ㅤ

[Symmetrick]

ㅤ

[JollyGood]

I remember seeing the post from that user and I did have some reservations about it at the time as it was from a newbie.

I found it odd especially as the number of forum members jumped on to participate without asking any questions. In the end we have to wait to see what happens on or around 24th January when he claims he will pay the money.

[DaveF]

I remember seeing the post from that user and I did have some reservations about it at the time as it was from a newbie.

I found it odd especially as the number of forum members jumped on to participate without asking any questions. In the end we have to wait to see what happens on or around 24th January when he claims he will pay the money.

One of his alts that we don't know about will win. What else did you think was going to happen. Trying to build trust and / or merit.

That do it a few times and people see him paying out gets some trust and / or merit then the scamming begins.

Or is that to cynical?

-Dave

[CoinEraser]

Really hard to tell if the giveaway is legit or not. I'm not sure either. That's why I haven't given merit yet. In november last year there was a $25 giveaway from a new user and the win was paid out, see here. So all we can really do is wait and see what will happen.  

[JollyGood]

No, it is not a cynical view at all. We all are entitled to our opinions and they are based on what we see and/or gut feelings.

Apparently he claims to be active on other forums and is known for giving money away. His suggested method to select a winner was using a roll of the wheel though he said he could ask a trusted member to do it. I think both options would not be transparent. Maybe this will turn out all fine or maybe it will not, time will tell.

One of his alts that we don't know about will win. What else did you think was going to happen. Trying to build trust and / or merit.

That do it a few times and people see him paying out gets some trust and / or merit then the scamming begins.

Or is that to cynical?

-Dave

[LoyceV]

I found it odd especially as the number of forum members jumped on to participate without asking any questions.

Asking questions (such as "escrow?") only discourages Newbies. I've seen genuine giveaways, and I've seen fakes. If it's real, it deserves Merit because it's worth reading. The fact that it only earned 1 Merit already shows people have their doubts. If it's fake, we'll see soon enough and nothing is lost.

[Coyster]

Well even if Rbah doesn't pay the winning participant in the raffle/giveaway, then nobody technically lost anything because nobody was asked to do anything except to post their Bitcoin address in the thread. One could be worried if it were to be the normal giveaway scam that entails giving and taking, but since it isn't, we just basically have to wait until 24th and see what happens. whatever Rbah's motive is (in terms of either merit or trust), as long as they aren't breaking any rules, there isn't any problem then.

[NeuroticFish]

Because Mitch212 didn't deliver on their promises to give out a prize to the winner

I didn't do research on account's background and possible links, but I had the impression the owner knows the drill and he's fishing for merits.
That's why I've decided that unlike most of the free raffles I see or participate, where I give merits to the OP because of his gesture, here I didn't; I'll wait and see how everything develops and then decide if merit is in order or not.

As Loyce said, we've seen all kinds of newbies and all kinds of raffles. It's too early to make too big of a deal of all this; we'll see in less than a week.
As long as people are careful and don't just throw merits, nothing is lost.

[LoyceV]

As long as people are careful and don't just throw merits, nothing is lost.

And even if they Merit him, he'll end up tagged like Mitch212, and still nothing is lost.
The reason I only left Mitch212 neutral feedback, and only after 2 months, is because I didn't consider it serious enough compared to scammers who actually stole money.

And I always remember eddie13's post, on how destructive it is to enforce regulation on Newbies because of something they might do:

Should never have put the temporary illusion of safety above personal liberty..
ie tagging and chasing away “likely scammers” and crushing the unique economic dynamic of account sales..

This forum started acting like protecting idiots is more important than letting users express their free wills..


How many countless good and intelligent users have been chased away because they “might” scam..

A new startup can’t come here and start a signature campaign for example without completely being bullied into “trusting” some escrow they have probably never heard of, so heaven forbid they couldn’t possibly scam some users willing to take the risk..

A new user can hardly post anything for sale here without being bullied into some 3rd party “idiot protection” scheme because OMG they might try to scam you..

A new user here can’t start lending on any sort of collateral because holy shot they might scam the collateral..

All new economics here CRUSHED by regulatory bullying in the name of “protecting idiots”...

(click quote for the rest of his post)

[NeuroticFish]

And even if they Merit him, he'll end up tagged like Mitch212, and still nothing is lost.

As Dave said, if he has bad intentions, he may merit (sooner or later) another of his alts and, if done after months, such a move would go under the radar. That could potentially be bad. But not many have the patience to go that slow that far, so I don't know...

[FatFork]

There is no doubt that @Mitch212 and @ArabianFella are alt accounts, as evidenced by the use of the same social media accounts. This conclusion can be drawn, even in the absence of an admission of such by the individuals in question.

discord :Mitch#0299

Discord: Mitch#0299

Discord: Mitch#0005

discord :Mitch#0005

https://ninjastic.space/post/56849367


In regards to the @Rbah account, while the writing style and giveaway topic discussed are similar to the previous account, I believe that the evidence is still not conclusive enough. However, the coincidence of matching registration and last activity dates with ArabianFella should not be ignored.

[ABCbits]

After reading whole accusation and @Mitch212 trust feedback, i thought something interesting. Rather than buying merit (AFAIK starts from $5/merit), merit fishing on Wall Observer or doing certain task (such as sign with PGP/bicoin address), merit/account farmer could choose host small giveaway instead. For example, if @Mitch212 were to deliverer his promise, he could got a good deal ($25/20 merit or $1.25/merit). And the cost could be reduced to almost $0 if he decide to make his altcoin as winner.

And i also agree there's no sufficient proof about connection between @Rbah and @Mitch212. I decide to join his giveaway and see whether he'll deliver his promise or not.

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

Aside that the said amount is being small for the task ahead for the prize I don't give listening ears to such kind of giveaway personally, i want to believe they are upto something that seems hidden to us about creating a giveaway thread that won't actually award the rewards to the beneficiaries, they may wanted to use it as reference to what they have been participating and consistently doing as a point to convince their kind of victims that they would want to receive financial support from, I've recently seen another member opening a merit giveaway thread but not having smerits himself to give out, what has that implies, there's hidden agenda somewhere.

[JollyGood]

Really hard to tell if the giveaway is legit or not. I'm not sure either. That's why I haven't given merit yet. In november last year there was a $25 giveaway from a new user and the win was paid out, see here. So all we can really do is wait and see what will happen.  

As with most things, time will tell. Unless there is compelling evidence there is not much that can be said but the OP has made a case that presents suspicions and I thank him for his efforts.

I found it odd especially as the number of forum members jumped on to participate without asking any questions.

Asking questions (such as "escrow?") only discourages Newbies. I've seen genuine giveaways, and I've seen fakes. If it's real, it deserves Merit because it's worth reading. The fact that it only earned 1 Merit already shows people have their doubts. If it's fake, we'll see soon enough and nothing is lost.

I never mentioned merits, the first to mention merits was the OP followed by DaveF.

Though not mandatory, if the OP of the giveaway thread had mentioned using escrow as an option himself without being prompted then maybe that would have given more credibility. If he already used a respected escrow then started the giveaway thread then this thread would not have been created.

As for questions, something such as these should have been asked:

"what do you do on the other forums you mentioned"
"how much have you given away on other forums"
"Why are you giving away money on other forums and now here"
as well as the all-important question "how do you in intend to pick a winner and why did you not announce the method of selecting the winner in the OP"

In regards to the @Rbah account, while the writing style and giveaway topic discussed are similar to the previous account, I believe that the evidence is still not conclusive enough. However, the coincidence of matching registration and last activity dates with ArabianFella should not be ignored.

Yes you are right it is not conclusive but 24th January is not far away. Even if $25 is given away in that thread there needs a tamper proof and transparent method of selecting the winner.

Of course, these are not direct accusations, as circumstantial evidence is presented, just some thoughts for reflection. In addition, Rbah has written very few posts in order to conduct a full-fledged posting analytics, but the account is extremely suspicious and already has several similarities with the previous organizer of such a lottery.

You did nothing wrong by creating this thread. To a degree we can negate the problems created by lack of information in that giveaway thread because the creator is a newbie but to not make it clear in the OP how a winner will be selected is not good. What is worse is that most members lined up to participate without even asking for clarity and many of them were here a long time.

For those that do not know, I am running a free lottery and you can enter there if you are interested: JollyGood Free Lottery #1: FURY vs USYK

I have added $25 to the prize and Ratimov has kindly donated $25 to the prize therefore $50 will be given to the winner. There is 1 in 58 chance to win. You can select a free slot/number or ask for one to be given at random.

FREE SLOTS ALLOCATED: 20
FREE SLOTS AVAILABLE: 38

Welcome to 2023  

[LoyceV]

Even if $25 is given away in that thread there needs a tamper proof and transparent method of selecting the winner.

No, he doesn't need that. I think this is what eddie13 called "regulatory bullying". Bitcointalk is all about freedom, and if someone wants to give away $25 in a non-transparent way, that's fine. If you don't like it, don't join.

What is worse is that most members lined up to participate without even asking for clarity and many of them were here a long time.

I joined. I don't want to annoy a new user with questions and hoops to jump through. If he doesn't select a winner, we'll know it was fake. But I don't want to discourage genuine users from running giveaways.

[JollyGood]

Even if $25 is given away in that thread there needs a tamper proof and transparent method of selecting the winner.

No, he doesn't need that. I think this is what eddie13 called "regulatory bullying". Bitcointalk is all about freedom, and if someone wants to give away $25 in a non-transparent way, that's fine. If you don't like it, don't join.

Giving away in a non-transparent way is fine by you but not fine by all. Some members want transparency. As may have been noticed by others, I did not join for those precise reasons.

In that thread we get to post #6 before a suggestion is made on how to select the winner and the OP replies in post #7 that he will spin a wheel or maybe ask a trustworthy member to do it. There is no clarity on exactly what is happening but the benefit of the doubt is given because they are a newbie. To a point I can understand that but it is down to members participating in the giveaway to ask the most basic of questions.

What is worse is that most members lined up to participate without even asking for clarity and many of them were here a long time.

I joined. I don't want to annoy a new user with questions and hoops to jump through. If he doesn't select a winner, we'll know it was fake. But I don't want to discourage genuine users from running giveaways.

Yes you did join, that is a decision for you and mentioned in your joining post that you had some communication with them therefore you might be more inclined to believe them (though there is no evidence to disbelieve them either).

I have seen newbies get tagged red for simply asking for a loan in the Lending board yet there seems to be a different mindset when it comes to giveaways.

If a newbie comes along and says he is giving away 10 BTC, will you avoid asking questions (and expect others to not ask questions) purely on the basis you do not want them to jump through hoops just in the event he is genuinely going to give away 10 BTC? If that is your stance then that is for you but not everybody feels that way.

[LoyceV]

Giving away in a non-transparent way is fine by you but not fine by all. Some members want transparency.

I really don't see the relevance. If someone doesn't like something on the internet, that doesn't mean someone else has to change what they're doing.

I have seen newbies get tagged red for simply asking for a loan in the Lending board

I've seen it too, and don't like it. To quote eddie13 again: "protecting idiots". If someone wants to send his money to a Newbie, let them! They'll learn a valuable lesson.

yet there seems to be a different mindset when it comes to giveaways.

Luckily, I might add. Bitcointalk wouldn't be nicer if someone starts tagging Newbies just for offering a giveway.

If a newbie comes along and says he is giving away 10 BTC, will you avoid asking questions (and expect others to not ask questions) purely on the basis you do not want them to jump through hoops just in the event he is genuinely going to give away 10 BTC? If that is your stance then that is for you but not everybody feels that way.

I'd have a lot of questions But that shouldn't stop a Newbie from doing what they want.
I remember the Newbie who gave away 1 Bitcoin to many users years ago. If I remember correctly he later started asking for money.

Remember:

the forum's mission to be as free as possible.

I'm more and more starting to get theymos' stance (and eddie13's frustration) with this. The freedoms Bitcointalk offers are really rare on the internet. Cherish it!

[CoinEraser]

Really hard to tell if the giveaway is legit or not. I'm not sure either. That's why I haven't given merit yet. In november last year there was a $25 giveaway from a new user and the win was paid out, see here. So all we can really do is wait and see what will happen.  

As with most things, time will tell. Unless there is compelling evidence there is not much that can be said but the OP has made a case that presents suspicions and I thank him for his efforts.

Yes, that's right. Let's see how the whole thing turns out. Which is also true, without Ratimov I would not have noticed all these connections. He deserves merit for that. 

[UserU]

If he doesn't select a winner, we'll know it was fake. But I don't want to discourage genuine users from running giveaways.

Chances are, he could always give it to a sockpuppet account.

[GazetaBitcoin]

I also noticed (and joined) Rbah's giveaway. I did mostly because I was curious about how things will develop, being aware of Mitch212's scam, which had a similar giveaway, in September 2022. Both were made by users with low ranks, both had no rules stated from beginning.

However, unlike Mitch212, Rbah did not get (so far) benefit of too many merits. So far, he received just 1 and, I believe, until he'll pay this is also the only merit he'll receive for this giveaway.

I agree, this giveaway seems fishy, yet I would advise to not jump to conclusion. Until this very moment no scam was done. Most likely, we will find out the truth in less than 4 days from now on. He may be too new here or not too thorough to properly organize his mind and this may also be a reason for which he did not post any rules yet. So far, all I saw in his favor is his statement from post #7:

the way i was thinking is to add the user with his address in a wheel and who ever it lands on get the prize or i could ask someone trustworthy to roll it I don't mind

I believe that, if the rolling will be done by someone with a good reputation on the forum, nobody will complain about fairness in choosing the winner. Of course, the most important aspect, even in this case, is that we need to see the winner receiving the prize. Let's just have patience for a few more days then, certainly, things will clear up.

After all, we've all seen a Newbie paying back 1000$ in BTC; it can also happen to see one paying a prize of 50$.