Topic: ㅤ (Read 864 times)

I don't think he cares about negative tags in his trust. However, as they did not care about him in the previous Mitch122 account. He does not risk anything by refusing to pay, creating new accounts has long been a habit for him. I won’t be surprised if he has already created a new account and offers some regular goods and services.

Hehe, considering what Bitcointalk has become and what it represents in the crypto space today, I am not surprised at what extent some persons will go just to gain reputation here for whatever reason, be it selfish and genuine..
The user mentioned in the op is clearly after something, he was indeed trying to gain good number of merits through that giveaway, which in turn will not only build his reputation, but will also enable him rank up.
Building his reputation means that he will easily gain trust from the forum members, which would enable him carry out his scam activities easily..
earning merit means he could rank up faster to enable him join signature campaigns to earn some buck.

what ever his ambitions were, be it good or bad, he came in through the back door, as far as I know, there is no shortcuts to good things in life, and as far as this forum is concerned, only scammers and those with evil intentions come in through the back door, and they are easily spotted and kicked, this is why Bitcointalk is not just another bitcoin forum, Bitcointalk is spectacular.

Well, who isn't up for free stuff?

If people could even be naive enough to download malware from impostors including newbie accounts rather than from the OP, not really surprising since all it takes is just to reveal a wallet address.

Somebody had to do it first and after a significant amount of waiting I decided to leave appropriate feedback. When I read the OP of that thread, it was simply ridiculously worded and I have no idea why that many forum members decided to try to win the imaginary $50.

I hope the incident surrounding the fake giveaway will serve as a reminder to all members especially those that have been around the forum for several years that they should apply due-diligence and ask serious questions to any newbie OP. Maybe Rbah will return one day with an interesting story about why the winner was not sent their prize but until then at the very least the negative tag will remain.

So far he only gets one merit for that contest, you made the right decision not giving him merit yet, but in case he didn't fulfill his promise instead of giving him merits, those who participate should tag him for questionable giveaways, giveaways should be above suspicion, what I like about that discussion is I get to discover this tool for fair giveaways created by bitmover https://bitcoindata.science/giveaway-manager/

You did it before I did it 

I was waiting for seven days to pass before tagging the user, thinking that 7 days are a decent time to wait. However, since you made first step I decided to make the second one, thus now Rbah has two negative feedbacks. Anyway, there are only a few hours until 7 days are met therefore it's okay to give him the feedback since now.

It's very possible for Rbah to be same with Mitch212. There are too many similarities between them. Anyway, this is less important. What matters is that users did not let themselves tricked anymore into jumping with merits on shady giveaway organizers. It seems that the lesson was learned.

(Of course, in case the organizer finally appears and offers a good reason for being online that much; in case he will also make an official rolling; in case he will also pay the prize -- then I will remove my feedback. But there are very small chances for this to happen.)

If the winner of that giveaway did not receive the funds and if the OP of that thread has not logged in since 24th January 2023 and has not honoured the promises that he made himself without anybody influencing him (namely he created a thread of his own accord with a $50 giveaway and selected a winner under dubious circumstances and promises to pay the prize in 24 hours), that should now constitute his account being tagged.

I have left appropriate feedback for Rbah for failing to pay the prize to the winner he selected in this thread $50 in BTC Giveaway

I am fairly sure Rbah was waiting for his account to be tagged before he logs back in to say that he was going to pay the prize but since his account has now been unfairly tagged he will not be paying the prize. We have waited a week and he has not shown up but if the account gets tagged he probably will unless the puppeteer controlling the account gave up because he received just 1 merit in exchange for a $50 trade and decided to keep the $50 thus losing the farmed Rbah account.

Having said the obvious, a week after he promised to pay the prize within 24 hours, it did not detract me from appropriately tagging the account.

It does seem highly unlikely that address will be sent anything from the OP of the giveaway thread since he was never really active in the forum and has no need to pay or re-run the the giveaway for the sake of transparency.

I do have very strong suspicions that he was part of a farmed account and that account was used to test to see if merits could be given for the sake of the giveaway. In the end I believe he received just one merit and now will most probably receive negative tags as his 24 hour deadline to pay the $50 has passed and he provided no explanation for the non-payment.

-----------------

For those looking for a real giveaway, there are still slots available and winner will receive 0.0025 BTC which is currently around $57.63. It is free to enter, only one entry per member is allowed: Win c.$50 on Free Lottery#1 JollyGood-Ratimov-Utopia: Fury vs Usyk

SLOTS ALLOCATED: 37
SLOTS AVAILABLE: 21

Thank you Ratimov and Utopia

The problem is that, so far, since the winner was announced, OP was not online anymore. I don't even know if he read what was written at the end of his topic (meaning the posts signaling that was he did is totally inappropriate). Besides, no matter the incompetent way he managed the giveaway, he also did not pay the prize to the (fake) winner. This is winner's address: 1MxqUhnCwuUwbc7Z1NhNTTGiVHJXBpurCi; I am constantly monitoring it since this user was declared as winner.

So there are higher chances for OP of being given negative feedback for not paying the prize than for poor management of the giveaway.


Who knows... Maybe he expected the merits when he announced the winner and, seeing that he still does not receive any merit he decided to go offline, knowing that it's possible to have the account tagged? Anyway, let's wait for a few more days and see what happens meanwhile.

It certainly seems he did break his own rules however there is still a chance that all this will be cleared up and the OP of that thread will make the payment to the winner or better still he can clarify why he did what he did and then re-run the giveaway but announce beforehand how he intends to select a winner. As long as those things happen he can have credibility but the way it turned out it seems very inappropriate.

Someone suggested earlier this could have been an attempt to get merits and try to build up the account which for $50 would probably be worth it if he could get merits. Having said that, there is a chance this could all be a misunderstanding and could be resolved (but I have reservations).

Sorry, but I'm not sure about that. In xLays example post, only the number 92 was given as the winning number and not 5tift. I think you read that wrong and 5tift only spoke up next because he received a PM from Rbah. He published this PM from Rbah in another thread:
However, I no longer believe that Rbah will pay the prize. 24 hours have passed and nothing has arrived at the address from 5tift.  
https://blockchair.com/de/bitcoin/address/1MxqUhnCwuUwbc7Z1NhNTTGiVHJXBpurCi
But you're right about the other things.  

You are close

Indeed, OP did not initially announce giveaway rules; he did it later, in the seventh post. Rolling was supposed to take place on Jan 24th. Yesterday (Jan 24th), OP asked how to proceed. A Ponzi promoter (so, obviously, not a trustworthy member) gave him an example of how to choose the winner by using a block's hash. In the given example, the winner was user 5tift. However, that was just an example!

OP did not understand that it was only an example (or simply ignored that) and announced 5tift as winner, although he (OP) broke his giveaway rules. And his giveaway rules were those stated in post #7, respective to have him or a trustworthy user make the rolling.

But, in our case: (1) he did not make any rolling; (2) no trustworthy user made any rolling; (3) there was actually no rolling at all, as what that Ponzi promoter said was just an example of how a rolling works.

Since then I don't know what happened, nor if OP actually paid the money to the fake winner. In any case, he broke his own rules.

If I have understood this situation correctly, the OP of the $50 giveaway thread (who is a newbie and has almost zero posts in the forum) basically conducted a giveaway even though he did not announce in the OP of the thread how a winner was going to be selected.

Furthermore, a few posts down the line he is asked how a winner will be decided. The OP of that thread decides to roll a wheel and suggests even someone trustworthy could do it but then does not offer the option again and instead simply announces he found the winner by editing the OP of that giveaway thread.

Now it seems many (if not most participants of the giveaway thread) are not happy and want a more transparent way to find a winner. Is that basically the issue?

Now only Admins can see the edited posts, and I don't think they'll care enough to check.

Here you go

https://bitcoindata.science/giveaway-manager/

I found a nice and simple solution.

As the block hash is just a number, its last 3 digits is converted to decimal using this function:


Now we have a *nearly* 3 digit integer from the block hash.

Dividing this number by the number of participants. Using the modulo operator, the division remainder becomes the index number.

This index number is applied in the participants list, to get the position of the winner.


Maybe we can use this tool in future giveaways
I changed the address in the first post, I just edited it.

Use the new one please.

I was talking more about how the winner was chosen and the way it was chosen (by not making any posts, therefore no timestamps to prove that the winning block was chosen before the winner was announced. In reference to what I said about the chosen winner, it wasn't the primary reason for my post but I think that if a newbie with a very little amount of posts in comparison to an established member would make a difference as well. Especially considering that currently there is no way for a normal member to know that the block was chosen after the block occurred (Maybe a mod can know if they have access to edit history?)

Like GazetaBitcoin said while I was posting as well, payment is more of a concern after the winner is elected fairly. If the winner is not elected fairly, that is the first point of concern before who gets paid. If the winner was not elected fairly then it is probably likely that the winner will be paid if the giveaway was rigged.


It does look like a poor decision to quickly finish off the giveaway. Unfortunately due to the way it all occurred there is no certain way to know for now.


If you aren't already aware, the winner of this giveaway was supposedly chosen via a chosen block and its hash. The concern is that the OP edited his thread without making posts so there is on way to know the timestamp of the block was chosen before the block occurred (fair) or after (presumably not fair). If the giveaway is fake, I think it is clear it is to establish some sort of reputation or give out the idea they have money. I found it odd that the user went on to try and use the marketplace not long after the giveaway was ongoing, but again there is no way to validate anything enough to make a claim.

Until getting to payment, it has to be stated the fact that the election of the winner broke the giveaway rules and, as a consequence, that winner is not eligible.

OP said he will do the rolling or he'll allow a trustworthy member to do it. OP did not do any rolling nor a trustworthy user did it. A user tagged as Ponzi promoter gave OP a suggestion of how to roll and, inside that suggestion the winner was a member named 5tift. However, 5tift was only the name which came as winner within an example of how to roll. That was not an official rolling. And even if it would be considered so (although it can't be, since it was an example), it is not an eligible rolling, based on OP's own rules: do it by himself or by a trustworthy member.

I am not sure if OP got confused or he broke his own rules at will. But, so far, what's happening is outside the giveaway rules.

It looks like the giveaway in question announced a winner. In my opinion though there is still doubt about how the winner was calculated. No posts were made announcing which block would be chosen and the OP just suddenly edited the thread with the details. There is no "last edit" time either to see when the post was edited. I am sure the doubt is uncalled for considering who won, I just think that it could have been done in a way where not even a little bit of doubt was left open.

Oops, my bad. So it only works on blocks that have already been mined, right? I thought the tool was supposed to do something else.

Those are easy: anyone can verify the result without needing a website for it

That's the part that's missing for many giveaways