Cases of members with massive positive Trust that ended up scamming?

[Fernandez]

TradeFortress, I lost there too. The scam was worth almost 6-7k Bitcoins.

He is now here with the name $username. He probably has the biggest negative trust in Bitcointalk.

No , I don't think . These two users have the biggest negative trust here in the forum :


- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=44366
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=8198

BFL, I should've thought of that.
Whats eclipse mining? (the 2nd one)

[1715647187]

1715647187

[1715647187]

1715647187

[1715647187]

1715647187

[1715647187]

1715647187

[redsn0w]

TradeFortress, I lost there too. The scam was worth almost 6-7k Bitcoins.

He is now here with the name $username. He probably has the biggest negative trust in Bitcointalk.

No , I don't think . These two users have the biggest negative trust here in the forum :


- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=44366
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=8198

BFL, I should've thought of that.
Whats eclipse mining? (the 2nd one)

I  think it is (was) a mining pool for bitcoin affiliated with BFL.

[theymos]

I thought about this a lot when designing the Trust system, but unfortunately there just isn't any way to protect against long-term con men. If someone sets out with the goal of building up trust for several years and then pulling a massive scam, and if he's skilled at hiding his true intentions, I don't think that anything will stop him. You just have to try to minimize the risk and impact of getting scammed by such people.

An important point of increased risk is when trusted people start aggregating BTC from a lot of people. For example, TradeFortess had tons of successful trades, some very large, but through inputs.io he could scam hundreds of people at once. And each inputs.io user was probably thinking, "TF has handled thousands of bitcoins at once without problems -- there's no way he'd steal my measly 0.5 BTC." But since he can steal from many people at once, the scam becomes worthwhile. (I'm assuming here that TF stole user deposits, which I am still not completely sure about.)

[LOBSTER]

I thought about this a lot when designing the Trust system, but unfortunately there just isn't any way to protect against long-term con men. If someone sets out with the goal of building up trust for several years and then pulling a massive scam, and if he's skilled at hiding his true intentions, I don't think that anything will stop him. You just have to try to minimize the risk and impact of getting scammed by such people.

An important point of increased risk is when trusted people start aggregating BTC from a lot of people. For example, TradeFortess had tons of successful trades, some very large, but through inputs.io he could scam hundreds of people at once. And each inputs.io user was probably thinking, "TF has handled thousands of bitcoins at once without problems -- there's no way he'd steal my measly 0.5 BTC." But since he can steal from many people at once, the scam becomes worthwhile. (I'm assuming here that TF stole user deposits, which I am still not completely sure about.)

Yes he stole user deposits. I think you are quite right. The WWW is the perfect place for crime, there is no skill required to hide your identity (TOR) so we have to use more multi sig escrow!

[siameze]

Yes he stole user deposits. I think you are quite right. The WWW is the perfect place for crime, there is no skill required to hide your identity (TOR) so we have to use more multi sig escrow!

I agree multi sig escrow would solve a lot of the issues. Getting everyone to use it seems to be the only issue at this time.

[boumalo]

Yes he stole user deposits. I think you are quite right. The WWW is the perfect place for crime, there is no skill required to hide your identity (TOR) so we have to use more multi sig escrow!

I agree multi sig escrow would solve a lot of the issues. Getting everyone to use it seems to be the only issue at this time.

If a scheme has a trusted owner, it never means it's safe to invest in it. It's better to have a system in place to prevent abuse, hack or theft.

[Quickseller]

I thought about this a lot when designing the Trust system, but unfortunately there just isn't any way to protect against long-term con men. If someone sets out with the goal of building up trust for several years and then pulling a massive scam, and if he's skilled at hiding his true intentions, I don't think that anything will stop him. You just have to try to minimize the risk and impact of getting scammed by such people.

An important point of increased risk is when trusted people start aggregating BTC from a lot of people. For example, TradeFortess had tons of successful trades, some very large, but through inputs.io he could scam hundreds of people at once. And each inputs.io user was probably thinking, "TF has handled thousands of bitcoins at once without problems -- there's no way he'd steal my measly 0.5 BTC." But since he can steal from many people at once, the scam becomes worthwhile. (I'm assuming here that TF stole user deposits, which I am still not completely sure about.)

I don't think this is so much a flaw in the trust system that it is a flaw in how people tend to trust others.

[galbros]

I thought about this a lot when designing the Trust system, but unfortunately there just isn't any way to protect against long-term con men. If someone sets out with the goal of building up trust for several years and then pulling a massive scam, and if he's skilled at hiding his true intentions, I don't think that anything will stop him. You just have to try to minimize the risk and impact of getting scammed by such people.

An important point of increased risk is when trusted people start aggregating BTC from a lot of people. For example, TradeFortess had tons of successful trades, some very large, but through inputs.io he could scam hundreds of people at once. And each inputs.io user was probably thinking, "TF has handled thousands of bitcoins at once without problems -- there's no way he'd steal my measly 0.5 BTC." But since he can steal from many people at once, the scam becomes worthwhile. (I'm assuming here that TF stole user deposits, which I am still not completely sure about.)

I really appreciate you sharing your thinking when you designed the trust system.  I worry more about someone buying or hacking a trusted member's account rather than being part of a really long con.  It also seems like the key "hurdle" is making it onto the default trust list.

As to TF I got some of my first bitcents by participating in his coinchat and am still shaking my head over the "hack."

I am still impressed dooglus didn't run with the huge Just Dice bankroll or scam his investors in a more subtle way.  It's why he's the most trusted anonymous person in my book.

Thanks again for commenting.

[Minnlo]

Yes he stole user deposits. I think you are quite right. The WWW is the perfect place for crime, there is no skill required to hide your identity (TOR) so we have to use more multi sig escrow!

I agree multi sig escrow would solve a lot of the issues. Getting everyone to use it seems to be the only issue at this time.

Even with multisig escrow, you will still need to trust the escrow to some degree.
You could still lose your bitcoin if the escrow is the same person as the counterparty, or if the escrow and counterpart collude to share the bitcoin.

[Taras]

To follow DiamondCardz's post:
The breaking point is incalculable by anyone but themselves. I can tell you that mine is $20 million, but you don't have to believe me. So don't.

To be honest, if we could magically determine our breaking points, I bet that'd make a nice log graph. How many of us would be on the top of the chart compared to the bottom? 1 to 1? 1 to 2? 1 to 10? ....1 to 1,000?

If there's an afterlife, I better see that damn chart.

[screwUdriver]

To follow DiamondCardz's post:
The breaking point is incalculable by anyone but themselves. I can tell you that mine is $20 million, but you don't have to believe me. So don't.

To be honest, if we could magically determine our breaking points, I bet that'd make a nice log graph. How many of us would be on the top of the chart compared to the bottom? 1 to 1? 1 to 2? 1 to 10? ....1 to 1,000?

If there's an afterlife, I better see that damn chart.

I would say that a person's breaking point will change over time as they are trusted with more (or less) funds. For example if someone is entrusted with $10,000 then if they were trusted with $50,000 they would run away, however after being trusted with $10,000 for several months, they might not even flinch at the idea of being trusted with $50,000 and when someone does trust them with as much for several months their breaking point would likely increase

[b!z]

To follow DiamondCardz's post:
The breaking point is incalculable by anyone but themselves. I can tell you that mine is $20 million, but you don't have to believe me. So don't.

To be honest, if we could magically determine our breaking points, I bet that'd make a nice log graph. How many of us would be on the top of the chart compared to the bottom? 1 to 1? 1 to 2? 1 to 10? ....1 to 1,000?

If there's an afterlife, I better see that damn chart.

I would say that a person's breaking point will change over time as they are trusted with more (or less) funds. For example if someone is entrusted with $10,000 then if they were trusted with $50,000 they would run away, however after being trusted with $10,000 for several months, they might not even flinch at the idea of being trusted with $50,000 and when someone does trust them with as much for several months their breaking point would likely increase

That's a good point. Because then it makes more sense from a financial perspective to not steal that $10,000.

If a person had $1, then it would be very difficult for her to earn $10,000 with that money. However, if she is entrusted with $10,000 through the course of doing business (for example, receiving a web design contract), then obviously she would want to make good on her end of the deal so that she can earn more business in the future.

[screwUdriver]

To follow DiamondCardz's post:
The breaking point is incalculable by anyone but themselves. I can tell you that mine is $20 million, but you don't have to believe me. So don't.

To be honest, if we could magically determine our breaking points, I bet that'd make a nice log graph. How many of us would be on the top of the chart compared to the bottom? 1 to 1? 1 to 2? 1 to 10? ....1 to 1,000?

If there's an afterlife, I better see that damn chart.

I would say that a person's breaking point will change over time as they are trusted with more (or less) funds. For example if someone is entrusted with $10,000 then if they were trusted with $50,000 they would run away, however after being trusted with $10,000 for several months, they might not even flinch at the idea of being trusted with $50,000 and when someone does trust them with as much for several months their breaking point would likely increase

That's a good point. Because then it makes more sense from a financial perspective to not steal that $10,000.

If a person had $1, then it would be very difficult for her to earn $10,000 with that money. However, if she is entrusted with $10,000 through the course of doing business (for example, receiving a web design contract), then obviously she would want to make good on her end of the deal so that she can earn more business in the future.

Right. As people obviously do not do things for free, handling others' money will earn them some kind of income and the more trustworthy they can prove to be the more they can command for handling someone elses money.

[boumalo]

I thought about this a lot when designing the Trust system, but unfortunately there just isn't any way to protect against long-term con men. If someone sets out with the goal of building up trust for several years and then pulling a massive scam, and if he's skilled at hiding his true intentions, I don't think that anything will stop him. You just have to try to minimize the risk and impact of getting scammed by such people.

An important point of increased risk is when trusted people start aggregating BTC from a lot of people. For example, TradeFortess had tons of successful trades, some very large, but through inputs.io he could scam hundreds of people at once. And each inputs.io user was probably thinking, "TF has handled thousands of bitcoins at once without problems -- there's no way he'd steal my measly 0.5 BTC." But since he can steal from many people at once, the scam becomes worthwhile. (I'm assuming here that TF stole user deposits, which I am still not completely sure about.)

Yes he stole user deposits. I think you are quite right. The WWW is the perfect place for crime, there is no skill required to hide your identity (TOR) so we have to use more multi sig escrow!

When you know someone very well, you can make a more reliable assessment of its trustworthiness. If its identity is public or known to many insiders, he is less likely to disappear overnight.

[takagari]

The trust system is flawed, the default list is a joke.
Really You could do a years worth of thousand dollar deals, until someone decides 50k is a good deal, than you scam off.

No way to really know a person.