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

[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.

[1714125352]

1714125352

[1714125352]

1714125352

[1714125352]

1714125352

[1714125352]

1714125352

[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.