YOBIT SCAM: x10 Banner Promoters Will Be Tagged For Promoting a Ponzi Scheme

[JollyGood]

YOBIT x10 Banner Promoters

You Will Be Tagged After 24 hours For Promoting a Ponzi Scheme

For the record, the following list of 12 members is from a post made by Loyce, it contains a list of those users who have made a post in the previous 7 days while promoting Yobit x10 in their signature and that is it. He has not endorsed this thread, I am using the information he provided of my own accord.

I have sent PMs to all of the users listed below asking them to remove their Yobit x10 signature promotion by replacing it with another banner of their choice otherwise they will tagged with negative red trust for promoting a ponzi scheme.

Please note, I could have just tagged them and then discussed their questions either via PMs or in a thread which would be created later to cover the debate but I am take a different approach by advising them what I will do and why so they have time to change their Yobit x10 banner beforehand.

For those wondering why I will tag just those displaying Yobit x10 banners and not tag those displaying any Yobit banner is because a debate is currently taking place about whether the whole of Yobit is a scam or not. Some members are expressing the view that because some aspects of any business seems to be legitimate it is unfair to call the whole business a scam. To some members the whole of a business and all aspects of it should be called a scam even if one part or product is a scam.

The more the debate proceeds the more it seems DT members have to start taking action in order to save this forum from any possible negative effects from the fallout that will ensue by being associated with Yobit. For me on a personal note, the desire to save any victims from getting their funds either stolen or scammed either in a ponzi or any other scheme design to entrap funds sent in by victims (which is based on some hideously worded small print contract) is a bigger issue so the Yobit x10 is the first to be targeted. The issue of whether to mass tag all those promoting Yobit banners will be stated here hopefully soon.

The driving factor for me is simply the desire to help save as many victims from falling it to the Yobit x10 scam. I will consider any and all posts made here by members

PLEASE NOTE - The following is not a threat, it is not extortion but it is a way reaching out to tell the members in question that I have not tagged them but will do so they should remove their Yobit x10 banner otherwise they will be tagged for promoting a ponzi and I will request other members to do the same. So here goes...

After 24 hours from the time this thread has started and the PMs sent, I will check the following users profiles. If any of them have signed in even once within the 24 hours but are continuing to display a Yobit x10 banner I will leave appropriate negative trust. For those that have not signed in and are not aware of the situation will unfortunately learn they have been tagged when they log in.

The following users (who posted in the past 7 days) have "X10" in their profile:
    1. Hero Member pajak666 (Trust: neutral) (BPIP)
    2. Legendary alyssa85 (Trust: neutral) (BPIP)
    3. Legendary iluvbitcoins (Trust: +21 / =2 / -0) (BPIP)
    4. Legendary MetalEngine (Trust: neutral) (BPIP)
    5. Legendary InvoKing (Trust: neutral) (BPIP)
    6. Legendary iv4n (Trust: neutral) (BPIP)
    7. Sr. Member Lecam (Trust: neutral) (BPIP)
    8. Sr. Member JC btc (Trust: neutral) (BPIP)
    9. Sr. Member yoseph (Trust: neutral) (BPIP)
   10. Sr. Member Aikidoka (Trust: neutral) (BPIP)
   11. Sr. Member Obito (Trust: neutral) (BPIP)
   12. Sr. Member Bezobraznike (Trust: neutral) (BPIP)

Here is the PM that was sent seconds after this thread was created:


--------
Hello,

I hope you are well. I wanted to bring your attention to something very important that concerns you.

When you have time kindly read the following threads because Yobit has been discussed extensively (in them and in other threads) and because you are displaying a Yobit x10 banner in your signature I am sending this PM.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5220208
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5217581.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219538.0

All users displaying the Yobit x10 banner 24 hours after this PM is sent will be tagged with negative trust.

I hope you understand this PM is a courteous way to inform you of my next step and I will request other DT members to add their own negative trust (which they may or may not choose to add).

Unfortunately these steps are now needed to start bringing some protection for any potential victim that might fall in to the Yobit x10 scam. As of now no decision has been made on mass tagging members that display any other (non-x10) Yobit banner but it seems inevitable that they will be tagged very soon either by myself or other members so I kindly request you switch your banner as soon as possible. If any decision is made to mass tag all members that display Yobit banners those displaying them will be advised advising a tag with be forthcoming.

This identical message has been copied/pasted to the 12 users that have displayed the Yobit x10 banner within the previous 7 days.

Thank you

Kind Regards
--------


I ask all responsible DT members to take a solid stance against the Yobit x10 ponzi scheme and then come to a consensus regarding how to proceed with removing everything Yobit related from the forum (banners, promotions, ANN threads etc)


UPDATE 24th January 2020: 8 users removed their Yobit x10 banner (only 4 were tagged)
UPDATE 25th January 2020: 9 users removed their Yobit x10 banner (only 3 were tagged)
UPDATE 28th January 2020: 1 user feedback revised to neutral. This thread has been locked.
UPDATE 28th January 2020: This thread has been unlocked to further debate because user iluvbitcoins insisted on sending PMs to me
UPDATE 31st January 2020: This thread has been locked as no further debate is happening.

[1715245456]

1715245456

[1715245456]

1715245456

[1715245456]

1715245456

[1715245456]

1715245456

[1715245456]

1715245456

[TECSHARE]

~JollyGood

You are getting too big for your britches. This is not what the trust system is for.

It seems the community came to the general consensus that yobit is not too much of a scam for it to be advertised on the forum right?
I don't like that they were allowed to come back and advertise after being banned for it but the community allowed it..

"Oh well I guess CryptoTalk isn't really directly a scam though its parent Yobit facilitates extremely likely scams" -let them advertise
"Oh well I guess Yobit isn't directly a scam though it facilitates extremely likely scams" -let them advertise
"Oh noes!! X10 coin? That is almost definitely a scam so we can't advertise that!!  Better just go back to advertising only Yobit, who is a scam advertiser, but indirectly advertising scams is ok? Right guys?" -let them advertise

X10 coin is nothing new for Yobit.. They have been pushing similar "scams" for years since the ROM crap..

I wonder how many DT members are currently accepting payment from Yobit?

Is Yobit a scam or not?
Is advertising for Yobit advertising for a scam or not?
If it is, then why is it here advertising at all?

It's just too darn close to the edge for a clear consensus it seems..

Why can Vispillo be tagged for advertising a "scam" but all the other that do can not?
Because he posted that he thinks one of Yobit's products is a "scam" and therefore is knowingly advertising a "scam"?

So let me get this straight..
If I go find any posts from anyone currently being paid by Yobit, or has been paid by Yobit, who has previously stated that they think any of Yobit's products (past or present) are a "scam" prior to them accepting any form of payment for their advertisement, they should be red tagged?

But no red tags for anyone advertising Yobit as long as they have never themselves stated that they think any Yobit products are a "scam"?
What a situation in that it depends on the post history of all individual advertising users..

Their are probably plenty to be tagged on this basis.. How many even in DT I wonder?

How can this be made consistent one way or another?


Maybe if I go find a couple more examples of users advertising for yobit while having previously stated they think that any yobit product is/was a scam, then it can be decided to tag them all or tag none..
Sound fair?

The only problem is this kind of behavior only expands with this "ok we make it fair by being excessive with everyone". This is the kind of slow creep that takes away everyone's freedoms and ability to be left alone unless directly victimizing others. The kind of people who love running around searching for people to tag over this kind of stuff are salivating over an excuse to just do it for everyone thus retroactively justifying their behavior. Of course you know they will still make exceptions for their pals anyway, but now they have a whole heap of more people to lord over.

Is it a "scam" or just a predatory "high risk" investment offering? Where is the line?

Is X10 scam "or just predatory high risk investment offering"?

That is literally what he just asked you. The point being by what standard is this applied?

The only problem is this kind of behavior only expands with this "ok we make it fair by being excessive with everyone". This is the kind of slow creep that takes away everyone's freedoms and ability to be left alone unless directly victimizing others.

I'm not much of a supporter of giving up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, or in other words, protecting idiots at the expense of loosing valuable users over minor infractions that could possibly put some idiots at greater risk, but if that is what it is then atleast it should be done consistently..

This whole Yobit situation has become too fine of an obfuscated line..
One could definitely make the argument that any advertisement of any Yobit product is advertising a "scam", as in very "high risk" and even predatory "investments"/"scams?"..
On the other hand an argument could be made along the lines of "So what?".. If people are stupid enough to buy the crap then they are stupid and stupid is as stupid does..

The current situation is some sort of blurry line drifting around in the sea somewhere between both of those camps, with possible harsh punishment for tripping on it?

Stupid situation that wouldn't even exist if users didn't want that yobit dust so badly..
Seems you can get away with a lot more, and push the boundaries, as long as you throw around some coin..
Almost like a bribe.. What can you get away with as long as you are paying?

I wouldn't recommend Yobit as a very safe exchange or any of their investments as good investments, but I would use it to dump some coins or something and might recommend to use it to get in, do your business, and get out..
Also, no matter how terrible some coin or asset being traded is, if it has volatility, it can be flipped for a profit..

Teaching people that it is ok to advertise scam because it is not your business if someone can't recognize scam is scammy behavior itself.

Is it a "scam" or just a predatory "high risk" investment offering? Where is the line?

Small correction: Yobit's signature was never banned for being a scam, it was banned for spamming the forum.

Right..
After that it's surprising to me that it was welcomed back as it has been, especially considering its borderline scamminess.. But it pays right?


crazy-joe=off topic

The inconsistency is exactly the issue. This is why we need to err on the side of less interference than more. The same standards applied to call Yobit a scam could be applied to half of the altcoin section and more. For fuck sake crypto itself could be made illegal tomorrow. This is all risky. Additionally risky does not always equal scam. Then who gets to decide how it is applied? Unless the line is clear then all this is going to do is invite tons of abuse and endless drama, and for what? Will it stop any of this stuff at the end of the day? Absolutely not.

The integrity of the system as a whole is more important. There needs to be a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contract, or violation of local applicable laws, not just suspicion. The trust system acts as a penalty, as such it should be administered based on this observable evidence, not by how good an accuser is with their creative writing skills and creating plausible theories. This is the entire reason due process exists in law, otherwise the legal system is abused to arbitrarily harass and exploit people for fun and profit like in most 3rd world countries.

The trust system is designed to prevent long cons to a lesser extent account farming as a trade history makes farming accounts much more complicated as it takes a lot more work to fake. The system should not be used like a flack cannon to mass flag and tag people because all that will achieve is to teach people to find it common and ignore it as signal noise. Again beyond that, more importantly this assembly line tagging activity consistently drags otherwise unsuspecting people into endless bullshit and drama that drives away productive user base.

[Lauda]

I'll be joining you on this. Please bump the thread when you initiate.

[Bezobraznike]

   Is it official? I don't wish to get tagged!
   Do you really think that Yobit is a scam? Before I joined Yobit campaign I checked them, they seems solid! There are scam
accusations against Yobit, like every crypto-service has, nothing important! They are working for years, I use them for the last couple
months for buying some alt-coins I wish to have and I didn't have any problems with that or with withdrawing those alt-coins.
  

[examplens]

  Is it official? I don't wish to get tagged!
   Do you really think that Yobit is a scam? Before I joined Yobit campaign I checked them, they seems solid! There are scam
accusations against Yobit, like every crypto-service has, nothing important! They are working for years, I use them for the last couple
months for buying some alt-coins I wish to have and I didn't have any problems with that or with withdrawing those alt-coins.
  

Investbox on Yobit is 100% scam. People who click on your signature and if invest there they will certainly lose money.
If you insist to get some earnings from his signature, they have updated signature code something about Airdrop, maybe you can wear this code. I think @JollyGood means to stop the promotion of Investbox.

edit: Campaign will be finished 27.January. I must say it is great to finish this Yobit signature drama.

Dear Bitcointalk Users!

Current campaign will be finished on 27 Jan.

Next Sig Campaign will be on CryptoTalk.Org Forum, if you want to participate - please register there.

Thank you for all your work and posts!

[crazy-joe]

edit: Campaign will be finished 27.January. I must say it is great to finish this Yobit signature drama.

Dear Bitcointalk Users!

Current campaign will be finished on 27 Jan.

Next Sig Campaign will be on CryptoTalk.Org Forum, if you want to participate - please register there.

Thank you for all your work and posts!

Haters won

[hulla]

edit: Campaign will be finished 27.January. I must say it is great to finish this Yobit signature drama.

Dear Bitcointalk Users!

Current campaign will be finished on 27 Jan.

Next Sig Campaign will be on CryptoTalk.Org Forum, if you want to participate - please register there.

Thank you for all your work and posts!

Haters won

This is clearly not haters won kind of a thing but trying to clean the forum the newbies and inexperience crypto sake.
Mind you, everything that have a beginning must certainly but yobit mission was glaring right from the start of their campaign

[blurryeyed]

The following users (who posted in the past 7 days) have "X10" in their profile:
    1. Hero Member pajak666 (Trust: neutral) (BPIP)
    2. Legendary alyssa85 (Trust: neutral) (BPIP)
    3. Legendary iluvbitcoins (Trust: +21 / =2 / -0) (BPIP)
    4. Legendary MetalEngine (Trust: neutral) (BPIP)
    5. Legendary InvoKing (Trust: neutral) (BPIP)
    6. Legendary iv4n (Trust: neutral) (BPIP)
    7. Sr. Member Lecam (Trust: neutral) (BPIP)
    8. Sr. Member JC btc (Trust: neutral) (BPIP)
    9. Sr. Member yoseph (Trust: neutral) (BPIP)
   10. Sr. Member Aikidoka (Trust: neutral) (BPIP)
   11. Sr. Member Obito (Trust: neutral) (BPIP)
   12. Sr. Member Bezobraznike (Trust: neutral) (BPIP)

Thanks for this, there were a few on that list I had missed - that has now been rectified.

[JollyGood]

The 24 hours given as a courtesy are up, the following users did not change their Yobit x10 signatures therefore have been tagged for promoting a ponzi scheme:

~snip~

Legendary alyssa85 (Trust: neutral) (BPIP)

Legendary iluvbitcoins (Trust: +21 / =2 / -0) (BPIP)

Sr. Member JC btc (Trust: neutral) (BPIP)

Sr. Member Obito (Trust: neutral) (BPIP)

UPDATE: 25th January 2020 (Obito has had the tag removed as was not aware of the kind courteous request to remove the Yobit x10 banner. Thank you Obito for removing it)

[Bezobraznike]

  It's not fair! You tag people just because you think that Yobit is a scam, but you
don't have any argument or proof for that.
   Their campaign is ending in 3 days, I don't see a need for this bullying.

[logfiles]

  It's not fair! You tag people just because you think that Yobit is a scam, but you
don't have any argument or proof for that.
   Their campaign is ending in 3 days, I don't see a need for this bullying.

He is not "thinking" that it's scam... the X10 model being advertised is actually scam as people who invested from the time it was advertise are already in losses by now.

You should probably take you time read threads created against that new yobit promotion instead of blindly defending them. Some members even took time to make calculations that show loses to investors.

[Bezobraznike]

  It's not fair! You tag people just because you think that Yobit is a scam, but you
don't have any argument or proof for that.
   Their campaign is ending in 3 days, I don't see a need for this bullying.

He is not "thinking" that it's scam... the X10 model being advertised is actually scam as people who invested from the time it was advertise are already in losses by now.

You should probably take you time read threads created against that new yobit promotion instead of blindly defending them. Some members even took time to make calculations that show loses to investors.

    What? You are telling me that someone made some calculations that investor's are losing money, but there's no
complaints from investors? Can you show me that calculations and complaints from investors who lost money?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

   What? You are telling me that someone made some calculations that investor's are losing money, but there's no
complaints from investors? Can you show me that calculations and complaints from investors who lost money?

Actually I was wondering kind of the same thing--I thought I'd read most, if not all, of the recent threads dealing with Yobit and I don't recall anyone giving that kind of evidence.  Could be that I missed it, so if someone can point to the thread where the calculations were done I'd greatly appreciate it.  

Glad to see the campaign ending, by the way.  Hopefully the drama surrounding it will die down fairly quickly.

Edit:  Oh wow, I did miss all of those posts, thank you JollyGood.

[figmentofmyass]

is this characterization as a ponzi based on the idea that the promised returns are unrealistic?

i took a closer look at the "investbox". coins like DOGE and BTC yield very low interest like 0.1%. it's only the fake coins printed by yobit (like X10) that are paid HYIP-like returns. this leads me to believe that it's not really a ponzi per se because yobit can just keep printing fake coins to satisfy their investment obligations. it's actually an interesting loophole that sort of makes it not technically a scam.

they are basically promising people useless monopoly money, and they are following through on that promise. they are definitely fleecing greater fools, but then again, so is ripple labs---they printed the XRP supply out of thin air, took possession of most of it, and they just endlessly dump it all on greater fool investors. that's basically what yobit is doing: inventing fake coins, printing them at insane inflation rates to ("honorably") pay out HYIP rates, and letting greed take its course.

my point is this: the above scheme is a weak basis for red tagging advertisers. if you want to go after yobit, it should be because of their established practice of permanently keeping wallets in "maintenance", which effectively steals coins from their customers. this is a well known practice and its been happening for years.

the problem, of course, is that declaring yobit itself a scam makes your plan in the OP inconsistent. the negative tags (which IMO are overkill but we can table that discussion) should apply to all their advertisers, not just a small handful.

[JollyGood]

I cannot find the specific posts logfiles referred to but these are an indicator of what the Yobit x10 is, hopefully the information in just 3 links will suffice:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5217581.msg53670926#msg53670926
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5217581.msg53650350#msg53650350
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5217581.msg53684110#msg53684110

    What? You are telling me that someone made some calculations that investor's are losing money, but there's no
complaints from investors? Can you show me that calculations and complaints from investors who lost money?

Actually I was wondering kind of the same thing--I thought I'd read most, if not all, of the recent threads dealing with Yobit and I don't recall anyone giving that kind of evidence.  Could be that I missed it, so if someone can point to the thread where the calculations were done I'd greatly appreciate it. 

Glad to see the campaign ending, by the way.  Hopefully the drama surrounding it will die down fairly quickly.

[Bezobraznike]

    What? You are telling me that someone made some calculations that investor's are losing money, but there's no
complaints from investors? Can you show me that calculations and complaints from investors who lost money?

Actually I was wondering kind of the same thing--I thought I'd read most, if not all, of the recent threads dealing with Yobit and I don't recall anyone giving that kind of evidence.  Could be that I missed it, so if someone can point to the thread where the calculations were done I'd greatly appreciate it. 

Glad to see the campaign ending, by the way.  Hopefully the drama surrounding it will die down fairly quickly.

   It's just a campaign, but can you explain me where this hate comes from? Can you
explain me why I am punished for?
   I never had any reason to think that Yobit is a scam, I still don't have. I did some
research, but I'm not an expert, I read what others wrote, I compare that and I make
conclusions. I checked the history of Yobit on this forum and I didn't see anything important. This exchange operates longer than I know for crypto-currencies.
   Bullies should be banned from this forum.

[JollyGood]

the problem, of course, is that declaring yobit itself a scam makes your plan in the OP inconsistent. the negative tags (which IMO are overkill but we can table that discussion) should apply to all their advertisers, not just a small handful.

Thank you bringing that up figmentofmyass.

What you mention deserves a definitive answer even though the justification for not tagging all Yobit promoters has been mentioned in many places.

Therefore making true on my word and providing an update much sooner than anticipated I can say that I was on the verge of starting to tag all users that display any Yobit banner (providing they received kind courteous requests to remove the banner) and the debate was going to continue about what other DT members would do but thankfully Yobit will end their campaign in this forum on 27th January 2020 so tagging other users will not be of relevance now.

The issue of whether to mass tag all those promoting Yobit banners will be stated here hopefully soon.

The driving factor for me is simply the desire to help save as many victims from falling it to the Yobit x10 scam. I will consider any and all posts made here by members

[TECSHARE]

the problem, of course, is that declaring yobit itself a scam makes your plan in the OP inconsistent. the negative tags (which IMO are overkill but we can table that discussion) should apply to all their advertisers, not just a small handful.

Thank you bringing that up figmentofmyass.

What you mention deserves a definitive answer even though the justification for not tagging all Yobit promoters has been mentioned in many places.

Therefore making true on my word and providing an update much sooner than anticipated I can say that I was on the verge of starting to tag all users that display any Yobit banner (providing they received kind courteous requests to remove the banner) and the debate was going to continue about what other DT members would do but thankfully Yobit will end their campaign in this forum on 27th January 2020 so tagging other users will not be of relevance now.

The issue of whether to mass tag all those promoting Yobit banners will be stated here hopefully soon.

The driving factor for me is simply the desire to help save as many victims from falling it to the Yobit x10 scam. I will consider any and all posts made here by members

"courteous requests"

I.E. do what we tell you "or else". Sounds legit.

[Bezobraznike]

I cannot find the specific posts logfiles referred to but these are an indicator of what the Yobit x10 is, hopefully the information in just 3 links will suffice:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5217581.msg53670926#msg53670926
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5217581.msg53650350#msg53650350
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5217581.msg53684110#msg53684110

    Again your topic, but still you didn't convince me in anything. Coins that go up
and down same as other crypto-currencies, some rules and requirements for
people who wish to use Yobit invest box. Every service has some requirements,
you can't say something is a scam just because you don't like it.
  
   And how fair are you? I asked is it official? You didn't provide an answer but your
friend hurried to tag my account. Shame on both of you!

[TryNinja]

   Again your topic, but still you didn't convince me in anything. Coins that go up
and down same as other crypto-currencies, some rules and requirements for
people who wish to use Yobit invest box. Every service has some requirements,
you can't say something is a scam just because you don't like it.
  
   And how fair are you? I asked is it official? You didn't provide an answer but your
friend hurried to tag my account. Shame on both of you!

There is nothing wrong about tagging someone for promoting a service that promises 10% profit a day and its based on a fictionary token. This isn’t a court of law. You are free to disagree just like he is free to think these users deserve a tag. If you or other users disagree, they aree free to ~ him on your trust list, but he doesn’t need to act only when there is an 100% undoubtable scam.

[logfiles]

 Again your topic, but still you didn't convince me in anything. Coins that go up
and down same as other crypto-currencies, some rules and requirements for
people who wish to use Yobit invest box. Every service has some requirements,
you can't say something is a scam just because you don't like it.
  
   And how fair are you? I asked is it official? You didn't provide an answer but your
friend hurried to tag my account. Shame on both of you!

You are referring to blurryeyed right? I doubt if he's even a friend of JollyGood. AFAIK, he has been tagging anybody who wears a yobit signature since time immemorial... You should probably take the anger to him though i doubt he will change his mind and it's not worth it.

Just be glad that JollyGood decided not to do the tagging since the campaign is ending, Just move forward rather than keep dragging on. It does no good  

[Bezobraznike]

   Again your topic, but still you didn't convince me in anything. Coins that go up
and down same as other crypto-currencies, some rules and requirements for
people who wish to use Yobit invest box. Every service has some requirements,
you can't say something is a scam just because you don't like it.
  
   And how fair are you? I asked is it official? You didn't provide an answer but your
friend hurried to tag my account. Shame on both of you!

There is nothing wrong about tagging someone for promoting a service that promises 10% profit a day and its based on a fictionary token. This isn’t a court of law. You are free to disagree just like he is free to think these users deserve a tag. If you or other users disagree, they aree free to ~ him on your trust list, but he doesn’t need to act only when there is an 100% undoubtable scam.

   You are promoting a mixer. And it's well known that mixers are used by
criminals and scammers! They mix their coins obtained by illegal activities.
   Tagging someone without a valid reason is against the forum rules. Tagging
just some users that participate in promotion is like attack on these people not on service.
    You made a post and you got paid for that. You didn't try to read a topic and give
your opinion about entire situation, you just wanted to join a mob and get paid for that.

You are referring to blurryeyed right? I doubt if he's even a friend of JollyGood. AFAIK, he has been tagging anybody who wears a yobit signature since time immemorial... You should probably take the anger to him though i doubt he will change his mind and it's not worth it.

Just be glad that JollyGood decided not to do the tagging since the campaign is ending, Just move forward rather than keep dragging on. It does no good 

   I'm not angry, I just don't like double standards. Today this happened to me,
tomorrow same will happen to you.
    And it's weekend, I'm free next 2 days. I can spend some time here and maybe I
will learn something.

[TryNinja]

You are promoting a mixer. And it's well known that mixers are used by
criminals and scammers! They mix their coins obtained by illegal activities.

Wow, first time I hear someone using this falacy without knowing what they are talking about ^/s. Let me guess, you also think VPNs are only for criminals and that you don’t have anything to hide, am I right?

A quick read for you: Chainalysis: Most Mixed Bitcoin Not Used for Illicit Purposes

Tagging someone without a valid reason is against the forum rules.

It is not.

You made a post and you got paid for that. You didn't try to read a topic and give
your opinion about entire situation, you just wanted to join a mob and get paid for that.

Oh dear, only if you knew how much I read in this forum VS how much I post.

[JollyGood]

I cannot find the specific posts logfiles referred to but these are an indicator of what the Yobit x10 is, hopefully the information in just 3 links will suffice:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5217581.msg53670926#msg53670926
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5217581.msg53650350#msg53650350
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5217581.msg53684110#msg53684110

    Again your topic, but still you didn't convince me in anything. Coins that go up
and down same as other crypto-currencies, some rules and requirements for
people who wish to use Yobit invest box. Every service has some requirements,
you can't say something is a scam just because you don't like it.
  
   And how fair are you? I asked is it official? You didn't provide an answer but your
friend hurried to tag my account. Shame on both of you!

First of all, thank you for removing the x10 banner.

Second, if you can say whole-heartedly with a clear conscience that you really dispute that the Yobit x10 scheme is not a scam then I have to apologise.

Sadly, it would mean myself (and any other users that are trying to protect newbies and gullible investors/users from getting their funds effectively stolen by Yobit) have failed in articulating  enough evidence to convince you. Unfortiunately, if I (or others) have been unable to change your view or convince you it should not be a reason to stop wanting to protect potential victims. Therefore while you claim it is not scam, I claim it is a scam and the cycle would usaully continue but no longer.

The action taken by some members to tag all users showing Yobit banners started some weeks ago but has evolved to this stage gradually, I hope members will start protecting the integrity of this forum.



I hope the following post (which was incidentally linked above) you can see for yourself just one of the reasons why Yobit is a scam. The case made has been expressed in excellent fashion by o_e_l_e_o:

Let's take the X10 scam as an example, since it was the one which was shilled on here.

This "token" has no blockchain, has no smart contract, can't be withdrawn or deposited, and doesn't exist outside of YoBit. It was created out of nothing by YoBit to be traded only on YoBit. It was launched on December 19th, with ridiculous claims of being "100% safe". YoBit created and sold 68.7 BTC worth of tokens, generating around half a million dollars of pure profit for YoBit:



After creating this scam out of nothing and having it bought up rapidly, YoBit then simply ignore it. Early buyers dump on later ones, and YoBit continue to create tokens out of thin air to pay the "10% interest" in a worthless non-token which you can't do anything with. The result being we now have bag holders stacking up sell order upon sell order, with no idiots left to buy:


Don't worry though, users here will tell you, it's definitely not a scam. Everyone who invested is getting their 10% more X10 a day, and their tokens are 100% safe! They are certainly right about that last point - the tokens can't be stolen since they don't actually exist in the first place.

With the scam complete and a nice half-million profit, YoBit can simply rinse and repeat with the next made up token.

If that is not helping to convince you and you have already seen various posts and threads but are not viewing Yobit as a scam then I request other far more learned and respected members to kindly contribute here in a manner that might be more beneficial in that maybe Bezobraznike will be able to understand because I am clearly lacking in expressing myself.

  Is it official? I don't wish to get tagged!
   Do you really think that Yobit is a scam? Before I joined Yobit campaign I checked them, they seems solid! There are scam
accusations against Yobit, like every crypto-service has, nothing important! They are working for years, I use them for the last couple
months for buying some alt-coins I wish to have and I didn't have any problems with that or with withdrawing those alt-coins.

Please forgive me, I should have replied to the first post you made in the thread.

Based on that alone I feel that you getting tagged was somewhat harsh but as TryNinja pointed each user has their own interpretation of the threshold for what constitutes the reason for leaving negative trust. I have sent a PM to blurryeyed asking him to kindly reconsider the tag because I should have replied to you so part of the blame lay with a misunderstanding, I made a mistake and overlooked your post because examplens posted a reply to you captured everything appropriately. Maybe you missed it. Either way I am sorry for what happened.

[o_e_l_e_o]

that's basically what yobit is doing: inventing fake coins, printing them at insane inflation rates to ("honorably") pay out HYIP rates, and letting greed take its course.

I made essentially the same points in a post last week: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5217581.msg53654366#msg53654366. The InvestBox does actually do what it says on the tin, and they do pay out the promised 10% interest. They can claim that the inevitable loss of investors' money is simply due to poor market conditions, and your investment (as measured in X10 or whichever fake token you have chosen) is technically "100% safe". It's only your bitcoin which will be lost forever. The whole thing is set up very smartly to protect itself from scam accusations, which for me makes it even more scammy/scummy than an "honest" HYIP like a bitcoin doubler.

    Again your topic, but still you didn't convince me in anything. Coins that go up
and down same as other crypto-currencies, some rules and requirements for
people who wish to use Yobit invest box. Every service has some requirements,
you can't say something is a scam just because you don't like it.

Read the posts of mine the JollyGood has linked to above. These coins don't even exist and can't be deposited or withdrawn. They are not cryptocurrencies. They are entirely made up numbers on YoBit's servers.
   

   And how fair are you? I asked is it official?

Scams are not moderated, and so there will never be an "official" statement regarding this from forum staff. (I assume that is what you are asking for.)

   You are promoting a mixer. And it's well known that mixers are used by
criminals and scammers! They mix their coins obtained by illegal activities.

Please see the following thread for a thorough debunking of this argument: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5214200.0.

   Tagging someone without a valid reason is against the forum rules.

No, it isn't. Trust is not moderated.

[JollyGood]

   And how fair are you? I asked is it official? You didn't provide an answer but your
friend hurried to tag my account. Shame on both of you!

I just checked your feedback. It appears blurryeyed has kindly revised his feedback to neutral so you no longer have negative trust.

[LoyceV]

i took a closer look at the "investbox". coins like DOGE and BTC yield very low interest like 0.1%. it's only the fake coins printed by yobit (like X10) that are paid HYIP-like returns.

I wouldn't call 0.1% per day very low. That's 44% in a year! That money has to come from somewhere, and I'm pretty sure it's not coming from Yobit's pockets.

[stompix]

i took a closer look at the "investbox". coins like DOGE and BTC yield very low interest like 0.1%. it's only the fake coins printed by yobit (like X10) that are paid HYIP-like returns.

I wouldn't call 0.1% per day very low. That's 44% in a year! That money has to come from somewhere, and I'm pretty sure it's not coming from Yobit's pockets.

There are conditions for those 0.1% gains, o_e_l_e_o  posted what that ds means, 10 dice rolls a day on their dice game for doge, and for 0.1% in BTC you have to buy those on top:

BTC   0.1%   Daily    BTC: 10 ds + 100 000 Frog + 30k Panda + 200 Sex   

so it's 10 dice rolls day (probably there is a minimum but I don't know what that is) and you have to buy coins worth 0.3 BTC.
Which will probably be worthless by the end of the year...

[morvillz7z]

Speaking of Yobit's Investbox, you guys should check out their official Twitter account and have a laugh with those shills trying to promote it.
Look at this dude for example, Yobit doubled his BTC out of nowhere, who could resist an offer like that? Brilliant! smh 

[JollyGood]

Looking at the image, it seems Jacob and Pavel are both exemplary examples of what a shill should look like. I am not heaping praise on them but but merely pointing out the over-the-top recommendations.

One does not know whether to laugh or be saddened by the manner in which Yobit are trying to manipulate existing or potential users.

Speaking of Yobit's Investbox, you guys should check out their official Twitter account and have a laugh with those shills trying to promote it.
Look at this dude for example, Yobit doubled his BTC out of nowhere, who could resist an offer like that? Brilliant! smh  

[stompix]

Speaking of Yobit's Investbox, you guys should check out their official Twitter account and have a laugh with those shills trying to promote it.
Look at this dude for example, Yobit doubled his BTC out of nowhere, who could resist an offer like that? Brilliant! smh  

Do you know what's really funny?
Those guys are not shilling for Yobit! Those are some other species of scammers altogether!
https://twitter.com/YobitExchange/status/1126208362822209544

The domain yobit-admin.net is used by these to impersonate yobit admins.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5109313.0

The scam goes like this:

I tried to resolve the problem with BSTY manually but there is a technical issue with your account
bla bla bla bla......

To pass the verification and activate all addresses and wallets please follow my instructions.

1. Create a new account on Yobit. Deposit 0.15 BTC to it.
2. Please log into your new Yobit account. Click on your user name in the top right corner and select Yobit codes.
3. Then select BTC and enter your full BTC balance. Click Create New Code. You will need to confirm it via email.
4. After you confirm the code don't activate it. Send the code to me and we will activate your new account and move balances from the old account to your new one.

You can figure out the outcome...

[crazy-joe]

Speaking of Yobit's Investbox, you guys should check out their official Twitter account and have a laugh with those shills trying to promote it.
Look at this dude for example, Yobit doubled his BTC out of nowhere, who could resist an offer like that? Brilliant! smh  

You're not seeing it's a scam?  

Looking at the image, it seems Jacob and Pavel are both exemplary examples of what a shill should look like. I am not heaping praise on them but but merely pointing out the over-the-top recommendations.

One does not know whether to laugh or be saddened by the manner in which Yobit are trying to manipulate existing or potential users.

OMG you think you're a scam buster and you are not even able to spot those noob scams? really?

[morvillz7z]

Do you know what's really funny?
Those guys are not shilling for Yobit! Those are some other species of scammers altogether!

I stand corrected, you are right! Those are not really Yobit shills and that's irony, their userbase is first subjected to various pump and dump schemes/ investbox opportunities via non-existent tokens, accounts and withdrawal freezes by the exchange itself and then those same people are being scammed again by Yobit admin imposters on Twitter...lol they can't catch a break.

Given all the shady practices i won't be surprised if those fake Yobit admin accounts are not actually controlled/operated by Yobit themselves, call it a side operation (even though it's nearly impossible to prove).

[Bezobraznike]

   @o_e_l_e_o my friends tell me that I am an idiot because I invest my money in Bitcoin and other crypto-currencies. They used the same
arguments as you are using to explain me that Yobit is a scam. More than once they told me that I invest in a thin-air and that I will regret it.

   @JollyGood I don't have that Yobit x10 coin/token, whatever it is. I never had any of those coins/tokens mentioned to be Yobit products
to scam people, because I never was interested in them. As exchange Yobit is working, their products are being used by some people and until
now I didn't see anyone complains about that.
   
    I don't know what you think of me. I feel a need to say that I am not arguing, I can't argue with you two when you are smarter than me.
I don't have technical knowledge as you do, I am a beginner in almost everything connected with crypto-currencies. I try to read a lot and
do some kind of research, as much as my knowledge allows me, I stated the same in some of my comment.
    I am still not convinced that Yobit is a scam. I will continue to use Yobit until I spend those Bitcoins left there from my payments, I decided
to invest them in some alt-coins. Yobit products are not interesting for me, I would never use Yobit exchange in the first place if there wasn't
a campaign. What will happen with Yobit and Yobit products we will see in the future.

[examplens]

~ 
   @JollyGood I don't have that Yobit x10 coin/token, whatever it is. I never had any of those coins/tokens mentioned to be Yobit products
to scam people, because I never was interested in them. As exchange Yobit is working, their products are being used by some people and until
now I didn't see anyone complains about that.
   
    I don't know what you think of me. I feel a need to say that I am not arguing, I can't argue with you two when you are smarter than me.
I don't have technical knowledge as you do, I am a beginner in almost everything connected with crypto-currencies. I try to read a lot and
do some kind of research, as much as my knowledge allows me, I stated the same in some of my comment.
    I am still not convinced that Yobit is a scam. I will continue to use Yobit until I spend those Bitcoins left there from my payments, I decided
to invest them in some alt-coins. Yobit products are not interesting for me, I would never use Yobit exchange in the first place if there wasn't
a campaign. What will happen with Yobit and Yobit products we will see in the future.

You never have any of Yobit coin/token, this is the reason why you can't argue about these themes. But you are still defending Yobit.

* Probably you use just part of this forum/internet if you didn't see any complaints to Yobit products. Just try to search "Yobit scam" you will get more results than "Kim Kardashian" term. Jus do few searches here and you will find lot of interesting information.

~ 
    I am still not convinced that Yobit is a scam. I will continue to use Yobit until I spend those Bitcoins left there from my payments, I decided
to invest them in some alt-coins.

Test them, (I am) just for you to be sure and convinced. until then, do not defend them.

[JollyGood]

Thank you for your contributions, this thread has served its purpose therefore will been locked soon.

[iluvbitcoins]

I have been warned yes, but I'm a busy person, I can't dwell into things as soon as I'm notified about them
http://prntscr.com/qtb9x1

I wasn't in my apartment for those 2 days since I slept at my ex's place, which can be seen from my post history as well
http://prntscr.com/qtbaee


When I woke up in my own bed I took the time to research the subject and left the campaign.

I don't see how an arbitrary 24 hour period would make any moral difference?
Would I be more moral if somehow an iPhone charger was present there for those 2 days?
Or am I less moral because my battery was dead?


I believe this is completely disingenuous and malicious.
The purpose of the trust system is to know who you can trade with and who you can't trade with.
You know full-well I'm a trustworthy person, but why you decide to abuse the system in order to carry your own vendetta is beyond me.



http://prntscr.com/qtbvlk

At XMR peak of 480$, the depository had more than 2000 XMR
Which is over a million dollars

I've been the escrow for these Monero for some 4 years now.
It's currently ~70k$, but at its peak I handled a million $ worth of anonymous cryptocurrency

And you seriously believe now that I'm an untrustworthy person because I wasn't able to research the subject the same day you sent me the PM?

[nutildah]

JG -- I think your negative is a bit harsh for these accounts as the YoBit campaign is now over in its entirety.

There's no doubt that YoBit is sleazy and X10 is obviously a Ponzi but I don't think your 24-hour window was long enough.

Would you perhaps consider adjusting these ratings to neutrals?

[JollyGood]

Absolutely yes, I will change negative tag to neutral. Thank you for taking an interest in this issue.

Maybe 24 hours was not enough but 8 users did change their x10 banner. One saw my PM late but removed the banner therefore I removed the tag. The fact that user iluvbitcoins had logged in and sent me a message to say they will wait after the deadline to decide on what to do - did not help but I still waited for time to elapse before tagging. One other users claimed I threatened with unsolicited PMs and ignored the request and the other I think did not respond.

Just reading through what iluvbitcoins has written above deserves a response because I disagree with most of was written and can counter it with my own views and questions but there is no vendetta, there is no animosity, there is no hidden agenda, disingenuous or malicious going on here but I will not comment on it further.

Thankfully now with Yobit supposedly ending their campaign here for the forseeable future they never return with either an new x10 promotion or anything else.

JG -- I think your negative is a bit harsh for these accounts as the YoBit campaign is now over in its entirety.

There's no doubt that YoBit is sleazy and X10 is obviously a Ponzi but I don't think your 24-hour window was long enough.

Would you perhaps consider adjusting these ratings to neutrals?

[JollyGood]

UPDATE: Thread unlocked because iluvbitcoins is sending PMs otherwise stating they would have posted here so I unlocked the thread - go ahead iluvbitcoins feel free to post here but in the interim I have posted your PM below:

Maybe 24 hours was not enough but 8 users did change their x10 banner. One saw my PM late but removed the banner therefore I removed the tag. The fact that user iluvbitcoins had logged in and sent me a message to say they will wait after the deadline to decide on what to do - did not help but I still waited for time to elapse before tagging.

Since you locked the thread, I've felt the need to send you a PM I would reply with.

I don't like being blackmailed nor should I be subjected to your arbitrary cut-off periods, nor should I have to surround my personal life arround your personal messages.

You're not my boss and I will not adhere to your "24 hour ultimatums" nor any ultimatums at all.
And that doesn't change my morality and my trustworthiness.
Even if I stayed in the campaign I would still be more credible&trustworthy than 99.9% of this forum. Proven.

I am my own person, a person that's proven his honesty a million more times than you ever will, and you're purposely missusing the trust system.

Participating in signature campaigns, even if they are ponzis can never be equivalent to scamming.
It's sale of ad-space. Is PornHub a scammer for allowing dick enlargment ads?

[Bezobraznike]

   @examplens Explain me why I need to now something that is not in my sphere of interest?
   Also try to explain me why I am tagged when I use exchange that didn't do nothing wrong to me?
   

[LoyceV]

Even if I stayed in the campaign I would still be more credible&trustworthy than 99.9% of this forum. Proven.

This is true. And that makes it so much worse: a trusted user promoting a ponzi scam is much more likely to make people spend their money on X10 than a red-trusted user who doesn't have +20 in his profile.

[iluvbitcoins]

*has sent a PM
That's all I wanted to post.
This sort of self righteous bullying all over the forum needs to stop.

Even if I stayed in the campaign I would still be more credible&trustworthy than 99.9% of this forum. Proven.

This is true. And that makes it so much worse: a trusted user promoting a ponzi scam is much more likely to make people spend their money on X10 than a red-trusted user who doesn't have +20 in his profile.

The Trust system is made to let you know who you're safe trading with and who you're not.
You agreed I would be more trustworthy than 99.9% of the forum. Isn't that an abuse of the trust system then?

Sale of ad-space and promotion are not the same thing.
Does any sane person in the world accuse PornHub for being scammers if they allow ads that run 'hot singles in your area' and 'enlarge your dick 50cm today'?
It's the vistors that decide which ads they open and which products they purchase.
Not those that sell advertisement space.
The same is even more true here.
It's the investors job to investigate what he invests in.
It's devious to mark these people as scammers simply because they joined a signature campaign.

[JollyGood]

Nonsense... your motives are not about my sending PMs. The PM I sent to all 12 users requesting they remove the x10 banner is copied in the OP.

a person that's proven his honesty a million more times than you ever will, and you're purposely missusing the trust system.

That is your opinion. Feel free tothink what you like.

Participating in signature campaigns, even if they are ponzis can never be equivalent to scamming.

You are wrong. Promoting a signature that is a ponzi makes the promoter complicit.

It's sale of ad-space. Is PornHub a scammer for allowing dick enlargment ads?

This is Bitcointalk Forum not any other website. Promoting a banner run by company which steals from people who think they are investing in a legitimate scheme is akin to being party to the scam.

*has sent a PM
That's all I wanted to post.
This sort of self righteous bullying all over the forum needs to stop.

[examplens]

   @examplens Explain me why I need to now something that is not in my sphere of interest?
   Also try to explain me why I am tagged when I use exchange that didn't do nothing wrong to me?
   

I guess you need to know what you advertise in your signature. Right?
I didn't tag you so I can't answer to that. I'm also not a fan of tagging people for their signature, but Yobit Investbox is a proven scam.

[JollyGood]

~snip~

The Trust system is made to let you know who you're safe trading with and who you're not.
You agreed I would be more trustworthy than 99.9% of the forum. Isn't that an abuse of the trust system then?

Sale of ad-space and promotion are not the same thing.
Does any sane person in the world accuse PornHub for being scammers if they allow ads that run 'hot singles in your area' and 'enlarge your dick 50cm today'?
It's the vistors that decide which ads they open and which products they purchase.
Not those that sell advertisement space.
The same is even more true here.
It's the investors job to investigate what he invests in.
It's devious to mark these people as scammers simply because they joined a signature campaign.

Your arguments get more and more ridiculous. How can you even with the slightest bit of decency and morality actually stand by those comments whole-heartedly?

JG -- I think your negative is a bit harsh for these accounts as the YoBit campaign is now over in its entirety.

There's no doubt that YoBit is sleazy and X10 is obviously a Ponzi but I don't think your 24-hour window was long enough.

Would you perhaps consider adjusting these ratings to neutrals?

You should have ended this nonsense after I reluctantly accepted the advice of nutildah who I respect a lot when he intervened (maybe without him knowing the full facts). That way you would have had some excuse to stay dignified but you are fully aware of the issue on hand yet you imply the victim is to blame for getting scammed if he ends up visiting Yobit after viewing a x10 banner in your post? That is the essence of what you are saying (just as Vispilio failed to justify).

That is an utterly disgraceful position to take adding further insult which you astonishingly claim absolves yourself of all blame because you just sold-ad space to a scam and you claim it is different from promoting a scam.

[iluvbitcoins]

your motives are not about my sending PMs. The PM I sent to all 12 users requesting they remove the x10 banner is copied in the OP.

You missunderstood something.
I corrected your statement that I'm sending PMs about the thread.
I have sent a PM. The one you have posted in reply #40.

You are wrong. Promoting a signature that is a ponzi makes the promoter complicit.

No, you ARE wrong.
YoBit has purchased ads on Google, so by your definition Google is a scammer.
Are you going to stop using Google?
You're a hypocrite if you continue using Google after they promoted a ponzi! By your definition.
That's why your definition is wrong.
Website promotion and advertisement sale are not the same thing.

This is Bitcointalk Forum not any other website. Promoting a banner run by company which steals from people who think they are investing in a legitimate scheme is akin to being party to the scam.

Steal? I don't think they take control of your wallet and deposit the funds into their website.
It's the users who decide whether or not deposit their money there willingly.

If you deposit money onto a website simply because it claims you're going to earn x10 you deserve to lose money. You really do.
Every sane person googles a website before he invests in it. If you haven't done that, I've got nothing to say.
You'll have a lot more problems in life when ICOs come up which aren't as open about their "x10".

Your arguments get more and more ridiculous. How can you even with the slightest bit of decency and morality actually stand by those comments whole-heartedly?

I volunteer in the Red Cross, I have monthly subscriptions to charities, I handled a million dollars as escrow at ONCE and tens of thousands at other deals and haven't scammed anyone.
And you call me out on my morals? They're not in question.

Where is your feeling of empathy?
You are the one negging poor members of this community who are perhaps struggling with their everyday lives just because you want to earn some brownie points from the community. Some people are really helped out by this signature payments.

That way you would have had some excuse to stay dignified but you are fully aware of the issue on hand yet you imply the victim is to blame for getting scammed if he ends up visiting Yobit after viewing a x10 banner in your post?

My dignity is not in question.
You think people see signatures that say "Invest for x10" and then deposit bitcoins instantly?
The same thing works with our FIAT currency which is x1.03/year and it isn't voluntary.

[LoyceV]

It's the vistors that decide which ads they open and which products they purchase.
Not those that sell advertisement space.

I guess I have higher standards: I don't advertise anything I don't trust.

Legally, you're probably right though. Google has been earning money having phishing sites advertise on their search results for many years, and reporting the ads doesn't mean they get removed so it's intentional.

[Lauda]

*has sent a PM
That's all I wanted to post.
This sort of self righteous bullying all over the forum needs to stop.

Wrong. I was advised to take a uniform approach (before the existence of this thread and me knowing the user list) and tag everyone instantly after sending out the PM, i.e. not even be generous as Jolly was with the 24 hours. People who removed their signatures would have their tag removed, those that didn't were implicitly acknolwedging awareness of the situation and admitting they condone advertising for scams (thus their own actions or well inaction makes them inherently untrustworthy and worthy of the tag).
iluvbitcoins please stop arguing the advertising a ponzi scam (i.e. helping people get scammed) is sensible or otherwise you'll find yourself on autopilot to self-destruction of your own account. You can thank me later.

Legally, you're probably right though. Google has been earning money having phishing sites advertise on their search results for many years, and reporting the ads doesn't mean they get removed so it's intentional.

How about we don't waste time what a broken justice system thinks should imprison regular citizen and not the lawmaker, and actually focus on the distinction between good and evil whereas Yobit is a pure display of of the latter?

[iluvbitcoins]

*has sent a PM
That's all I wanted to post.
This sort of self righteous bullying all over the forum needs to stop.

Wrong. I was advised to take a uniform approach (before the existence of this thread and me knowing the user list) and tag everyone instantly after sending out the PM, i.e. not even be generous as Jolly was with the 24 hours. People who removed their signatures would have their tag removed, those that didn't were implicitly acknolwedging awareness of the situation and admitting they condone advertising for scams (thus their own actions or well inaction makes them inherently untrustworthy and worthy of the tag).
iluvbitcoins please stop arguing the advertising a ponzi scam (i.e. helping people get scammed) is sensible or otherwise you'll find yourself on autopilot to self-destruction of your own account. You can thank me later.

Legally, you're probably right though. Google has been earning money having phishing sites advertise on their search results for many years, and reporting the ads doesn't mean they get removed so it's intentional.

How about we don't waste time what a broken justice system thinks should imprison regular citizen and not the lawmaker, and actually focus on the distinction between good and evil whereas Yobit is a pure display of of the latter?

This is probably the most well-intended post in this thread.
Stands like this can easily result in account destruction.

I will admit I am taking a more defensive stand than I usually would.
I am very much against ponzies, I have written extensive posts on this forum about the pension plan which is clearly a ponzi and where so many young people are going to lose their money. This isn't a ponzi, it's an inflationary coin (like our FIAT, except this one is voluntary) and for that reason I have removed the signature.

I didn't research into YoBit at all because I have believed it's not my job to do so for reasons I outlined above.
If I thought they were a scam I would have removed the signature much earlier. I didn't.
I will retreat now for my own good.

[Lauda]

This is probably the most well-intended post in this thread.
Stands like this can easily result in account destruction.
-snip-
I will retreat now for my own good.

That was the whole point of PM-ing users! It was for their own good, certainly not the good of the sender or people spending their time advocating for this. I would leave no ratings on you (assuming you didn't retaliate against anyone which I didn't look into). Thank you, it makes doing good much easier!

[Erdogan]

It's the vistors that decide which ads they open and which products they purchase.
Not those that sell advertisement space.

I guess I have higher standards: I don't advertise anything I don't trust.

Legally, you're probably right though. Google has been earning money having phishing sites advertise on their search results for many years, and reporting the ads doesn't mean they get removed so it's intentional.

In opinion of many people coin mixers are very bad tool that help very bad people. I belive that you trust in service that you advertise, but can you be sure it doesn't help criminals?

[o_e_l_e_o]

In opinion of many people coin mixers are very bad tool that help very bad people. I belive that you trust in service that you advertise, but can you be sure it doesn't help criminals?

In the opinion of many people, the internet, VPNs, Tor, cash, bitcoin, encryption, privacy is a very bad thing that helps very bad people.

Please read this post, and my reply to it, for why this argument is complete nonsense: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5214200

[Erdogan]

In opinion of many people coin mixers are very bad tool that help very bad people. I belive that you trust in service that you advertise, but can you be sure it doesn't help criminals?

In the opinion of many people, the internet, VPNs, Tor, cash, bitcoin, encryption, privacy is a very bad thing that helps very bad people.

Please read this post, and my reply to it, for why this argument is complete nonsense: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5214200

To be honest, for me, talking not even hours, but days, about that coinmixer is mixing coins for criminals is absurd, because we all know that criminals use it.
Same situation is talking about pump and dump shitcoin like X10. We all know that most coins was made for pump and dump but hate is focused on X10 because it shows more clearly all system and it is more understandable to those who do not understand investment tools of banksters.
X10 it is shitcoin created for pump and dump and nothing more. It is free market, that makes, that after some time 10% daily interest make dump of coins on market. And it is not a scam. Only idiots invest in such risky business.
Cryptocurrencies were created to give us financial freedom and if someone wants to invest in such risky shitcoins then let them do it. If he is so stupid that he does not understand how it works, then either let him go and learn, or this is not the place for him.

 

[o_e_l_e_o]

To be honest, for me, talking not even hours, but days, about that coinmixer is mixing coins for criminals is absurd, because we all know that criminals use it.

And we all know that criminals use the internet. Your point?

X10 it is shitcoin created for pump and dump and nothing more.

Except it isn't a coin at all. It can't be deposited or withdrawn. It can't be spent. It doesn't have any wallets. It doesn't have a blockchain. It exists only within YoBit.

And it is not a scam.

It categorically is, and no sane person can seriously argue otherwise. See my post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5217581.msg53650350#msg53650350

Cryptocurrencies were created to give us financial freedom and if someone wants to invest in such risky shitcoins then let them do it.

It's not a coin and it's not an investment. It's a scam.

If he is so stupid that he does not understand how it works, then either let him go and learn, or this is not the place for him.

You will never convince me that it is ethical to promote a proven scam under the proviso of "Do your own research".

[TECSHARE]

To be honest, for me, talking not even hours, but days, about that coinmixer is mixing coins for criminals is absurd, because we all know that criminals use it.

And we all know that criminals use the internet. Your point?

X10 it is shitcoin created for pump and dump and nothing more.

Except it isn't a coin at all. It can't be deposited or withdrawn. It can't be spent. It doesn't have any wallets. It doesn't have a blockchain. It exists only within YoBit.

And it is not a scam.

It categorically is, and no sane person can seriously argue otherwise. See my post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5217581.msg53650350#msg53650350

Cryptocurrencies were created to give us financial freedom and if someone wants to invest in such risky shitcoins then let them do it.

It's not a coin and it's not an investment. It's a scam.

If he is so stupid that he does not understand how it works, then either let him go and learn, or this is not the place for him.

You will never convince me that it is ethical to promote a proven scam under the proviso of "Do your own research".

He makes a very good point that strikes at the heart of this issue. The conclusion that Yobit is a scam is an OPINION. There may be supporting evidence, but that is besides the point. You and others have opened the door to justifying for tagging users who support projects which in the taggers OPINION is a scam. This is the can of worms you people open up with these kinds of frivolous and overbearing tags. Even if it is a proven fact, you are still acting on guilt via association, which is the bread and butter of any kangaroo justice system.

This is why myself and others have been arguing against tagging users for their signatures very fervently, because there is NO WAY to universally and reliably enforce this rule, meaning it is GUARANTEED to be enforced arbitrarily. At the end of the day, what does any of this excessive tagging behavior accomplish? Absolutely nothing, except for destroying users reputations, and causing tons and tons of disputes of course. Yobit lives on, your abuse of the user base doesn't change that.

[o_e_l_e_o]

The conclusion that Yobit is a scam is an OPINION. There may be supporting evidence, but that is besides the point.

A position overwhelmingly supported by evidence is a fact.

You and others have opened the door to justifying for tagging users who support projects which in the taggers OPINION is a scam.

Please quote where I have advocated for tagging these users.

This is the can of worms you people open up with these kinds of frivolous and overbearing tags.

Please quote where I have left tags for any of these users.

Even if it is a proven fact, you are still acting on guilt via association, which is the bread and butter of any kangaroo justice system.

Guilt via association would be accusing people who use YoBit because of the X10 scam. Making a decision to promote a scam, and taking steps to display their signature and post it all over the forum, is a conscious choice.

This is why myself and others have been arguing against tagging users for their signatures very fervently, because there is NO WAY to universally and reliably enforce this rule, meaning it is GUARANTEED to be enforced arbitrarily.

I tend to agree with this. The vast majority of altcoins are scams, and there are thousands of users who wear their signatures.

Yobit lives on, your abuse of the user base doesn't change that.

Please quote where I have abused the user base.

[nullius]

In opinion of many people coin mixers are very bad tool that help very bad people. I belive that you trust in service that you advertise, but can you be sure it doesn't help criminals?

So, Chipmixer is being unjustifiably smeared in favour of Yobit by an account with negative trust feedback from nutildah, bL4nkcode, Lauda, ibminer (twice!), and yahoo62278.  (Sorry, yahoo:  You sleep with curs, you wake up with fleas.)

Why am I not surprised?

N.b. that it is apparently a stolen/sold/hacked account with many scam accusations; and it is a “Legendary” account that, prior to this post, had exactly one earned merit received earlier today, for a post that is now deleted.  TECSHARE just doubled this account’s earned merit.

In the opinion of many people, the internet, VPNs, Tor, cash, bitcoin, encryption, privacy is a very bad thing that helps very bad people.

Please read this post, and my reply to it, for why this argument is complete nonsense: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5214200

Indeed, it is the reason why I am currently advertising ChipMixer for free, on principle!

To be honest, for me, talking not even hours, but days, about that coinmixer is mixing coins for criminals is absurd, because we all know that criminals use it.

He makes a very good point that strikes at the heart of this issue. The conclusion that Yobit is a scam is an OPINION. There may be supporting evidence, but that is besides the point.

Non sequitur.  You fail at analogies.  The proposition that some criminals may abuse a good service, just as criminals abuse the Internet itself (thanks, o_e_l_e_o), has no logical similarity to the proposition that a service actively cheating its own users is a scam.

(Plus what o_e_l_e_o said.)

[TECSHARE]

He makes a very good point that strikes at the heart of this issue. The conclusion that Yobit is a scam is an OPINION. There may be supporting evidence, but that is besides the point.

Non sequitur.  You fail at analogies.  The proposition that some criminals may abuse a good service, just as criminals abuse the Internet itself (thanks, o_e_l_e_o), has no logical similarity to the proposition that a service actively cheating its own users is a scam.

(Plus what o_e_l_e_o said.)

What analogy? Uh, no, actual sequitur. You are in fact using guilt via association. Additionally, as I already stated this application of negative ratings can only be applied in a completely arbitrary fashion by its very nature, thus this should be left out of the trust system. The only result of this kind of mass spamming of ratings will be to cause people to ignore negative ratings as common. It will stop nothing and have many negative consequences.

[Bezobraznike]

He makes a very good point that strikes at the heart of this issue. The conclusion that Yobit is a scam is an OPINION. There may be supporting evidence, but that is besides the point. You and others have opened the door to justifying for tagging users who support projects which in the taggers OPINION is a scam. This is the can of worms you people open up with these kinds of frivolous and overbearing tags. Even if it is a proven fact, you are still acting on guilt via association, which is the bread and butter of any kangaroo justice system.

This is why myself and others have been arguing against tagging users for their signatures very fervently, because there is NO WAY to universally and reliably enforce this rule, meaning it is GUARANTEED to be enforced arbitrarily. At the end of the day, what does any of this excessive tagging behavior accomplish? Absolutely nothing, except for destroying users reputations, and causing tons and tons of disputes of course. Yobit lives on, your abuse of the user base doesn't change that.

   Congratulations for the great comment!

[JollyGood]

And there you go, you summed it up much better than I ever could.

The notion that any criminal could misuse a bonafide service cannot and should not be compared with an out-and-out scam that was designed with the specific purpose to make the owners of the not-so bonafide service wealthy while hiding behind nonsensical jargon in an attempt to deflect from potential lawsuits.

To be honest, for me, talking not even hours, but days, about that coinmixer is mixing coins for criminals is absurd, because we all know that criminals use it.

He makes a very good point that strikes at the heart of this issue. The conclusion that Yobit is a scam is an OPINION. There may be supporting evidence, but that is besides the point.

Non sequitur.  You fail at analogies.  The proposition that some criminals may abuse a good service, just as criminals abuse the Internet itself (thanks, o_e_l_e_o), has no logical similarity to the proposition that a service actively cheating its own users is a scam.

[iluvbitcoins]

Non sequitur.  You fail at analogies.  The proposition that some criminals may abuse a good service, just as criminals abuse the Internet itself (thanks, o_e_l_e_o), has no logical similarity to the proposition that a service actively cheating its own users is a scam.

The base of his argument was that it was an opinion.
You believe YoBit is a scam because their coin won't have value and tag people who wear their signatures.
If someone thinks mixers exist to launder money for scammers he's righteous to red tag people wearing their signatures.
You can disagree the same as we do now.
If you can tag based on your opinion, why can't everyone?
Trade isn't an opinion.
You either scam someone, or you don't.

[Lauda]

I think that if this continues, anyone whose financially-motivated opinion is/was that "Yobit isn't a scam" will need to be tagged. By continuing this path, you are not proving that you a free-thinkers or rational - Quite the contrary, you're proving that you are very easily manipulated, and your opinion can be bought for pocket change. Whether you want to admit this to yourself or not is not of my concern (or any other rational member's opinion).
The nonsensical "whataboutism" drawing to mixers and the advertising of gambling services (hello me) deserve even more condemning than the people above. You do not get to justify advertising a scam just because somebody may be advertising something else, or some other type of scam (even if it is a bigger scam than the scam that you're advertising!).

[suchmoon]

If someone thinks mixers exist to launder money for scammers he's righteous to red tag people wearing their signatures.

If you don't see a difference between something that exists with the sole purpose of scamming (X10/investbox) and something that may be used by scammers (mixing) then there is no limit to absurdity you can push this argument to.

[Lauda]

If someone thinks mixers exist to launder money for scammers he's righteous to red tag people wearing their signatures.

If you don't see a difference between something that exists with the sole purpose of scamming (X10/investbox) and something that may be used by scammers (mixing) then there is no limit to absurdity you can push this argument to.

I actually can't believe that we are still having this discussion. It's not like you could argue that there's no mens rea or anything..

[iluvbitcoins]

I didn't want to engage in more discussion about this, but I wanted to react to misinterpretation of Techshares words.

I think that if this continues, anyone whose financially-motivated opinion is/was that "Yobit isn't a scam" will need to be tagged.

If someone thinks mixers exist to launder money for scammers he's righteous to red tag people wearing their signatures.

If you don't see a difference between something that exists with the sole purpose of scamming (X10/investbox) and something that may be used by scammers (mixing) then there is no limit to absurdity you can push this argument to.

Who said there's no difference between them and who said YoBit isn't a scam?

Someone here used non sequitur, which is pretty much what's happening here.
His point wasn't that Yobit isn't a scam, nor that ChipMixer is a scam.
His point was if you label someone a scammer based on your opinion, it will inevtibaly lead to degradation of the Trust system.
Tagging the website owner if there's proof is legitimate. Tagging random user who participated in their signature campaign isn't.
I believe that's his point. Not saying YoBit isn't a scam or that ChipMixer is a scam.

your opinion can be bought for pocket change.

If I know I would never scam anyone and I'm tagged as a scammer, what is it left for me to believe other than thinking the policy is wrong?

[Lauda]

your opinion can be bought for pocket change.

If I know I would never scam anyone and I'm tagged as a scammer, what is it left for me to believe other than thinking the policy is wrong?

Negative trust rating requirement =/= being a scammer. You don't understand the system properly and I kinda think that you never did (which is fine as it includes the super-majority of the users) and we're discussing something that shouldn't be discussed here. Additionally, there's no policy. Anyone could tag you for being a scammer, even when you're in-fact not a scammer; right this second and we couldn't prevent it. We can only take reactive measures (to alleviate improper tags).
Furthermore, there are various perspectives that properly argue that e.g. advertising a scam makes you complicit i.e. a scammer yourself even if there's no malicious intent. We can go into many discussions pertaining to semantics and viewpoints, but this just wastes time (right now, and in this thread - start another).
This whole ordeal has been handled were poorly, to the point that Yobit managed to advertise their "scamBox" for >1 month up to the point that they shut it down, not us. We have failed this time, just failed. This is what the focus should be not who got labeled how in the crossfire or the semantics behind stated words et. al.

[suchmoon]

~

There's plenty of facts showing that investbox is a scam but you choose one troll to defend because he said "opinion". Just do some research before you put shit in your signature, how hard can it be.

[nutildah]

His point was if you label someone a scammer based on your opinion, it will inevtibaly lead to degradation of the Trust system.

That's hardly a point when all we have are our opinions. Who's to say that an account posting links to a malware-laced wallet client for their shitcoin is a scammer? Isn't that just an opinion as well? In a non-scientific based nor rigorously tested environment like this one, what differentiates a fact from an opinion other than opinions?

We all work together to find some sort of common sense resolution to issues and establish a protocol for handling them. The opinions of those who aren't willing to make concessions of any sort are eventually cast aside. As far as I know there have not been any exceptions to this rule.

Frankly I don't understand what your beef is. Your negative was removed, and the YoBit signature campaign has come to an end. Why are you still arguing with people in this thread?

[nullius]

What analogy? Uh, no, actual sequitur.

FYI, non sequitur is a fancy Latin phrase meaning, “it does not follow”.  And it still doesn’t.  Not even if you pull out a cutesy pop-movie GIF to insult my intelligence from your position of stupidity.

In opinion of many people coin mixers are very bad tool that help very bad people. I belive that you trust in service that you advertise, but can you be sure it doesn't help criminals?

This is the analogy being clearly insinuated by Erdogan‘s (+0 / =0 / -5) post, which you, TECSHARE, are defending in a manner that proves stupidity and malice are indistinguishable:

   Mixer : Criminals :: Scam Site : Scam

Therefore, advertising of a mixer is implied to be wrongful advertising somehow analogous to advertising a scam.  The analogy fails because relies on non sequitur which may be more obvious if I reformulate it per o_e_l_e_o’s suggestion:

   The Internet : Criminals :: Scam Site : Scam

...or:

   Money : Criminals :: Scam Site : Scam

Please be advised that if you desire further tutorials in analogies, fancy Latin phrases, and/or basic English reading comprehension and critical thinking, I will start billing you.  I accept payments in Bitcoin only.

You are in fact using guilt via association.

With Erdogan?  You are the one who chose to step up and defend the transparent shill arguments of a bought/hacked account with a scam history.  A man is known by the company he keeps.  N.b., guilt by association is not a formal fallacy; and it is not at all fallacious here, just as ad hominem is not fallacious when asking “cui bono?” about a known bought/hacked scam account suddenly showing up to smear ChipMixer, an innocent party who is not involved in this thread.

Additionally, as I already stated this application of negative ratings can only be applied in a completely arbitrary fashion by its very nature, thus this should be left out of the trust system. The only result of this kind of mass spamming of ratings will be to cause people to ignore negative ratings as common. It will stop nothing and have many negative consequences.

In OP, JollyGood set forth very narrow (in my opinion, far too narrow) objective criteria for his tagging of users who are indisputably advertising a Ponzi scam.  You call that “arbitrary”?

Please request my English language tutoring rates if you want any counterargument or explanation, but for the following observation:

Your long-running crusade to lower the community’s standards of honesty is well-known to Reputation regulars, albeit perhaps not to many readers of these Yobit-related threads.  It shows generally poor judgment on your part; and your defence of a hacked/bought account’s attempt to drag ChipMixer into this is a new low even for you.

The base of his argument was that it was an opinion.
You believe YoBit is a scam because their coin won't have value and tag people who wear their signatures.

Your meaning is unclear:  Are you saying that the cold, hard maths that make Yobit’s advertised rates of return impossible are an “opinion”, or that it is only an “opinion” that the promise of impossible returns is a textbook, definitional scam?

[iluvbitcoins]

~

There's plenty of facts showing that investbox is a scam but you choose one troll to defend because he said "opinion". Just do some research before you put shit in your signature, how hard can it be.

You're again missing the argument.
It's not about the signature itself.
Some of us obviously agree to disagree about the signature being worthy of a tag.
That proves it's an opinion and not a fact.
It's about the trust system becoming opinion-based versus the only credible trustworthy unbiased metric of trades.
We can agree to disagree, and I will not engage the discussion further, but stop misinterpreting words that are posted here.

His point was if you label someone a scammer based on your opinion, it will inevtibaly lead to degradation of the Trust system.

That's hardly a point when all we have are our opinions. Who's to say that an account posting links to a malware-laced wallet client for their shitcoin is a scammer? Isn't that just an opinion as well? In a non-scientific based nor rigorously tested environment like this one, what differentiates a fact from an opinion other than opinions?

We all work together to find some sort of common sense resolution to issues and establish a protocol for handling them. The opinions of those who aren't willing to make concessions of any sort are eventually cast aside. As far as I know there have not been any exceptions to this rule.

Frankly I don't understand what your beef is. Your negative was removed, and the YoBit signature campaign has come to an end. Why are you still arguing with people in this thread?

Now, this is a legit argument.
I thank you for this nutildah.
This is how people decide things and not by twisting words and changing narratives.

Outcomes differentiate a fact from an opinion.
How can you tell the wallet is malware-laced? If you ran it through virustotal.com, it's no longer an opinion.
It's a fact.

Frankly I don't understand what your beef is. Your negative was removed, and the YoBit signature campaign has come to an end. Why are you still arguing with people in this thread?

I'm obviously not pursuing my self-interest here, the only thing I can earn here is probably a red tag.
But I'm pursuing the interest of the community as a whole.
As I said if I consider myself a moral person what can I think other than this action being wrong and harmful?
If I was tagged, how can possibly someone with no proof behind him to prove his credibility defend against this allegations?

[o_e_l_e_o]

Your meaning is unclear:  Are you saying that the cold, hard maths that make Yobit’s advertised rates of return impossible are an “opinion”, or that it is only an “opinion” that the promise of impossible returns is a textbook, definitional scam?

This. I see a lot of posts saying that the clear facts I presented in my previous posts (here, here, and here) are just like, my opinion, man, but no one has refuted a single one of them.

Some of us obviously agree to disagree about the signature being worthy of a tag.
That proves it's an opinion and not a fact.

Some people disagree that the Earth is round. That doesn't make it any less of a fact.


Is anyone actually arguing that X10 isn't a scam? Or are we just arguing whether knowingly promoting a proven scam is untrustworthy behavior?

[JollyGood]

You might be right, maybe the 24 hours was not enough notice but since no collective stance and common ground from DTs was established I took unilateral action all in good faith. Regardless of whether my action was right or wrong please look at the reaction to my action:

- there were 12 users showing x10 banners that has made posts within the previous 7 days
- at the time of the 24 hour notice expiring there were just 4 users showing the x10 banner whereas 8 had removed them
- of those 4 users iluvbitcoins was the only one that send a PM explicitly stating they would take action after the expiring of the notice - hence the tag. (First it was red but at the advice/intervention of nutildah  I reluctantly revised it to neutral)
- of the remaining 3 users who displayed the x10 banner, one sent a PM saying they just saw the PM and removed the thread therefore I removed the tag (no red, no neutral)
- in the end, 1 user received neutral trust and 2 users received a red tag because they chose to dismiss the request.

As a result of that unilateral action for whatever it was morally correct or not, thankfully 9 users removed the x10 banner after pointing out it was a scam and maybe if it saved even 1 newbie from falling victim to their scam after reading a signature then I for one am very happy.

It was iluvbitcoins that deliberately waited for the notice period to expire before replacing the x10 banner with a Chipmixer banner, then sending a PM to complain about what is listed in their posts - and now iluvbitcoins has removed the Chipmixer banner too.

I am not saying that I contributed to Yobit taking a decision to stop campaigning here after it as pointed out all x10 banner promoters will be tagged but they have ended their campaign here for now at least and that is a win-win situation for most of the users with a clean conscience here.

~snip~

In OP, JollyGood set forth very narrow (in my opinion, far too narrow) objective criteria for his tagging of users who are indisputably advertising a Ponzi scam.  You call that “arbitrary”?

[suchmoon]

Some of us obviously agree to disagree about the signature being worthy of a tag.
That proves it's an opinion and not a fact.

Holy shit. No.

[iluvbitcoins]

Your meaning is unclear:  Are you saying that the cold, hard maths that make Yobit’s advertised rates of return impossible are an “opinion”, or that it is only an “opinion” that the promise of impossible returns is a textbook, definitional scam?

This. I see a lot of posts saying that the clear facts I presented in my previous posts (here, here, and here) are just like, my opinion, man, but no one has refuted a single one of them.

Some of us obviously agree to disagree about the signature being worthy of a tag.
That proves it's an opinion and not a fact.

Some people disagree that the Earth is round. That doesn't make it any less of a fact.


Is anyone actually arguing that X10 isn't a scam? Or are we just arguing whether knowingly promoting a proven scam is untrustworthy behavior?

You're missing the argument again.
No one here is arguing YoBit isn't a scam.

Some people disagree that the Earth is round. That doesn't make it any less of a fact.

Dis/Agreement and facts are not the same.

ISS pictures, lunar eclipses, sunsets, time zones are proving the round Earth a fact.
Agreeing or disagreeing changes nothing. Just like trades.

The same is with the nutildahs posted malware. If the file is ran through virustotal and comes up as a virus on 10/10 AVs, it's no longer an opinion that it's malware.

If someone denies a 1000BTC withdrawal, and it can be verified, it becomes fact that they damaged their users.

If a user wears a signature in order to earn some mBTC he didn't scam anyone.
There is no proof in him damaging any users at all.

It is purely your opinion that him participating in a signature campaign can be potentially harmful.

Or are we just arguing whether knowingly promoting a proven scam is untrustworthy behavior?

Keyword is knowingly.

As I said, I would not have worn the signature had I read more about it.
But you can see why I see this as potentially harmful.

[nutildah]

That's hardly a point when all we have are our opinions. Who's to say that an account posting links to a malware-laced wallet client for their shitcoin is a scammer? Isn't that just an opinion as well? In a non-scientific based nor rigorously tested environment like this one, what differentiates a fact from an opinion other than opinions?

Now, this is a legit argument.
I thank you for this nutildah.
This is how people decide things and not by twisting words and changing narratives.

Outcomes differentiate a fact from an opinion.
How can you tell the wallet is malware-laced? If you ran it through virustotal.com, it's no longer an opinion.
It's a fact.

Well, my faux argument wasn't whether the wallet contained malware or not, it was whether that fact rendered the poster of the link a scammer. Do we have to wait until the account was proven to have profited from introducing malware onto the computers of others before we can justly tag them as a scammer? Because I'll tell you right now: theymos bans them right away.

Regardless, I do appreciate your appreciation.

I'm pursuing the interest of the community as a whole.

JollyGood is also pursuing that interest.

If I was tagged, how can possibly someone with no proof behind him to prove his credibility defend against this allegations?

By stating a rational argument I suppose, similar to your own.

[nullius]

You're missing the argument again.
No one here is arguing YoBit isn't a scam.

So, you are of the opinion that the trust system should not be used to express distrust of the advertisement of acknowledged, undisputed scams!?

The remainder of this post is thus almost superfluous.  As I wrote already before I saw your later post, not all opinions are equally valid.  Next.

It's about the trust system becoming opinion-based versus the only credible trustworthy unbiased metric of trades.

Trade disputes are often just that:  Disputes.  Whether in good faith or in bad faith, parties interpret their terms of contract differently, differently interpret the facts upon which their contract must be applied (even when they agree to the facts), argue over the law that applies to the contract and to the facts, etc.

In actual courtrooms, such a dispute can and oft does result in a judge writing a paper that is called an opinion to explain his judgment in legal terms.

In substantial effect, what you are arguing for is the abrogation of all standards, period.  For ultimately, reductio ad absurdum, everything in real-life human interactions is just a matter of opinion.

Not all opinions are equally valid.

Some of us obviously agree to disagree about the signature being worthy of a tag.
That proves it's an opinion and not a fact.

Some people disagree that the Earth is round. That doesn't make it any less of a fact.

I noticed.  And sane people do not waste time arguing with them (although they can be an interesting subject of sociological study).

Your meaning is unclear:  Are you saying that the cold, hard maths that make Yobit’s advertised rates of return impossible are an “opinion”, or that it is only an “opinion” that the promise of impossible returns is a textbook, definitional scam?

This. I see a lot of posts saying that the clear facts I presented in my previous posts (here, here, and here) are just like, my opinion, man, but no one has refuted a single one of them.

Thanks.  I have also been intending to gather links to some of your older posts about the Yobit scam.  Anybody arguing for Yobit should be required to first address the maths as a threshold question.  That is not a matter of “opinion”, unless someone is of the opinion that the definition of the word “opinion” is arbitrary in the correct sense of the word “arbitrary”, not the arbitrary sense of TECSHARE’s opinion about the meaning of the word “arbitrary”. :-)

[iluvbitcoins]

JollyGood is also pursuing that interest.

By stating a rational argument I suppose, similar to your own.

Exactly. That's the purpose of discussion. We certainly have different viewpoints at this moment but I see no reason why we would despise one another.
I'm open to have my mind changed.

Well, my faux argument wasn't whether the wallet contained malware or not, it was whether that fact rendered the poster of the link a scammer. Do we have to wait until the account was proven to have profited from introducing malware onto the computers of others before we can justly tag them as a scammer? Because I'll tell you right now: theymos bans them right away.

Regardless, I do appreciate your appreciation.

Banning users is the business of the administration, not of the Trust system.
I would definitely object if there's no proof the website is linked to the poster, it would be an unjust ban since he could easily be posting a link without knowing about the malware.
But the equivalent is a bit different. There is much more harm in infecting someones computer (removal of free will) than it is in accessing a website (absolute free will).

So, you are of the opinion that the trust system should not be used to express distrust of the advertisement of acknowledged, undisputed scams!?

YoBit was never an acknowledged or undisputed scam. I have never encountered any scam accusations from their users at all.
It was not and is not widely known. Red tagging people who knew nothing about you claiming they're a scam is wrong in my head, yes.
Most of these people are probably honest people.

Trade disputes are often just that:  Disputes.  Whether in good faith or in bad faith, parties interpret their terms of contract differently, differently interpret the facts upon which their contract must be applied (even when they agree to the facts), argue over the law that applies to the contract and to the facts, etc.

In actual courtrooms, such a dispute can and oft does result in a judge writing a paper that is called an opinion to explain his judgment in legal terms.

In substantial effect, what you are arguing for is the abrogation of all standards, period.  For ultimately, reductio ad absurdum, everything in real-life human interactions is just a matter of opinion.

Not all opinions are equally valid.

We're talking about the judicial system where terms of written contracts are determined by lawyers according to the current laws and the constitution.

0 of that exists here. There are no laws, there are no lawyers, there is no constitution, there is no one to appeal to.
There is only mob rule.

I noticed.  And sane people do not waste time arguing with them (although they can be an interesting subject of sociological study)

Thinking the Earth is flat doesn't change it being round.
Thinking wearing YoBits signature is promoting scams doesn't change that those people didn't knowinglly damage anyone.

[LoyceV]

Trade isn't an opinion.
You either scam someone, or you don't.

If you check my sent feedback, you'll see I've tagged several Scammers without being scammed. If something is an obvious scam, I prefer not to get scammed first, and tag them as a warning to other users without trading with them first.

Or are we just arguing whether knowingly promoting a proven scam is untrustworthy behavior?

This is a more more interesting discussion. I'd say it says a lot about someone if they're willing to promote a known scam.

[Lauda]

Or are we just arguing whether knowingly promoting a proven scam is untrustworthy behavior?

This is a more more interesting discussion. I'd say it says a lot about someone if they're willing to promote a known scam.

If you receive monetary compensation for this and are still willing, then this makes you an accomplice, i.e. a scammer per definition too. Regardless of which view you take on it, this should remain true in every.

[o_e_l_e_o]

If a user wears a signature in order to earn some mBTC he didn't scam anyone.
There is no proof in him damaging any users at all.

I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly here. Your argument is that people who promote a scam can't be held accountable as there is no proof their promotion was responsible for users falling victim to said scam?

Keyword is knowingly.

As I said, I would not have worn the signature had I read more about it.
But you can see why I see this as potentially harmful.

Sure, I accept that was a loaded statement on my part, but I think if you are going to promote something and lend your name and reputation to it, then the onus is on you to learn about what you are promoting, and not wait for others to call you out on it.

[TryNinja]

If you can tag based on your opinion, why can't everyone?
Trade isn't an opinion.
You either scam someone, or you don't.

That's what it says in the trust page:

Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk. You might also be able to add a flag.

[iluvbitcoins]

If you check my sent feedback, you'll see I've tagged several Scammers without being scammed. If something is an obvious scam, I prefer not to get scammed first, and tag them as a warning to other users without trading with them first.

You don't have to trade with someone to tag him for scamming on his trade.
If the facts are presented, you should tag everyone who has scammed anyone.
If you check my sent feedback, you'll see I did the same.
I would agree suspicion about someone could be worthy of a tag if you allow the user a way out. The if is important. It would be extremely harmful to tag people without allowing them to prove they're legit.
Example: "Sells iPhone X with no pics. Will remove as soon as a picture is sent".

This is a more more interesting discussion. I'd say it says a lot about someone if they're willing to promote a known scam.

Or are we just arguing whether knowingly promoting a proven scam is untrustworthy behavior?

This is a more more interesting discussion. I'd say it says a lot about someone if they're willing to promote a known scam.

If you receive monetary compensation for this and are still willing, then this makes you an accomplice, i.e. a scammer per definition too. Regardless of which view you take on it, this should remain true in every.

You're again missconstruing what was said here.

YoBit was never an acknowledged or undisputed scam. I have never encountered any scam accusations from their users at all.
It was not and is not widely known. Red tagging people who knew nothing about you claiming they're a scam is wrong in my head, yes.
Most of these people are probably honest people.

I'm of the opinion that at least 70% of the signature campaign didn't even know what an InvestBox was.
I sure as hell didn't. Tagging YoBit would be sufficient without tagging innocent users.

I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly here. Your argument is that people who promote a scam can't be held accountable as there is no proof their promotion was responsible for users falling victim to said scam?

My argument is that they most likely didn't even know an InvestBox existed.

Sure, I accept that was a loaded statement on my part, but I think if you are going to promote something and lend your name and reputation to it, then the onus is on you to learn about what you are promoting, and not wait for others to call you out on it.

Sure. I can agree that is a morally valid opinion. However, I would not agree it's worth a negative trust.
As I said, I believe most of the people who participated in these campaigns had no idea what an InvestBox was or that it even existed.
How can we tag them as untrustworthy if they didn't even know?

I mean there are people on this forum that just participate in campaigns, giveaways, faucets, etc. etc.
There are certainly some that don't even know what a ponzi is.
How can we label them as untrustworthy?

[JollyGood]

Frankly I don't understand what your beef is. Your negative was removed, and the YoBit signature campaign has come to an end. Why are you still arguing with people in this thread?

I am baffled as to the motive. All I can gather is iluvbitcoins says that the trust system is for trade only and not for scams even though its has been pointed out that is not the case entirely. It seems clear to me this goes beyond that because iluvbitcoins was offended by the way all this has unfolded, I cannot put it down to anything else.

If a user wears a signature in order to earn some mBTC he didn't scam anyone.
There is no proof in him damaging any users at all.

I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly here. Your argument is that people who promote a scam can't be held accountable as there is no proof their promotion was responsible for users falling victim to said scam?

That is precisely the point.

The view held by iluvbitcoins has been stated in the now deleted post but I had replied beforehand. In it iluvbitcoins stated: "Participating in signature campaigns, even if they are ponzis can never be equivalent to scamming.":

Nonsense... your motives are not about my sending PMs. The PM I sent to all 12 users requesting they remove the x10 banner is copied in the OP.

a person that's proven his honesty a million more times than you ever will, and you're purposely missusing the trust system.

That is your opinion. Feel free tothink what you like.

Participating in signature campaigns, even if they are ponzis can never be equivalent to scamming.

You are wrong. Promoting a signature that is a ponzi makes the promoter complicit.

It's sale of ad-space. Is PornHub a scammer for allowing dick enlargment ads?

This is Bitcointalk Forum not any other website. Promoting a banner run by company which steals from people who think they are investing in a legitimate scheme is akin to being party to the scam.

*has sent a PM
That's all I wanted to post.
This sort of self righteous bullying all over the forum needs to stop.

[iluvbitcoins]

All I can gather is iluvbitcoins says that the trust system is for trade only and not for scams even though its has been pointed out that is not the case entirely

How many times do I have to correct misconstrued statements?
It is for scams! But the facts are important.
After all, trade and scams go hand in hand.

Wearing a paid signature from a website some users later on deemed a scam is not scammy behaviour.
If you wear a signature, you didn't scam anyone nor did you have intention to scam.
Most have probably never encountered threads about this website at all. Nor did they know how YoBit operates or what an InvestBox was.

To be a scammer - you have to scam someone.

That is precisely the point. The view held by iluvbitcoins has been stated in the now deleted post but I had replied it before it was deleted where they stated: "Participating in signature campaigns, even if they are ponzis can never be equivalent to scamming.":

It wasn't deleted. The post is there. For some reason I tend the make a post even though it displays "New replies" and then I continue to edit my reply to respond to new posts and embellish what I previously wrote.

[JollyGood]

All I can gather is iluvbitcoins says that the trust system is for trade only and not for scams even though its has been pointed out that is not the case entirely

Oh, God!...
How many times do I have to correct you guys  
Scams and trade go hand in hand.
It is for scams! But the facts are important.

Wearing a paid signature from a website some users later on deemed a scam is not scammy behaviour.
If you wear a signature, you didn't scam anyone nor did you have intention to scam.
Most have probably never encountered threads about this website at all. Nor did they know how YoBit operates or what an InvestBox was.

If you scam someone, you're a scammer.

You are wrong.

These are not merely differences of opinion, you are factually wrong. You are responsible for whether you promote a scam or not via displaying banner and them paying you to do it. Your lack of investigating what you are promoting is a failure on your part therefore you are complicit.

If there was any benefit of any doubt then it would have been diminished the moment you decided to write back stating you will look in to the PM request after the deadline/request. I suspect you removed the x10 banner purely because the Yobit campaign was coming to an end. Simple.

[Stedsm]

You're missing the argument again.
No one here is arguing YoBit isn't a scam.

I don't get the point of discussing all this when you were warned at first and allowed a day to stop promoting X10 banner. It is obvious that people who went there seeing your signature would definitely not be the ones who were aware about Yobit's investbox scam. And about X10, did you see that it just exhausted completely and there are no buyers for it even at 1 sat now? I have also seen fake volumes and not just that, there were some players in their dice area who make bets of BTC0.5, BTC0.7 and such big bets without proof that the bets were provably fair, you can't even see your bets available anywhere on the site and I've never seen my old bets' logs. The usernames remain similar each day and they look to be their own members or bots no matter what, but I don't know how Yobit is managing to have its exchange up and running even after having no proof of coins popping up through their ICO/IEO but there are still people who trust them and I don't know the base that's making them believe that Yobit is not scamming/will not scam.

[suchmoon]

Most have probably never encountered threads about this website at all. Nor did they know how YoBit operates or what an InvestBox was.

Where do you draw the line? If the campaign puts a malware link into the signature, is that still ok? If the signature campaign asks you to post in the Yobit thread, is that still ok?

BTW there was a lively debate about X10 in the signature campaign thread. That's where Yobit requested to change the signature, that's where yahoo said he was going to ask for a change, etc. If you're that ignorant then you probably shouldn't be in a signature campaign to begin with.

[iluvbitcoins]

...

I had no idea YoBit campaign was ending.
And we've been through this before.
Selling advertisement space is not the same as promoting a website.

I don't get the point of discussing all this when you were warned at first and allowed a day to stop promoting X10 banner. It is obvious that people who went there seeing your signature would definitely not be the ones who were aware about Yobit's investbox scam. And about X10, did you see that it just exhausted completely and there are no buyers for it even at 1 sat now? I have also seen fake volumes and not just that, there were some players in their dice area who make bets of BTC0.5, BTC0.7 and such big bets without proof that the bets were provably fair, you can't even see your bets available anywhere on the site and I've never seen my old bets' logs. The usernames remain similar each day and they look to be their own members or bots no matter what, but I don't know how Yobit is managing to have its exchange up and running even after having no proof of coins popping up through their ICO/IEO but there are still people who trust them and I don't know the base that's making them believe that Yobit is not scamming/will not scam.

I couldn't give more fucks about YoBit.
What I do care about is innocent posters getting red tags.

Most have probably never encountered threads about this website at all. Nor did they know how YoBit operates or what an InvestBox was.

Where do you draw the line? If the campaign puts a malware link into the signature, is that still ok? If the signature campaign asks you to post in the Yobit thread, is that still ok?

BTW there was a lively debate about X10 in the signature campaign thread. That's where Yobit requested to change the signature, that's where yahoo said he was going to ask for a change, etc. If you're that ignorant then you probably shouldn't be in a signature campaign to begin with.

Ofcourse it isn't.
A malware removes your free will.
It can steal from you, spy on you or take control of your computer.
You know what doesn't remove your free will? Malware free websites
No one can force you to invest in something. You choose what to do.
As I said, people should remove YoBits signature. They really should. It's not cool.
It's inflationary bullshit that shouldn't be advertised.
But I find using using the trust system against them is much more harmful.

If the signature campaign asks you to post in the Yobit thread, is that still ok?

I guess that would be okay unless theymos says that's forbidden.

[LoyceV]

I didn't research into YoBit at all because I have believed it's not my job to do so for reasons I outlined above.

I had no idea YoBit campaign was ending.

It now looks like you're willing to promote anything that pays you, without checking what it is and without keeping track of the campaign thread. That's disappointing for a green trusted Legendary member to say the least.

[Lauda]

I didn't research into YoBit at all because I have believed it's not my job to do so for reasons I outlined above.

I had no idea YoBit campaign was ending.

It now looks like you're willing to promote anything that pays you, without checking what it is and without keeping track of the campaign thread. That's disappointing for a green trusted Legendary member to say the least.

You could have realized this before by reading between the lines. Latest being, "innocent posters getting tags". I guess the next step is that we blame victims for being scammed, like Visipilio tried to or whatever went on there.

[TECSHARE]

Most have probably never encountered threads about this website at all. Nor did they know how YoBit operates or what an InvestBox was.

Where do you draw the line? If the campaign puts a malware link into the signature, is that still ok? If the signature campaign asks you to post in the Yobit thread, is that still ok?

BTW there was a lively debate about X10 in the signature campaign thread. That's where Yobit requested to change the signature, that's where yahoo said he was going to ask for a change, etc. If you're that ignorant then you probably shouldn't be in a signature campaign to begin with.

You draw the line where guilt via association and arbitrary enforcement is not used. All of the scenarios you posted are talking about direct involvement, not guilt via association just for wearing a banner you and your mob buddies are obsessing over. Once again, none of your obsessive mobbing and tagging changes anything, it is exclusively punitive compulsive behavior to punish users and stops Yobit itself in no way.



nullius   2020-01-28      Counter to counters by figmentofmyass, BayAreaCoins, and eddie13. What, is this some schoolyard game? NO BACKSIES! — The feedback provided by by Lauda, Vod, and marlboroza is factually based, and a necessary warning to anybody who is trying to understand TECSHARE’s persistent crusade to protect forum abusers, attack people who stop forum abuse, manipulate DT voting, and otherwise undermine the trust system.


Like I said, you are operating on guilt via association. Now instead of just tagging people who are associated with Yobit, you are tagging people who are arguing against tagging people associated with Yobit, because clearly if they disagree with you they deserved to be tagged too. This is exactly the reason this shouldn't be happening, because this guilt via association excuse is EVER EXPANDING and has no clear line where it begins or stops.

~nullius

[iluvbitcoins]

I didn't research into YoBit at all because I have believed it's not my job to do so for reasons I outlined above.

I had no idea YoBit campaign was ending.

It now looks like you're willing to promote anything that pays you, without checking what it is and without keeping track of the campaign thread. That's disappointing for a green trusted Legendary member to say the least.

-I didn't check and keep track
-I'm willing to promote anything that pays me

If I didn't know and I'm willing to promote anything that pays me I would keep posting.
Pick one.

I didn't research into YoBit at all because I have believed it's not my job to do so for reasons I outlined above.

I had no idea YoBit campaign was ending.

It now looks like you're willing to promote anything that pays you, without checking what it is and without keeping track of the campaign thread. That's disappointing for a green trusted Legendary member to say the least.

You could have realized this before by reading between the lines. Latest being, "innocent posters getting tags". I guess the next step is that we blame victims for being scammed, like Visipilio tried to or whatever went on there.

The only one to blame is YoBit and certainly not the people who participated in the signature campaign.

[suchmoon]

If the signature campaign asks you to post in the Yobit thread, is that still ok?

I guess that would be okay unless theymos says that's forbidden.

Let me clarify - if Yobit told you that in order to get paid you have to post in some Yobit thread on Bitcointalk, would you have done that?

[TECSHARE]

If the signature campaign asks you to post in the Yobit thread, is that still ok?

I guess that would be okay unless theymos says that's forbidden.

Let me clarify - if Yobit told you that in order to get paid you have to post in some Yobit thread on Bitcointalk, would you have done that?

Yes, now hypothetical guilt.

[iluvbitcoins]

If the signature campaign asks you to post in the Yobit thread, is that still ok?

I guess that would be okay unless theymos says that's forbidden.

Let me clarify - if Yobit told you that in order to get paid you have to post in some Yobit thread on Bitcointalk, would you have done that?

Is it allowed on the forum and is it publicly disclosed that this is a requirement?

If the signature campaign asks you to post in the Yobit thread, is that still ok?

I guess that would be okay unless theymos says that's forbidden.

Let me clarify - if Yobit told you that in order to get paid you have to post in some Yobit thread on Bitcointalk, would you have done that?

Yes, now hypothetical guilt.

I chuckled  

[suchmoon]

Is it allowed on the forum

You tell me.

is it publicly disclosed that this is a requirement?

Yes.

Yes, now hypothetical guilt.

I'm just trying to gauge how much personal responsibility and due diligence iluvbitcoins considers acceptable. It looks like 0 so far.

[iluvbitcoins]

Is it allowed on the forum

You tell me.

is it publicly disclosed that this is a requirement?

Yes.

Yes, now hypothetical guilt.

I'm just trying to gauge how much personal responsibility and due diligence iluvbitcoins considers acceptable. It looks like 0 so far.

I'm not going to research this now. I assume it isn't?
The answer is simple, if it's allowed and publicly disclosed - yes.
If it's not allowed - obviously not.
If it's allowed but not publicly disclosed - also no, because it's devious and makes it seem as there's more interest in the website than it actually is.

[TECSHARE]

Yes, now hypothetical guilt.

I'm just trying to gauge how much personal responsibility and due diligence iluvbitcoins considers acceptable. It looks like 0 so far.

Nah, you are trying to manufacture a narrative of guilt because you have nothing to grasp on to here, so you have to beef it up a little bit with your fairy tales.

[JollyGood]

I didn't research into YoBit at all because I have believed it's not my job to do so for reasons I outlined above.

I had no idea YoBit campaign was ending.

It now looks like you're willing to promote anything that pays you, without checking what it is and without keeping track of the campaign thread. That's disappointing for a green trusted Legendary member to say the least.

That is more disappointing coming from a deep green member.

I didn't research into YoBit at all because I have believed it's not my job to do so for reasons I outlined above.

I had no idea YoBit campaign was ending.

It now looks like you're willing to promote anything that pays you, without checking what it is and without keeping track of the campaign thread. That's disappointing for a green trusted Legendary member to say the least.

You could have realized this before by reading between the lines. Latest being, "innocent posters getting tags". I guess the next step is that we blame victims for being scammed, like Visipilio tried to or whatever went on there.

Reading through the posts, iluvbitcoins has already shifted the blame from scammer to victim because victims should apply due-diligence. That point of view is very wrong on many levels.

[Lauda]

You could have realized this before by reading between the lines. Latest being, "innocent posters getting tags". I guess the next step is that we blame victims for being scammed, like Visipilio tried to or whatever went on there.

The only one to blame is YoBit and certainly not the people who participated in the signature campaign.

In other words: You don't care about justice, nor do you give a single fork about any past or potential future victims. Also, even the legal system does not side with you on this one.

[TECSHARE]

The only one to blame is YoBit and certainly not the people who participated in the signature campaign.

In other words: You don't care about justice, nor do you give a single fork about any past or potential future victims. Also, even the legal system does not side with you on this one.

Hilarious. Lauda lecturing people about justice. You act like some one was murdered here. Why don't you stick to targeting perpetrators, not just people who disagree with you or anyone associated with them.

[JollyGood]

Having users with the mindeset of iluvbitcoins clearly shows there is a flaw in the trust system.

The only one to blame is YoBit and certainly not the people who participated in the signature campaign.

In other words: You don't care about justice, nor do you give a single fork about any past or potential future victims. Also, even the legal system does not side with you on this one.

[iluvbitcoins]

I luvbitcoins has already shifted the blame from scammer to victim because victims should apply due-diligence.

Like this?

The only one to blame is YoBit

In other words: You don't care about justice, nor do you give a single fork about any past or potential future victims. Also, even the legal system does not side with you on this one.

My view of "justice" is that you actually have to do something harmful to be a criminal.
Participating in a signature campaign is not a crime.

Having users with the mindeset of iluvbitcoins clearly shows there is a flaw in the trust system.

I am and always will be more trustworthy than you and most of these people replying here are.

[iluvbitcoins]

A joke.

<This dude that controlled like a million dollars alone at once without scamming thinks people shouldn't be negged for participating in signature campaigns
< Yeah, dude, our trust system is totally fucked!

[Lauda]

A joke.

<This dude that controlled like a million dollars alone at once without scamming thinks people shouldn't be negged for participating in signature campaigns
< Yeah, dude, our trust system is totally fucked!

Nobody sane is going to give you credit for having the opportunity to steal and not stealing. Most humans have countless opportunities to steal every day. Please stop quoting this about yourself, because eventually it will be seen in the wrong light.

In other words: You don't care about justice, nor do you give a single fork about any past or potential future victims. Also, even the legal system does not side with you on this one.

My view of "justice" is that you actually have to do something harmful to be a criminal.
Participating in a signature campaign is not a crime.

Right so let me get this:
1) I clicked the link on your signature because it promised me money.
2) I invested money under this 10% daily promise.
3) Because this is a scam ponzi, I lost all my money.

There's no crime, right? You are not directly responsibly for me landing on the website, right?

[iluvbitcoins]

Nobody sane is going to give you credit for having the opportunity to steal and not stealing. Most humans have countless opportunities to steal every day. Please stop quoting this about yourself, because eventually it will be seen in the wrong light.

This is not credit.
It's common sense!

If you think the trust system is fucked because of this

A joke.

<This dude that controlled like a million dollars alone at once without scamming thinks people shouldn't be negged for participating in signature campaigns
< Yeah, dude, our trust system is totally fucked!

There's something seriously wrong with the trust system but it's not what you think.

Right so let me get this:
1) I clicked the link on your signature because it promised me money.
2) I invested money under this 10% daily promise.
3) Because this is a scam ponzi, I lost all my money.

There's no crime, right? You are not directly responsibly for me landing on the website, right?

I gave you the option to visit the website.
Visiting websites is not a crime.

Let me make this clear so my words aren't twisted again.
Having ponzis in your signature is bad and shouldn't be done.
But it's still not a crime and worthy of a tag.

[Lauda]

Right so let me get this:
1) I clicked the link on your signature because it promised me money.
2) I invested money under this 10% daily promise.
3) Because this is a scam ponzi, I lost all my money.

There's no crime, right? You are not directly responsibly for me landing on the website, right?

I gave you the option to visit the website.
Visiting websites is not a crime.

Now I'm 98% inclined to give you a negative rating.

Let me make this clear so my words aren't twisted again.
Having ponzis in your signature is bad and shouldn't be done.
But it's still not a crime and worthy of a tag.

You're an accomplice, end of story. How about we ask a judge in your country whether you have committed a "crime" or not? At this point I'm considering an uniform action against everyone who gives zero disregard for victims or potential victims in any case (not just Yobit) as that behavior is inherently untrustworthy or can only be  acted out by inherently untrustworthy people.

[Stedsm]

--snip--

I couldn't give more fucks about YoBit.
What I do care about is innocent posters getting red tags.

Tell me something.
You're a friend of mine, you are known to a scheme that promises you an X amount in return every single day, well either you are earning through it or not that's another case but they are paying you to bring them their potential customers (here: VICTIMS) and without testing them yourself, you bring that scheme to me as a friend and ask me to go to them and show interest in that scheme. Obviously I'd do it like a blind ass if I'm not aware of the intentions they have in their mind. There's no fault of yours maybe because you were ^thinking good for both of us^ (for you as you are going to make some bucks on me arriving there and for me as I may be getting some fucking returns), but my friend, when you haven't tested it for yourself, why did you tell me about it and send me to them? What if I get scammed after they run away with my and many other innocent people's money? Whom should I contact with, then? You, right? I'm not saying that I'm in any support for tagging you or anybody who advertised them but if you were warned, it means that it is not in the interest of both the forum as well as the users of the forum in general. I don't get it why theymos didn't step in when that X10 shit was circulating all over the forum for some days.

[Lauda]

why did you tell me about it and send me to them? What if I get scammed after they run away with my and many other innocent people's money? Whom should I contact with, then? You, right? I'm not saying that I'm in any support for tagging you or anybody who advertised them but if you were warned, it means that it is not in the interest of both the forum as well as the users of the forum in general. I don't get it why theymos didn't step in when that X10 shit was circulating all over the forum for some days.

"No crime", no problem. The folk where he comes from are still a couple generations behind in (brain) development, you've ought to be a bit more lenient. They are just somewhat better than vispilio et. al.

[iluvbitcoins]

Because theymos believes in freedom of speech.
I would never personally promote such a scheme.
There's not a chance in the world.

--

I'm going to conclude with this and I'm out of this thread.

The thing about signature campaigns is that people know they're advertisement space and they're not personal promotion you're trying to make it out to be. People having signatures in their profile doesn't make anyone think they personally promote them.

I'm going to repeat this and leave

Let me make this clear so my words aren't twisted again.
Having ponzis in your signature is bad and shouldn't be done.
But it's still not a crime and worthy of a tag.

[tmfp]

The thing about signature campaigns is that people know they're advertisement space and they're not personal promotion you're trying to make it out to be. People having signatures in their profile doesn't make anyone think they personally promote them.

Is that really so?
(I'm naturally suspicious of people that claim to know what "people know".)
Or is that what you want to be so for "ideological" reasons?

[TECSHARE]

A joke.

<This dude that controlled like a million dollars alone at once without scamming thinks people shouldn't be negged for participating in signature campaigns
< Yeah, dude, our trust system is totally fucked!

Nobody sane is going to give you credit for having the opportunity to steal and not stealing.

That is LITERALLY the point of the trust system. Some one is entrusted with funds, they have the opportunity to steal, they don't and then fulfill their obligation, thus proving them trustworthy.

Right so let me get this:
1) I clicked the link on your signature because it promised me money.
2) I invested money under this 10% daily promise.
3) Because this is a scam ponzi, I lost all my money.

There's no crime, right? You are not directly responsibly for me landing on the website, right?

I gave you the option to visit the website.
Visiting websites is not a crime.

Now I'm 98% inclined to give you a negative rating.

Threatening negative ratings because people disagree with you. That is a good look Lauda.

[Lauda]

A joke.

<This dude that controlled like a million dollars alone at once without scamming thinks people shouldn't be negged for participating in signature campaigns
< Yeah, dude, our trust system is totally fucked!

Nobody sane is going to give you credit for having the opportunity to steal and not stealing.

That is LITERALLY the point of the trust system. Some one is entrusted with funds, they have the opportunity to steal, they don't and then fulfill their obligation, thus proving them trustworthy.

Wrong. Nobody in their right mind would actively entrust him with a million dollars, he just happened to end up in that situation due to many externalities. Doing good can be proof of good, not doing bad is not proof of good.

Right so let me get this:
1) I clicked the link on your signature because it promised me money.
2) I invested money under this 10% daily promise.
3) Because this is a scam ponzi, I lost all my money.

There's no crime, right? You are not directly responsibly for me landing on the website, right?

I gave you the option to visit the website.
Visiting websites is not a crime.

Now I'm 98% inclined to give you a negative rating.

Threatening negative ratings because people disagree with you. That is a good look Lauda.

It's my "opinion", not a threat. See how this works nicely when you selectively enforce it, like you are (or he is)?

[TECSHARE]

A joke.

<This dude that controlled like a million dollars alone at once without scamming thinks people shouldn't be negged for participating in signature campaigns
< Yeah, dude, our trust system is totally fucked!

Nobody sane is going to give you credit for having the opportunity to steal and not stealing.

That is LITERALLY the point of the trust system. Some one is entrusted with funds, they have the opportunity to steal, they don't and then fulfill their obligation, thus proving them trustworthy.

Wrong. Nobody in their right mind would actively entrust him with a million dollars, he just happened to end up in that situation due to many externalities. Doing good can be proof of good, not doing bad is not proof of good.

Right so let me get this:
1) I clicked the link on your signature because it promised me money.
2) I invested money under this 10% daily promise.
3) Because this is a scam ponzi, I lost all my money.

There's no crime, right? You are not directly responsibly for me landing on the website, right?

I gave you the option to visit the website.
Visiting websites is not a crime.

Now I'm 98% inclined to give you a negative rating.

Threatening negative ratings because people disagree with you. That is a good look Lauda.

It's my "opinion", not a threat. See how this works nicely when you selectively enforce it, like you are (or he is)?

No one said anything about proof of good except you. The point was this is the entire meaning of the function of the trust system no matter how much you attempt to distract from this fact. it is meant to serve as a log of times people COULD have stolen but didn't, proving they have a history of being able to be trusted with funds.

[Lauda]

it is meant to serve as a log of times people COULD have stolen but didn't, proving they have a history of being able to be trusted with funds.

No, that's your interpretation and it's irrelevant to the system.

[figmentofmyass]

A joke.

<This dude that controlled like a million dollars alone at once without scamming thinks people shouldn't be negged for participating in signature campaigns
< Yeah, dude, our trust system is totally fucked!

Nobody sane is going to give you credit for having the opportunity to steal and not stealing.

That is LITERALLY the point of the trust system. Some one is entrusted with funds, they have the opportunity to steal, they don't and then fulfill their obligation, thus proving them trustworthy.

Wrong. Nobody in their right mind would actively entrust him with a million dollars, he just happened to end up in that situation due to many externalities. Doing good can be proof of good, not doing bad is not proof of good.

but (presumably) he was entrusted with those funds, and he proceeded to act honorably. that seems fundamentally good, right? why would it matter what externalities led to the situation?

if not stealing from others despite the opportunity =/= trustworthy, what would you consider to be the basis of trustworthiness? what metrics do you use?

[Lauda]

but (presumably) he was entrusted with those funds, and he proceeded to act honorably. that seems fundamentally good, right? why would it matter what externalities led to the situation?

if not stealing from others despite the opportunity =/= trustworthy, what would you consider to be the basis of trustworthiness? what metrics do you use?

Right, and based off of this a lot of scammers were former kings of good, i.e. fundamentally good? Fundamental good almost never ever changes, and thus you need to question your own metrics first. It's not like it's easy to explicitly phrase it, but you get the logical argument of the previous 2 sentences.

[TECSHARE]

it is meant to serve as a log of times people COULD have stolen but didn't, proving they have a history of being able to be trusted with funds.

No, that's your interpretation and it's irrelevant to the system.

No, sorry. No matter how much you want to try to derail with your existentialist debate, the trust system was designed to do exactly this. The only one interpreting things here, in a very self serving punitive way I might add, is you.

[figmentofmyass]

but (presumably) he was entrusted with those funds, and he proceeded to act honorably. that seems fundamentally good, right? why would it matter what externalities led to the situation?

if not stealing from others despite the opportunity =/= trustworthy, what would you consider to be the basis of trustworthiness? what metrics do you use?

Right, and based off of this a lot of scammers were former kings of good, i.e. fundamentally good? Fundamental good almost never ever changes, and thus you need to question your own metrics first.

just to clarify, i didn't say/mean that one trustworthy act makes someone fundamentally good. the act itself is fundamentally good. this was to meet your "proof of good" condition:

Doing good can be proof of good, not doing bad is not proof of good.

i just feel that acting honorably in all business dealings and squaring all obligations ought to mean something. can we agree on that? if not, what are the proper metrics, in your opinion?

it's like, you're a bank and someone with a perfect history of repaying every debt asks for a loan. is their perfect history a basis for their financial trustworthiness? or should they be looked at exactly the same as any bum on the street?

[Lauda]

but (presumably) he was entrusted with those funds, and he proceeded to act honorably. that seems fundamentally good, right? why would it matter what externalities led to the situation?

if not stealing from others despite the opportunity =/= trustworthy, what would you consider to be the basis of trustworthiness? what metrics do you use?

Right, and based off of this a lot of scammers were former kings of good, i.e. fundamentally good? Fundamental good almost never ever changes, and thus you need to question your own metrics first.

just to clarify, i didn't say/mean that one trustworthy act makes someone fundamentally good. the act itself is fundamentally good. this was to meet your "proof of good" condition:

That changes things. Whilst I do not fully agree that not-doing-bad-when-you-could is fundamentally good in itself, I can see how you could see that it is and accept your view.

Doing good can be proof of good, not doing bad is not proof of good.

i just feel that acting honorably in all business dealings and squaring all obligations ought to mean something. can we agree on that? if not, what are the proper metrics, in your opinion?

it's like, you're a bank and someone with a perfect history of repaying every debt asks for a loan. is their perfect history a basis for their financial trustworthiness? or should they be looked at exactly the same as any bum on the street?

Right, but you also need to factor in a differentiation between passive and active actions. Not-stealing-when-you-could = passive action, i.e. don't do anything and the default outcome is good. Furthermore the following two things are also very often forgotten:
1) The amounts - Would you trust someone who had 10 successive proper $10 trades with $1000 over somebody who had one trade of $2k? I personally find all these singular instances of trading, or multiple instances trading where the amounts are negligible (and this depends on the person, but I'd consider anything sub - what others would consider a very high amount - not worthy of positive trust). I also act accordingly to this belief as you've seen in a  strong contrast between my number of given positives vs. number of given negatives (and yes, this is completely unrelated to the number of actual deals that I've done).
2) The proportionality effect of the given positive trust rating (amount risked vs. credibility given) - A very important point that many seem to miss and will continue to disregard. How much credibility does your rating for a $10 trade give in the eyes of the super-majority, not in your eyes (as a ranking DT member the eyes of many are supposed to be more important than your own eyes, i.e. bias)? It gives much more than that, and couple that with successive, what I call pajeet-level, trades of this kind and you create unnecessary risk for a lot of members for very little gain on the (subsequent!) receivers of that positive trust.
We are going way too deep into this and sidetracking from the topic, but I believe it was fruitful (based on your elaboration, which completely changes what I was arguing against). Furthermore, I'm quite appalled by anyone who wants to use "there was this one instance where I held a lot of money and didn't steal it, so how dare you accuse me of ever possibly scamming or being untrustworthy after". I believe this is a display of fundamentally compromised or flawed judgement. Many other members could do so (including me), but there's a very good reason why it isn't being done!
I think this rests this part of the discussion, at least from my end. Hope it helped.

[iluvbitcoins]

We are going way too deep into this and sidetracking from the topic, but I believe it was fruitful (based on your elaboration, which completely changes what I was arguing against). Furthermore, I'm quite appalled by anyone who wants to use "there was this one instance where I held a lot of money and didn't steal it, so how dare you accuse me of ever possibly scamming or being untrustworthy after". I believe this is a display of fundamentally compromised or flawed judgement. Many other members could do so (including me), but there's a very good reason why it isn't being done!

One instance?

A simple look at my trust rating will find a continous trading history with people risking a lot of money with me.
Some of the larger ones would be carsen who entrusted me with 4BTC and Torcoin with 1BTC.
There are so many  reversable PayPal deals over 500$ a piece which stack up at least a BTC if you want to scam under the 180 day chargeback period.

Even that instance isn't "there is one instance where I held a lot of money" isn't correct. Since it wasn't one time. It is continual management.
I managed the depository for 4 years continually. The value of it changed with XMR value from 70k-1m. I think it was never worth less than 50k.
Also consider some of these I listed overlapped in the same periods, and add smaller deals done in the same time.

Any of the listed things had no other escrow, lockbox, collateral or anyone else involved. Every coin was in my complete control, and I was the only one who had the private keys.

[marlboroza]

^ apparently it is OK to advertise "bitconnect" for people who can be trusted with funds

Let me make this clear so my words aren't twisted again.
Having ponzis in your signature is bad and shouldn't be done.
But it's still not a crime and worthy of a tag.

Actually, this statement is not correct. Do better research next time.

is this characterization as a ponzi based on the idea that the promised returns are unrealistic?

In my opinion this is sophisticated scam scheme. Hypothetically, they release 1,000,0000 fake tokens for investment purposes and set price 50 sat each and promise 10% more tokens on investment. As token is fake and it doesn't really have supply (they can "print" as many tokens they want), 10% more fake tokens each day is possible and not so unrealistic in this scenario, they are basically adding more numbers (of course, after some time, that number will certainly become 10^xxx)

So, they sell all their million "numbers" for 50btc, raise each investment by 10% more "numbers" and then let users dump on each others those "numbers" until whole scheme collapse, then they start new scheme with new name. Every scheme they make will collapse:




It is interesting to point that they claim to be cryptocurrency stock exchange:

...while x10 is what exactly?



Except it is fake, we can discuss is it ponzi, pump and dump or whatever it is, but final line is - it is scam.

Even if I stayed in the campaign I would still be more credible&trustworthy than 99.9% of this forum. Proven.

This is true. And that makes it so much worse: a trusted user promoting a ponzi scam is much more likely to make people spend their money on X10 than a red-trusted user who doesn't have +20 in his profile.

Exactly. Who remembers Arbitao arbitrage scam and someone saying something within lines "yahoo is managing campaign, yahoo is very trusted user therefore Arbitao is not scam"?

[stompix]

Eventually, every scheme they make will eventually collapse:

I saw that yesterday, but it's not over yet.
There is still the DOGE/X10 pair that is running.
Of course, it went down from 0.05 to 0.015 but there are still people who buy this crap.

And meanwhile, they have moved to the next scam, Yoda.

Who remembers Arbitao arbitrage scam

Who could forget the Big Ben Takedown 

[naska21]

~JollyGood


You are getting too big for your britches. This is not what the trust system is for.

That man is really mentally sick. Tagged  me the second time for the same discussions  on Minexcoin thread , refering to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1847292.msg47743232#msg47743232 He has removed his first tag after I send him merit for his saying that Minexcoin is dead https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5090539.msg52742371#msg52742371.  Now he tagged me again referring to the same Minexcoin issue.  I wonder does he want a merit from me again. or what?

Not trustworthy and seems to be a trust abuser.

[iluvbitcoins]

^ apparently it is OK to advertise "bitconnect" for people who can be trusted with funds

This is contradictory to all the statements I made.
Even the one you quoted.

Let me make this clear so my words aren't twisted again.
Having ponzis in your signature is bad and shouldn't be done.

My take was that people who participated in the campaign are not hish-risk and tagging them is abuse of the trust system.

[JollyGood]

Finally am locking this thread as nothing constructive is being added by those that support either Yobit itself or just their x10 ponzi scheme.