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

[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?