How can we prevent similar tragedies in the future?

[HeadsOrTails]

"Returns of up to 130% in just 24 hours." Of course it was a Ponzi scheme. What did you think was going to happen?

The thing is: some people are so greedy that they just cannot think clearly... The scammers explore this awful reality, and the victims are exactly those uncontrolled greedy ones.

Those on the signature campaign were not in the wrong: no one could ever imagine that there are still such stupid people to invest in ponzi...

Finally, some empathy.
I'm angry and upset these things keep happening.
People get caught up in emotion - maybe they owe loans,bills, debts - and they find a reasonable 4% return and think, well, it's safer than altcoin ICOs.

If there is a lesson to be learned here it's escrow wherever possible and proof of developer.

My condolences to the victims.

[1714912983]

1714912983

[1714912983]

1714912983

[1714912983]

1714912983

[LiteCoinGuy]

"Returns of up to 130% in just 24 hours." Of course it was a Ponzi scheme. What did you think was going to happen?

idiots lost money. i dont see a problem here. (and yes, it will never end in human history   )


butterfly labs and others are a different case.

[tss]

shocker.  not

[jbreher]

I understand your point of view, and I even agree with your disposition to automatically deduct credibility points from users with rented sigs. The quality of the posts tend (in some cases) to drop significantly, because the person is only interested in QUANTITY posting, but sometimes lack QUALITY.

So, the idea in deducting credibility points can be a way to stimulate more quality from this situation (or at least to be a filter to protect you from wasting your time).

But, anyway, there are exceptons: I mean, users who rent their signature and work (hard) to keep quality... (Although I know I am not the best contributor to this forum, I try to keep some quality).

It is not just about quality vs quantity. By involvement in a sig ad campaign, you are announcing to the world that you view your very own reputation as worth nothing more than a few shekels.

[toleng]

I understand your point of view, and I even agree with your disposition to automatically deduct credibility points from users with rented sigs. The quality of the posts tend (in some cases) to drop significantly, because the person is only interested in QUANTITY posting, but sometimes lack QUALITY.

So, the idea in deducting credibility points can be a way to stimulate more quality from this situation (or at least to be a filter to protect you from wasting your time).

But, anyway, there are exceptons: I mean, users who rent their signature and work (hard) to keep quality... (Although I know I am not the best contributor to this forum, I try to keep some quality).

It is not just about quality vs quantity. By involvement in a sig ad campaign, you are announcing to the world that you view your very own reputation as worth nothing more than a few shekels.

A person's reputation is not what is in their signature line, it is how they act and what they say. Having a paid signature is nothing more then receiving money for advertising a good or a service. If you are against advertisements then you should be against this forum (that sells ads) and any source of media/news as they make almost all their money from advertisers.

[jbreher]

A person's reputation is not what is in their signature line, it is how they act and what they say. Having a paid signature is nothing more then receiving money for advertising a good or a service. If you are against advertisements then you should be against this forum (that sells ads) and any source of media/news as they make almost all their money from advertisers.

Yes, a person's reputation is based upon what they say. When you *sign* your posts with an ad for some product or service, you are *saying* that you endorse said product or service.

[Katekyo]

A person's reputation is not what is in their signature line, it is how they act and what they say. Having a paid signature is nothing more then receiving money for advertising a good or a service. If you are against advertisements then you should be against this forum (that sells ads) and any source of media/news as they make almost all their money from advertisers.

Yes, a person's reputation is based upon what they say. When you *sign* your posts with an ad for some product or service, you are *saying* that you endorse said product or service.

The only thing that these people are saying, by accepting to rent their signature space, is that they need the money. Nothing else.

[dankkk]

A person's reputation is not what is in their signature line, it is how they act and what they say. Having a paid signature is nothing more then receiving money for advertising a good or a service. If you are against advertisements then you should be against this forum (that sells ads) and any source of media/news as they make almost all their money from advertisers.

Yes, a person's reputation is based upon what they say. When you *sign* your posts with an ad for some product or service, you are *saying* that you endorse said product or service.

I would disagree that people are "signing" their posts with their signature. They are simply "wearing" their signature in exchange for payment. This is the exact same arrangement that theymos (via the forum) has with a number of advertisers (see this post. Unless you have ads disabled you will be able to see these ads after the first post in each page, you will also see a disclaimer that advertisements are not endorsed by the forum.

This is also a very similar arrangement as to how newspapers and TV stations make their money....via advertisements, I would say that common sense would dictate that advertisements are not endorsed by these channels of information

EDIT: unless you personally endorse something you are not "signing" your messages with a specific advertiser

[DannyHamilton]

A person's reputation is not what is in their signature line . . . Having a paid signature is nothing more then receiving money for advertising a good or a service . . .

The only thing that these people are saying, by accepting to rent their signature space, is that they need the money. Nothing else.

. . . They are simply "wearing" their signature in exchange for payment . . . This is also a very similar arrangement as to how newspapers and TV stations make their money....via advertisements, I would say that common sense would dictate that advertisements are not endorsed by these channels of information

EDIT: unless you personally endorse something you are not "signing" your messages with a specific advertiser

Would any of you have a problem with someone advertising a pedophile website in their signature space?  Would you be willing to accept a payment from a pedophile website in exchange for advertising their website in your signature space?

How about a "murder for hire" business?  Would you be willing to accept a payment from a "murder for hire" business in exchange for advertising the business in your signature?

Most moral and ethical people would refuse to use their own activity to assist businesses that they feel are immoral or unethical.  Your decision to accept a payment in exchange for assisting a business says something about yourself and your opinion of the business.

You are essentially agreeing to become a paid employee of the business (you are getting paid, and you are doing work for them).  As such, you are intertwining your reputation with that of the business.  If you act in immoral and unethical ways, people will hold the business accountable for choosing to pay you and choosing to allow you to represent them.  If the business acts in immoral and unethical ways, people will hold you accountable for choosing to provide services for the business and for accepting their "dirty money".

[awesome31312]

A person's reputation is not what is in their signature line . . . Having a paid signature is nothing more then receiving money for advertising a good or a service . . .

The only thing that these people are saying, by accepting to rent their signature space, is that they need the money. Nothing else.

. . . They are simply "wearing" their signature in exchange for payment . . . This is also a very similar arrangement as to how newspapers and TV stations make their money....via advertisements, I would say that common sense would dictate that advertisements are not endorsed by these channels of information

EDIT: unless you personally endorse something you are not "signing" your messages with a specific advertiser

Would any of you have a problem with someone advertising a pedophile website in their signature space?  Would you be willing to accept a payment from a pedophile website in exchange for advertising their website in your signature space?

How about a "murder for hire" business?  Would you be willing to accept a payment from a "murder for hire" business in exchange for advertising the business in your signature?

Most moral and ethical people would refuse to use their own activity to assist businesses that they feel are immoral or unethical.  Your decision to accept a payment in exchange for assisting a business says something about yourself and your opinion of the business.

You are essentially agreeing to become a paid employee of the business (you are getting paid, and you are doing work for them).  As such, you are intertwining your reputation with that of the business.  If you act in immoral and unethical ways, people will hold the business accountable for choosing to pay you and choosing to allow you to represent them.  If the business acts in immoral and unethical ways, people will hold you accountable for choosing to provide services for the business and for accepting their "dirty money".

You cannot treat a Ponzi scheme to pedophilia or murder for hire, that's an abusive analogy

[DannyHamilton]

You cannot treat a Ponzi scheme to pedophilia or murder for hire, that's an abusive analogy

Why?

If the advertisement says nothing about the person that chooses to put it in their signature space, then why does it matter what they put there?

If it does say something about the person that chooses to put it in their signature space, then clearly the following aren't true:

A person's reputation is not what is in their signature line . . . Having a paid signature is nothing more then receiving money for advertising a good or a service

The only thing that these people are saying, by accepting to rent their signature space, is that they need the money. Nothing else.

I would say that common sense would dictate that advertisements are not endorsed by these channels of information

EDIT: unless you personally endorse something you are not "signing" your messages with a specific advertiser

You can't have it both ways.  Either your signature has an effect on your reputation, or it doesn't.  Which is it?

[dankkk]

. . . They are simply "wearing" their signature in exchange for payment . . . This is also a very similar arrangement as to how newspapers and TV stations make their money....via advertisements, I would say that common sense would dictate that advertisements are not endorsed by these channels of information

EDIT: unless you personally endorse something you are not "signing" your messages with a specific advertiser

Would any of you have a problem with someone advertising a pedophile website in their signature space?  Would you be willing to accept a payment from a pedophile website in exchange for advertising their website in your signature space?
a
How about a "murder for hire" business?  Would you be willing to accept a payment from a "murder for hire" business in exchange for advertising the business in your signature?

Most moral and ethical people would refuse to use their own activity to assist businesses that they feel are immoral or unethical.  Your decision to accept a payment in exchange for assisting a business says something about yourself and your opinion of the business.

You are essentially agreeing to become a paid employee of the business (you are getting paid, and you are doing work for them).  As such, you are intertwining your reputation with that of the business.  If you act in immoral and unethical ways, people will hold the business accountable for choosing to pay you and choosing to allow you to represent them.  If the business acts in immoral and unethical ways, people will hold you accountable for choosing to provide services for the business and for accepting their "dirty money".

I think you should use some "editorial" discretion (to use a newspaper analogy) when deciding what paid signature to "wear". To answer your question, no I would not display either a pedophile website nor  a "murder for hire" website in exchange for payment (or otherwise). Both of these examples are 100% clearly illegal in the US (where I reside).

To make the conclusion that either of these kinds of sites would be illegal, I could look at what services the website is offering, and look at the relevant laws and see that without question both of these examples would be 100% illegal.

Cryptominer on the other hand was not as clear cut. Yes, the chances of them being a ponzi were well above 99% (it turned out they were one), and yes the chances of them scamming eventually were well above 99% as well. However in the event that the less then 1% chance of them being honest and were going to actually pay investors what was promised then they would simply be making a very bad business decision, and it is not right to try to sensor that.

I also think that a reasonable person would be able to conclude that the returns being offered were that of a ponzi. I would consider investing in a ponzi to be similar to gambling. I would argue that the investors put their money into the ponzi with the hope of being able to make money off of the "interest" for some time and withdrawing prior to the operator running away with investor funds. I would consider this behavior to be similar to gambling at Prime Dice, however the "house edge" is likely much greater, but it is known that the house has an edge prior to people putting their money in.

[grifferz]

The only thing that these people are saying, by accepting to rent their signature space, is that they need the money. Nothing else.

No, what they are saying is that they are willing to be paid to post.

The rest of us then have to try to determine if they are posting because they have a genuine passion for what they are saying or because they are trying to earn their money. Of course they will all say that it doesn't affect how often they post or the quality of their posts. But how are we to know?

[Westin Landon Cox]

Would any of you have a problem with someone advertising a pedophile in their signature space?

I would have a big problem advertising for Harry Reid in my signature.

[awesome31312]

Would any of you have a problem with someone advertising a pedophile in their signature space?

I would have a big problem advertising for Harry Reid in my signature.

Or Fred Phelps, while we're still on the topic

[jbreher]

it is not right to try to sensor that.

I'm not advocating censoring anything. You can whore your reputation out for whatever the hell you want. Just be aware that discriminating people will form their opinion of your value by what cause you are shilling.

[Katekyo]

So, should I assume that the reputations of this whole forum, as well as of it's posters, are questionable reputations, just because there are advertisements in each and every page?

[DannyHamilton]

So, should I assume that the reputations of this whole forum, as well as of it's posters, are questionable reputations, just because there are advertisements in each and every page?

Absolutely.

And as a user of the forum, you should pressure the owner to remove those advertisements that you feel are for questionable services.

If the owner of the forum refuses to remove advertisements that you find to be of questionable nature, you should refuse to participate, and should either find another forum or start your own.

[CripLib]

So, should I assume that the reputations of this whole forum, as well as of it's posters, are questionable reputations, just because there are advertisements in each and every page?

Absolutely.

And as a user of the forum, you should pressure the owner to remove those advertisements that you feel are for questionable services.

If the owner of the forum refuses to remove advertisements that you find to be of questionable nature, you should refuse to participate, and should either find another forum or start your own.

So. Let's see how many of us will do as you have said...

If no one does, I will also start deducting credibility points from everyone participating here....

... well, on deducting everyone's points, won't it be a draw anyway?

 

[snappa4ever]

So, should I assume that the reputations of this whole forum, as well as of it's posters, are questionable reputations, just because there are advertisements in each and every page?

Absolutely.

And as a user of the forum, you should pressure the owner to remove those advertisements that you feel are for questionable services.

If the owner of the forum refuses to remove advertisements that you find to be of questionable nature, you should refuse to participate, and should either find another forum or start your own.

I would disagree. Advertising is something necessary to pay for expenses of content creators.

If the forum itself is not able to advertise then it would need to resort to charging users for accessing and contributing to the forum which I am sure would not go over well.

Also the term "questionable" is a subjective term. Any person could consider anything to be "questionable" if enough money was involved. I do see that you are advertising your escrow thread on your signature. While you do have green trust and would trust you with several thousand dollars to be held in escrow, I would likely not trust you with 5 or 6 figure (measured in dollars) amounts in escrow (I would likely instead opt to do any deal with you as escrow in smaller amounts). Since I do not see any dollar (or bitcoin) limits as to how much you are willing to hold in escrow, I would say that, in certain circumstances your advertisement may be considered to be "questionable" (there is at least one auction for 200+ THs worth of miners being sold for $100k+ worth of bitcoin (I couldn't find it in either the auctions or computer hardware forums, but I know it is somewhere - there are a lot of domains junking up the forums).

I hope you understand I am not putting your integrity into question, and do not think that you would likely steak $10k+ of bitcoin if you had the chance