Why no Type 3 or even type 2 against Yogg.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

But why the F**K there are no type 3 or even 2 flag? Are you telling me no one from the victim is not in the mood to create the flag?

But still I think anyone from the victim should create a type 3 flag or at least type 2 so that the red warning shows clearly on his profile. Cunt deserves more that this though.

It sounds like screaming and I think not enough people are noticing my screaming on the other thread but to be honest I don't understand why still there are no type 3 or even type 2 flag against Yogg. There are many victims from his scam but no one is creating any of the above flags. Feels like something is missing. If indeed there is something that I missed then someone please educate me.

Very few are supporting the flags on the two known alts of Yogg.

3 Accounts Connected:

yogg , yogg_alt , Coldkey

Not receiving enough tag and flag to his alt accounts also caught my eyes earlier. Thanks Timelord2067.

Please take 5 minutes and paint the walls.

[1714640366]

1714640366

[1714640366]

1714640366

[1714640366]

1714640366

[1714640366]

1714640366

[nutildah]

Because he's not coming back to the forum. Even if he did he's already the 5th least trusted account in the history of the forum, and there's no coming back from that. Nobody here will ever trust him again.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

Even if he did he's already the 5th least trusted account in the history of the forum

Interesting data. But I don't think it's accurate. If someone ask me to create a list then master-P, 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 will be at the top of my list. Then I will have yogg, theyoungmillionaire and so on. Most of the top or even top 20 are more like trolls than scammers. Game-protect, The-One-Above-All are good examples.

Interesting fact, TOAA is in the list but his main cryptohunter is not there 🤣

[Bitcoin_Arena]

Not sure about how the whole coldkey thing worked, but maybe the people are becoming more and more less concerned about creating flags, including the type 1 flag.

I noticed this trend lately. Members barely create trust flags for even proven scammers, but they can willingly leave them some negative feedback.

[Husires]

Isn't the positive trust supposed to be deleted when someone scamming? Or at least in Yogg's case, I'm seeing a lot of his positive trust because of the Coldkey purchase.
even some DT members gave him negative trust and positive one still exists

[nutildah]

Isn't the positive trust supposed to be deleted when someone scamming?

[Little Mouse]

Because he's not coming back to the forum. Even if he did he's already the 5th least trusted account in the history of the forum, and there's no coming back from that. Nobody here will ever trust him again.

Maybe he will never come back but his threads to NON-LOGGED user don't look like as the way it should it.
Yogg current status when NON-LOGGED user check his thread-

Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they believe that the creator of this topic displays some red flags which make them high-risk. (Login to see the detailed trust ratings.) While the bitcointalk.org administration does not verify such claims, you should proceed with extreme caution.

Text should be placed when NON-LOGGED user check his thread-

Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they strongly believe that the creator of this topic is a scammer. (Login to see the detailed trust ratings.) While the bitcointalk.org administration does not verify such claims, you should proceed with extreme caution.

And the color of the caution too.
Yogg has escrow service. A NON-LOGGED user may reach to him and get scammed.

Isn't the positive trust supposed to be deleted when someone scamming? Or at least in Yogg's case, I'm seeing a lot of his positive trust because of the Coldkey purchase.
even some DT members gave him negative trust and positive one still exists

If I'm correct, it was a fact in the old feedback system because back then, based on the received positive, negative feedback, user used to get a score which can be still green depending on the total negative + positive and duration of the existence. But in the new system, it doesn't matter much.

[DireWolfM14]

Isn't the positive trust supposed to be deleted when someone scamming? Or at least in Yogg's case, I'm seeing a lot of his positive trust because of the Coldkey purchase.
even some DT members gave him negative trust and positive one still exists

I don't think that is necessary.  In this case I think having all of Yogg's previous positive trust remain in place is a good thing.  It shows that even someone with a good reputation can go rogue at any time.  It's especially helpful with a situation like this because just the act of buying Yogg's goods was implicitly placing your trust in him.  I don't want to be an asshole about it (I can't help it,) but trusting someone else to generate keys for you is just asking for it.  Yogg is a perfect example of why it should never have been done.  I know I know, Casascius...

[T3PR00T]

trusting some one else to generate keys for you is just asking for it.

Why can't collectibles are just have the item with you but not funded. Am a stupid to understand collectibles when it's about crypto balance? Bitcoin teaches us to have your own private key not someone else's.

[DaveF]

...In this case I think having all of Yogg's previous positive trust remain in place is a good thing...

I disagree. I think taking out the positive and putting in a negative with a comment as to why it was a positive and now a negative would be better.
Same way after some people 'redeem' themselves negatives are changed to neutral.

If something changes feedback can be changed again. AND there are enough inactive users who left positive trust that will stay there forever unless they come back.
So it's not like there would be no positive trust left.


-Dave

[Beparanf]

Isn't the positive trust supposed to be deleted when someone scamming? Or at least in Yogg's case, I'm seeing a lot of his positive trust because of the Coldkey purchase.
even some DT members gave him negative trust and positive one still exists

Trust feedback is based on user experience on the current deal. There’s a date on the trust which means it’s already superseded by the bunch of negative trust rating. His reputation today is irrelevant on the transaction done in the past.

I believe it’s still good to remain those green trust to see his trust rating history and how he ruined his reputation here. Maybe a lesson to all us that we still need to be cautious on dealing someone here even with a good reputation.

[DireWolfM14]

Why can't collectibles are just have the item with you but not funded. Am a stupid to understand collectibles when it's about crypto balance? Bitcoin teaches us to have your own private key not someone else's.

There are vendor who sell unfunded, Do It Yourself (DIY) coins, Bitcoin Penny is a good example.  I may be wrong about this, but it's been my perception that pre-funded coins tend to gain "collectability" value at a faster rate than DIY coins.

I like giving funded coins as gifts, and I've done so many times.  All have been DIY coins, the keys to which have been generated by me.  I would never give a loved-one a gift unless I was 100% certain that only I could scam them.  

...In this case I think having all of Yogg's previous positive trust remain in place is a good thing...

I disagree. I think taking out the positive and putting in a negative with a comment as to why it was a positive and now a negative would be better.
Same way after some people 'redeem' themselves negatives are changed to neutral.

If something changes feedback can be changed again. AND there are enough inactive users who left positive trust that will stay there forever unless they come back.
So it's not like there would be no positive trust left.


-Dave

I'm not opposed to that approach either, but in some cases the feedback was unrelated to Yogg's ColdKey business.  For example, DarkStar_ left feedback relating to Yogg's borrowing habits, and I'm not sure how I feel about encouraging DarkStar_ to remove or change his feedback.  The feedback is still accurate, but given Yogg's more recent feedback I doubt that DarkStar_ or anyone else would lend money to Yogg again.  Having that feedback remain does show that Yogg was working towards the long-con.  That could provide a valuable lesson to all.

[DaveF]

I'm not opposed to that approach either, but in some cases the feedback was unrelated to Yogg's ColdKey business.  For example, DarkStar_ left feedback relating to Yogg's borrowing habits, and I'm not sure how I feel about encouraging DarkStar_ to remove or change his feedback.  The feedback is still accurate, but given Yogg's more recent feedback I doubt that DarkStar_ or anyone else would lend money to Yogg again.  Having that feedback remain does show that Yogg was working towards the long-con.  That could provide a valuable lesson to all.

Actually he stiffed DarkStar_ and some others with loans so I am surprised that he has not changed his feedback.

Is there anyway of checking which addresses belonged to which sets? I have a gold AP halving set that I won't be able to physically access for a while. I'd assume it's almost certainly been sweeped, but it does look like there are 3 halving addresses still intact right now.

- loans that should have been returned long time ago (to Mopar, Polymerbit, Agrawas and possibly others)

He also borrowed money from me, and still owes me $1500 (+ interest). I had no idea he borrowed money from so many different people.

I'm sure there is also some inertia involved, it's not like he is coming back, and it's not like anyone is going to trust him again, so there is probably a bit of the 'I'll get to it, when I get to it' attitude. It's not going to change anything.

Probably should be a different post. But I keep going around and around in my head. Was this a long con, or was he troubled and struggling for years and then something finally pushed him over the edge?
We have what he told others, about the gambling and drugs and such, but we really don't know the truth just what he told them. In the end it probably does not matter.

-Dave

[Timelord2067]

Actually he stiffed DarkStar_ and some others with loans so I am surprised that he has not changed his feedback.

He also borrowed money from me, and still owes me $1500 (+ interest). I had no idea he borrowed money from so many different people.

-Dave

A timely reminder to all lenders to do the simplest of things - add *neutral* trust feedback stating that you have facilitated a loan - the amount repayment details and so on. 

Later, also *neutral* that the lender has fulfilled their obligation.

Later still consider leaving positive trust feedback if a lender has a proven track record with *just* you of borrowing and repaying time and again (set your own benchmark for when positive is warranted)

PLUS - do due diligence and check their "untrusted" trust feedback for comments left good, bad or indifferent.  That loan you're about to facilitate might be a third... fourth.. fifth the lender has sourced and not paid back on time.

[Timelord2o67]

I've just noticed there's a handful of users over on Keybase who are still following Yogg.  I can't give details just now as I'm out and about, but will do so later.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

I've just noticed there's a handful of users over on Keybase who are still following Yogg.  I can't give details just now as I'm out and about, but will do so later.

Hopefully these people will find out what he did. We can not do anything though on other platforms unless the admin of the platform are not aware and do something about it.

[owlcatz]

Hopefully these people will find out what he did. We can not do anything though on other platforms unless the admin of the platform are not aware and do something about it.

Dude, the admin of keybase is not going to do jack shit about stuff like that. ... So yeah, I probably still follow yogg on keybase. BFD, do I have time to fuck with bs right now in my life? No, I don't, sorry.    

As for flags, I have no idea how to even create one and no desire to waste my time, as the facts are: the money is gone, he's broken and lost af, and will NEVER be back here, this forum TERRIFIES him.

If you want to do anything about it in real life, feel free, check my past posts...


In other words, what nutildah said, at this point it doesn't really matter, does it? Just cuz you anal freaks are all nutty about it doesn't mean I give one fuck about it TBH...