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

[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.

[1715561883]

1715561883

[1715561883]

1715561883

[1715561883]

1715561883

[1715561883]

1715561883

[1715561883]

1715561883

[1715561883]

1715561883

[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.