me. From what I've seen he put a lot of effort to clean that campaign up, including removal of the X10 signature, so I still trust his judgement.

Nor would I red-trust anyone for carrying the Yobit signature. It's safe to assume that most campaign participants are just being unmitigated lemmings, like iluvbitcoins helpfully showed us.

So what can I draw out as a conclusion based off of this post:

• Accepting a job to actively advance the efforts a known-scam is okay (one that to this day, continues to selectively scam its users)? Yes we failed to stop this much earlier, but the discussion is valid.
• Keeping a ponzi scheme advertisement in your signature (knowingly or not) is not untrustworthy behavior nor worthy of a negative?
• Defending the above (ponzi schemes, and in particular their advertising) is not compromised judgement/untrustworthy behavior?
• Advertising a scam in your signature (or any other profile fields?) is not untrustworthy behavior nor worthy of a negative? I could just claim to be an "unmitigated lemming" and it would prevent me from having my reputation wrecked?

Please clarify as I personally can't see how I could answer any of those questions with a yes myself. However, I am trying to understand the implications and the precedence that this situation sets for the future.

[Stedsm]

You're confusing theymoses position as an admit with his DT1 position. For this particular case, as a DT1 (or well currently DT2 in this rotation) member he's just as guilty as the rest are (not more). As an admin, he's not guilty as he's been uniformly applying the policy of allowing scammers to scam and creating a trust system for this. Albeit, he could do a lot more than he isn't doing in this regard but it's irrelevant to this case. --snip--

Ok, keeping it irrelevant as it is. I've got a question for you again.
This forum doesn't run on charity not donations, but advertisements (read the whole statement carefully before mixing it up with signatures), those banner advertisements we see in between our posts. So based on your statement, theymos would "also just allow Yobit to advertise here by bidding for one or more slot(s)" for the ^financial motivation^ and it is good, why? Because theymos did it in the interest of forum. But wait, Yobit is a scam exchange. So what, he needs money to run this forum 24/7/365 uptime and it doesn't matter if any slot taken by any websites are scammers or turn out to be scammers, it's neither theymos' liability nor the forum's liability if you lose anything by visiting and investing anything over those websites "which were advertised here". Is it so?

[Lauda]

You're confusing theymoses position as an admit with his DT1 position. For this particular case, as a DT1 (or well currently DT2 in this rotation) member he's just as guilty as the rest are (not more). As an admin, he's not guilty as he's been uniformly applying the policy of allowing scammers to scam and creating a trust system for this. Albeit, he could do a lot more than he isn't doing in this regard but it's irrelevant to this case. --snip--

Ok, irrelevant as it is. I've got a question for you again.
This forum doesn't run on charity not donations, but advertisements (read the whole statement carefully before mixing it up with signatures), those banner advertisements we see in between our posts. So based on your statement, theymos would "also just allow Yobit to advertise here by bidding for one or more slot(s)" for the ^financial motivation^ and it is good, why? Because theymos did it in the interest of forum. But wait, Yobit is a scam exchange. So what, he needs money to run this forum 24/7/365 uptime and it doesn't matter if any slot taken by any websites are scammers or turn out to be scammers, it's neither theymos' liability nor the forum's liability if you lose anything by visiting and investing anything over those websites "which were advertised here". Is it so?

Theymos banned Yobit from advertising and generally runs decent checks on the to-be-advertised entity. I don't think he'd accept a bid from a known-scam, thus your argument vs. theymos (and suchmoon's) fails. It's fine, some people just aren't aware of all the things that have happened here over the years and developed misguided views of justice.

[suchmoon]

~

I think I explained myself quite clearly so I'm not answering any of your loaded questions, sorry. I consider X10/Investbox a blatantly obvious scam and I warned users promoting it the best I could at the time. I consider Yobit a scam too but a less obvious one so I'm willing to give signature wearers the benefit of the doubt on that one. Had this gone on longer I might have lost my patience at some point so I'm relieved that this campaign has ended and I hope it won't come back.

I would probably advocate against anyone helping manage it if it does come back. Unfortunately there is no consistent forum policy about shitty campaigns (e.g. Yobit campaign was banned in April 2019 but a similarly shitty Stake campaign around the same time wasn't) so it's a tough choice between letting them flood the forum with spam or having someone manage it. It shouldn't be our decision and it shouldn't be about the trust system to begin with, so I disagree with burning yahoo at the stake (pun definitely intended) because muh libertarian anarchist something-or-other.

[Stedsm]

--snip--

Theymos banned Yobit from advertising and generally runs decent checks on the to-be-advertised entity. I don't think he'd accept a bid from a known-scam, thus your argument vs. theymos (and suchmoon's) fails. It's fine, some people just aren't aware of all the things that have happened here over the years and developed misguided views of justice.

You're confused my dear friend Lauda.
Once again, let me reiterate my words here that I'm not trying to point my fingers on theymos and he's just being used as an example ONLY. The main motive was the fact that nobody knows what is right and what will be wrong in the future as we can't predict future but can only experience when the time comes. In Yahoo's case, however I admit that he knew the position of yobit on the forum, but let me summarize it all for you:

- Yobit came here after their 6 months ban was over
- They tried to lure users with their "20 posts per day policy" and let them start spamming this forum again
- DTs came ahead (including Yahoo) and warned users not to spam wearing their signature or they will be tagged
- After seeing a strict stance of everyone here boycotting against Yobit, Yobit officials decided to go for a campaign manager after getting several suggestions for the same
- After that, they chose Yahoo and made him their campaign manager
- Yahoo started showing his banhammer power by banning a lot of spammers, while also getting Yobit down to their knees and made them reduce the max paid posts per day from 20 to 10 (at first) and then 5, which saved a lot of spam from happening
- Yobit, without any message to Yahoo about changing their signature, straight away came here and asked users to change it to the new X10 signature
- Yahoo was not online during that day and I noticed many users were asking (fighting hard) to either change the content in the signature or they'd leave and a few "honest" users left too
- Yahoo, on the other side, was trying hard and convinced them to change it as quickly as possible or he'd stop managing their campaign, once again a defeat to Yobit's scammy intentions and our forum's victory
- Even when their wallet remained empty for around 2 weeks, Yahoo managed to communicate and get it refilled for the users
- After that, the happy ending of that campaign

So, during all these instances, see what Yahoo has done and if you still think that it was all just done having financial motives alone in his mind, you can go ahead and tag all those who participated including Yahoo.

[Lauda]

~

I think I explained myself quite clearly so I'm not answering any of your loaded questions, sorry. I consider X10/Investbox a blatantly obvious scam and I warned users promoting it the best I could at the time. I consider Yobit a scam too but a less obvious one so I'm willing to give signature wearers the benefit of the doubt on that one. Had this gone on longer I might have lost my patience at some point so I'm relieved that this campaign has ended and I hope it won't come back.

What do you mean by "loaded"[2]? Those are just some precedences[1] that I considered that our collective behavior up until today can or will set. Alternatively, we can treat this as a very isolated case but this supports all arguments of selective enforcement/hypocrisy which I don't like either. You can't argue that it won't set any precedence or hypocrisy, so I'm just trying to understand what the conclusion of this is (not what the resolution is which as per your post, for you, is to not tag anybody).
[1] Half of those I didn't even consider until I started responding to your post.
[2] Please note that without proper discussion of implications, all kinds of groups will interpret and set their own precedences which will create even further chaos, more divide which will be abused by bad actors like Yobit. This is why I am asking you for input on my own concerns, not "loading questions"..

So, during all these instances, see what Yahoo has done and if you still think that it was all just done having financial motives alone in his mind, you can go ahead and tag all those who participated including Yahoo.

I know Yahoo better than 99% of you, and the answer is absolutely yes (and this comes from somebody who at our last interaction still considered him a friend - note: nothing changed since other than no direct conversing/split paths). You should also point out that I as a DT2 member can't even tag Yahoo as within a very short period of time I would no longer be a DT2 member even though tagging him is very appropriate for this should one choose to.
My relationship before nor after tagging would remain unchanged, but it seems people around here can't separate these things and thus we are where we are: Politics. I think theymos unintendedly created a something which nowadays quite resembles a democracy, and we all know how well those function...  

[suchmoon]

What do you mean by "loaded"

Example: the first question starts with "Accepting a job to actively advance the efforts a known-scam..."

I don't think that was the intent of accepting that job. Including an unjustified presumption like that makes it a loaded question.

[Lauda]

What do you mean by "loaded"

Example: the first question starts with "Accepting a job to actively advance the efforts a known-scam..."

I don't think that was the intent of accepting that job. Including an unjustified presumption like that makes it a loaded question.

But why do you assume my question is malicious? Now with this clarification, it makes me realize that the writing itself is flawed.. The question is accepting a job which directly/indirectly helps actively advance the efforts of a known-scam, which if I'm not incorrectly writing my thoughts here again is exactly what a campaign manager does. A campaign manager actively advances the efforts of some entity in different ways. I did not mean to say that the job itself was to advance the scam.

None of those questions were meant to look "loaded" or anything, sorry..