[WARNING] Whirlwind.money - withdrawals are not being processed ⚠️

[LoyceV]

I also don't think it would achieve much if people would agree to act more preventively with the trust system

That would be very bad. See eddie13's post, he wrote it much better than I can.

[1714316924]

1714316924

[1714316924]

1714316924

[BenCodie]

There definitely needs to be more work in ensuring that both campaign operators and participants aren't promoting a current or future scam.

I don't know what work you expect to be done when the very majority opinion of DTs is that only when you have hard evidence beyond reasonable doubt is when you should red paint a profile. The scam is only red painted a posteriori, when it is already evident that it has occurred.

Vetting - requirements before campaign can be created, requirements before projects can be promoted, restrictions/levels of promotion as time goes by to ensure trust is established first...instead of just letting anyone make a campaign.

There definitely needs to be more work in ensuring that both campaign operators and participants aren't promoting a current or future scam.

If you add to that the fact that the scammer spends his money in promoting his project here, nobody will bite the hand that feeds him.

Then the community is also blame to a (much lesser) extent if that is truly the mentality - and if there is suspicion but it is ignored.

[decodx]

I also don't think it would achieve much if people would agree to act more preventively with the trust system

That would be very bad. See eddie13's post, he wrote it much better than I can.

Why would that be so bad? I don't get it... (I did read eddie13's post, and I agree with some of his points, but not all of them). Why shouldn't seniors act more preventively and warn the less experienced members? Isn't the whole point of such a forum platform to share one's knowledge and experiences with others? And I'm not talking about "bullying newbies in the name of protecting idiots," as eddie13 phrased it. Instead, I'm talking about a valid suspicion (to the best of my knowledge) that someone might scam, even before the actual act of scam occurs.

[LoyceV]

Instead, I'm talking about a valid suspicion (to the best of my knowledge) that someone might scam, even before the actual act of scam occurs.

I suspect that anyone can scam at some point, just like anyone can commit a murder. But we shouldn't tag everyone, just like we don't jail everyone "to prevent crimes".
We can warn people, but that's where it stops. Negative feedback loses it's "power" if everyone has it.

[decodx]

Instead, I'm talking about a valid suspicion (to the best of my knowledge) that someone might scam, even before the actual act of scam occurs.

I suspect that anyone can scam at some point, just like anyone can commit a murder. But we shouldn't tag everyone, just like we don't jail everyone "to prevent crimes".
We can warn people, but that's where it stops. Negative feedback loses it's "power" if everyone has it.

I agree with that. We shouldn't tag everyone, that's why I said "with valid suspicion." I think it's important to strike a balance between warning others about potential scams and avoiding hasty judgments. Negative feedback indeed loses its impact if it becomes too widespread and indiscriminate. But, things are hardly ever just black and white, and there are a whole range of shades of gray in between.

Let me break it down with an example: Just the other day, me and some other DT members gave a negative tag to the account OldCat over this topic. As far as I know, the scam hasn't actually happened. But based on what we can see, there's a legit reason to be suspicious about a possible scam. So, in this case, is my judgment flawed, and is the negative tag unwarranted? I don't believe so. Waiting for an actual scam would basically make the whole reputation system useless as an early warning signal.

[n0nce]

I dont think this is happening in real world outside bitcointalk, people advertise lot of junk all the time because someone pays them to make youtube video for that product ot service.

If you promote some trash VPN telling people it makes them more secure, while not actually believing in that product nor using it yourself, you're an ingenuine scumbag. And you're abusing your followers' trust (in your knowledge, experience, integrity, reputation) for a few quick easy bucks.

Only because other people are doing it, does not make it right.

What's ironic is that whirlwind seemed like the most legit mixer to pop up in the post CM days, yet here we are.

How did they suddenly become 'the most legit mixer' in just a few weeks or months of operation? In my opinion, trust needs time to build.

We are all grown up adult here. Financially sovereign individuals. If anyone falls into a scam, it their sole responsibility.

I do fully agree with that. However, you must confess that the reason signature campaigns have requirements such as 'Hero / Legendary member' is because they know higher ranked members pull in more users due to their perceived higher trustworthiness. Or Bitcoin members in general, over e.g. a web banner ad.

It's surely cheaper to just go for 'mass coverage' either through campaigns that accept every applicant and pay a few pennies per post, or through buying banner ads online, if you don't believe that the trustworthiness and reputation of Bitcointalk forum members influences people's business decisions.

The very nature of Bitcointalk signature campaigns means that our reputation and trustworthiness is worth something (the difference between our payouts and a generic web banner ad).
Therefore, I find it incorrect to claim that we have 0 influence over people's decisions by wearing advertising signatures.

[DaveF]

I also don't think it would achieve much if people would agree to act more preventively with the trust system

That would be very bad. See eddie13's post, he wrote it much better than I can.

I actually go the other way on this.
Personally, the we are not your mom it's the internet theory works well for me a lot of the time.

Along with that, is the other part of it.

If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. There is no rule here saying we have to put up with or even not knock down things we don't like / don't support / don't trust. That's the way it is. Could something or someone legit be tagged. Yes. Then work a little harder and prove you are legit. Or go someplace else and prove you are legit and come back here. That's the way it is. This is not the 'better 100 guilty people walk free then 1 innocent person goes to jail' this is @theymos's house more or less and potential scams are not moderated. Nowhere that I can see is the rule that 'potential scams can't have their feelings hurt' or a rule that says we have to tolerate and not respond to things we don't agree with or like.

You're a newbie, use an escrow.
Account scales do cause issues.
If it's too good to be true it probably is.
And so on.

If you don't like the way things are done, feel free to leave. Nobody has to be here.

Same way that since WasabiWallet.io went full spyware, they now have 1 person supporting them. Everyone else keeps pointing out how bad it is and how wrong he is. But he keeps coming back with BS on how Wasabi is better and such. And he keeps getting slapped down. Don't have to like / believe / trust him or the product he supports but nobody kicked him out or removed all the Wasabi threads or anything like that. That's the way it is.

-Dave

[DireWolfM14]

What's ironic is that whirlwind seemed like the most legit mixer to pop up in the post CM days, yet here we are.

How did they suddenly become 'the most legit mixer' in just a few weeks or months of operation? In my opinion, trust needs time to build.

I think you misinterpreted my comment, I didn't trust them at all.  In fact, I've grown to distrust all mixers, and especially the ones new on the scene.  The obvious exception was CM, but they had been around long enough to prove their trustworthiness before I even joined the forum.

The operative word in my comment which you quoted is "seemed."  And they did seem legit at first; they developed a unique structure for their mixer, they appeared really committed to their technology, and they seemed excited about their project.  The whirlwind account was engaged, approachable, and articulate.  It doesn't mean I trusted them, but I did get the impression that, given time, they were the most likely to gain the community's trust the way CM had.  

We are all grown up adult here. Financially sovereign individuals. If anyone falls into a scam, it their sole responsibility.

I do fully agree with that. However, you must confess that the reason signature campaigns have requirements such as 'Hero / Legendary member' is because they know higher ranked members pull in more users due to their perceived higher trustworthiness. Or Bitcoin members in general, over e.g. a web banner ad.

It's surely cheaper to just go for 'mass coverage' either through campaigns that accept every applicant and pay a few pennies per post, or through buying banner ads online, if you don't believe that the trustworthiness and reputation of Bitcointalk forum members influences people's business decisions.

The very nature of Bitcointalk signature campaigns means that our reputation and trustworthiness is worth something (the difference between our payouts and a generic web banner ad).
Therefore, I find it incorrect to claim that we have 0 influence over people's decisions by wearing advertising signatures.

I couldn't agree more.  This thread is full of deflections and obfuscations from otherwise intuitive people.  It seems like there's an effort by many reputable members here to disconnect their own actions from any culpability.  On the one hand I don't think there's any need to do so, no one is blaming the sig-campaigners for whirlwind's exit scam so it seems more like a manifestation of their own guilt or shame for being involved.  But on the other hand, we're all in new and uncharted territory.  A forum with it's own internal economy is somewhat unique, and most of us have probably never participated in one before joining Bitcointalk.  Couple that with new and developing markets and services within the cryptosphere, and it's enough to confuse the most sophisticated among us.  We should be looking at this event as a learning experience and take a more measured approach next time we're faced with a similar situation.

There was a time when buying and selling forum accounts was acceptable, but when it became obvious that many were using purchased accounts to scam other members it also become obvious a change was needed.  When some start abusing the policies and traditions of the forum, we evolve.  There may come a time when we as a community decide that advertising for startup mixers is too high a risk for the community, and the practice becomes unacceptable.

Which brings me back to the comment in my first post in this thread; mixers are notorious for turning into exit scams.  I haven't ran the numbers, but I surmise that more mixers have exit-scammed than any other service that is promoted through sig campaigns on this forum.  Now, I don't want anyone to misinterpret me again; I have nothing against mixers, and I'm a firm believer in privacy.  I stepped down from a higher paying sig-campaign to advertise for CM because I believed in them and the service they provided.  But mixers are centralized services that can only claim to provide privacy, and we have to trust that they'll do what they claim.  That alone goes against the first things we learn when entering the world of cryptocurrencies; don't trust, verify.  And don't get me started on the often claimed but ridiculous promise of anonymity.  No one can assure your anonymity when you're using an unknown centralized service.

[holydarkness]

Instead, I'm talking about a valid suspicion (to the best of my knowledge) that someone might scam, even before the actual act of scam occurs.

I suspect that anyone can scam at some point, just like anyone can commit a murder. But we shouldn't tag everyone, just like we don't jail everyone "to prevent crimes".
We can warn people, but that's where it stops. Negative feedback loses it's "power" if everyone has it.

I agree with that. We shouldn't tag everyone, that's why I said "with valid suspicion." I think it's important to strike a balance between warning others about potential scams and avoiding hasty judgments. Negative feedback indeed loses its impact if it becomes too widespread and indiscriminate. But, things are hardly ever just black and white, and there are a whole range of shades of gray in between.

Let me break it down with an example: Just the other day, me and some other DT members gave a negative tag to the account OldCat over this topic. As far as I know, the scam hasn't actually happened. But based on what we can see, there's a legit reason to be suspicious about a possible scam. So, in this case, is my judgment flawed, and is the negative tag unwarranted? I don't believe so. Waiting for an actual scam would basically make the whole reputation system useless as an early warning signal.

If I may give my two cents, I personally think the trust system of this forum is not preventive in sense of a posteriori. Some things and some users are indeed tagged after an incident happens, but it's not necessarily means every case are handled and the DTs taking action only after something occured.

As repetitively pointed out by many members, this forum [or if I may narrow it down, this board] runs on evidences, i.e.: give strong evidences to back up your claim and/or accusation, and DTs will take action. We don't need to wait for the incident to occur as long as someone has substantial proof about it, or as stated by PP [so he's partially correct about this], evidences to prove something beyond reasonable doubt. But DT will not works on hearsay. Just because someone said [for example] I scammed them, should DT run and tag me?

Instances that action are taken before the scam happens are plenty. You raised a nice one. The others are projects with questionable traits; plagiarized whitepaper, fake team members, fake testimonials, phising platforms. Do DTs wait for these projects to scam people before tagging them? No. DTs took action and paint them red the instance evidences are brought that they indeed are very likely to scam. Thus, a priori.

[LoyceV]

@decodx: you should withdraw your Flag:

I can also confirm that I received the full amount of my deposit to WhirlWind.

I've removed my Support and Opposed for your Flag. Anyone who Supported the Flag should consider doing the same.

This is why:

Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.

The current Type 3 Flag claims this:

decodx alleges: whirlwindmoney violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. whirlwindmoney did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around August 2023. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance.

As far as I can see, the bold part is no longer correct, which means the Flag should no longer be Supported.

This doesn't mean I'd trust whirlwindmoney now, it only means the Type 3 Flag can no longer be used.
The site still takes deposits while withdrawals aren't working, so a Newbie warning flag would be good.

I don't think I've ever seen such a situation on Bitcointalk before.

[jokers10]

The current Type 3 Flag claims this:

decodx alleges: whirlwindmoney violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. whirlwindmoney did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around August 2023. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance.

As far as I can see, the bold part is no longer correct, which means the Flag should no longer be Supported.

Why isn't it correct anymore? Did whirlwindmoney make any efforts to solve the situation? Did he ever say that deposited funds should be used to solve this situation? What did he do to solve the situation? I see nothing. What you highlighted with bold looks like he should make active efforts to solve this exact situation. So at least he should come and confirm that all was done right.

So I don't think that it is something obvious even if escrow guy made efforts to solve the problem. I see no clear action from whirlwindmoney.

I'd say that it is an ambiguous situation.

[LoyceV]

Why isn't it correct anymore?

I made another part bold: there are no damages anymore.

Did whirlwindmoney make any efforts to solve the situation?

Yes. They setup an escrow system before all this happened.

Did he ever say that deposited funds should be used to solve this situation?

That was implied, when WWM agreed to a 7 day delay on asking back their escrow funds.

What did he do to solve the situation? I see nothing.

They planned ahead. Whether or not it was intended for this situation, I don't know. Probably not. It looks more and more like "something happened", and we may never know what. But OP was refunded, which invalidates the type 3 Flag.

What you highlighted with bold looks like he should make active efforts to solve this exact situation. So at least he should come and confirm that all was done right.

I guess we'll have to disagree on this one. OP has his money back, which is what matters for his Flag.

So I don't think that it is something obvious even if escrow guy made efforts to solve the problem.

That's his job. WWM hired him for this.

I'd say that it is an ambiguous situation.

That's not a reason for an active type 3 Flag:

a set of pretty clear fact-statements.

I created a type 1 Newbie warning Flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3207

[jokers10]

I'd say that it is an ambiguous situation.

That's not a reason for an active type 3 Flag:

a set of pretty clear fact-statements.

Well... okay. Pretty clear is not in case of ambiguous. You convinced me. I'll remove my vote. Will wait for a flag of 1 type, to vote again.

[LoyceV]

Will wait for a flag of 1 type, to vote again.

I created one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3207

[jokers10]

Will wait for a flag of 1 type, to vote again.

I created one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3207

Yes, thanks. I already supported it. 👍

[dkbit98]

I made another part bold: there are no damages anymore.

No more damages that we know.
Anyone else who used whirlwind mixer and had no connection with bitcointalk forum can't get any refund for potential loses.
I also think that refunds happened only because manager initiative that had enough extra coins to cover all the loses decodx had.

Anyway I removed my support for previous flag, and I supported new Flag Type 1.

[GazetaBitcoin]

I created one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3207

I also removed my supported for the old flag and I supported the new one, as this seems to be the appropriate approach now, according to Flag system.
Very good observation, LoyceV! Indeed, the old flag was no longer describing properly the issue, while the new one is suited for now.

[examplens]

Why isn't it correct anymore?

I made another part bold: there are no damages anymore.

We can't be sure. For example, if the information from the onion site is correct, after the last known case (this one from decodx) there were at least two more deposits.

Did whirlwindmoney make any efforts to solve the situation?

Yes. They setup an escrow system before all this happened.

Escrow was set up for a completely different reason, in the end, it turned out to be a happy solution because all potential losses are covered for now.

I created a type 1 Newbie warning Flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3207

I support your flag, of course.
However, I remain of the opinion that one should not strictly adhere to every letter or rule if they indicate the same thing. At least while the ww service is active with deposit enabled and withdrawal disabled. Every kind of warning is needed in such cases.

[DaveF]

Which brings me back to the comment in my first post in this thread; mixers are notorious for turning into exit scams.  I haven't ran the numbers, but I surmise that more mixers have exit-scammed than any other service that is promoted through sig campaigns on this forum.  Now, I don't want anyone to misinterpret me again; I have nothing against mixers, and I'm a firm believer in privacy.  I stepped down from a higher paying sig-campaign to advertise for CM because I believed in them and the service they provided.  But mixers are centralized services that can only claim to provide privacy, and we have to trust that they'll do what they claim.  That alone goes against the first things we learn when entering the world of cryptocurrencies; don't trust, verify.  And don't get me started on the often claimed but ridiculous promise of anonymity.  No one can assure your anonymity when you're using an unknown centralized service.

I think overall casinos probably are worse. As both exit scams and just the slow selective scamming of people.
Not to mention when a mixer has gods bad, as a rule they have done it either instantly or over a period of days.
Casinos have done it over weeks and months and even some that are KNOWN scammers are still here.


-Dave

[decodx]

@decodx: you should withdraw your Flag:

I can also confirm that I received the full amount of my deposit to WhirlWind.

I've removed my Support and Opposed your Flag. Anyone who Supported the Flag should consider doing the same.

This is why:

Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.

The current Type 3 Flag claims this:

decodx alleges: whirlwindmoney violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. whirlwindmoney did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around August 2023. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance.

As far as I can see, the bold part is no longer correct, which means the Flag should no longer be Supported.

Hmm... I think this is an interesting precedent. Has there ever been situations like this?

Technically speaking, I think my Flag is still valid. Here's why:

I made a deposit of 0.004 BTC with the aim of coin mixing, and I expected the same amount of BTC (minus fees) as stated in the contract (Whirlwind official ANN and Whirlwind.money FAQ). On August 14, 2023, the value of 1 BTC was around $29,500. This makes the equivalent of my deposit about $117.50.

What eventually happened is that on August 18th and 20th, I received a total of 104 DAI from the escrow, which is equivalent to $104.00. So, as I see it, Whirlwind still violated a written contract, resulting in damages, specifically because:

• My BTC was exchanged for an altcoin without my consent and at a less favorable rate.
• My coins weren't mixed as expected using their service.
• My anonymity was compromised because I was forced to share private information with third parties.
• I had to put in extra effort and time (sending multiple inquiries to their customer support, PMs, making my case public, contacting the escrow custodian, gathering evidence, etc.) to claim my compensation rights.

Now, I did mention before that I received the full amount of my deposit (although technically not accurate), but that wasn't thanks to Whirlwind but rather due to individuals outside of my initial contract with Whirlwind. Specifically, minerjones and Hhampuz, who facilitated the release of escrow funds, and Ratimov, who converted DAI to BTC without a fee.

In any case, I agree to remove my Flag if you guys say it's the right thing to do. I just wanted to note that I personally believe the Flag is still valid. However, I'm not a lawyer, so I admit that my opinion isn't worth much!