Topic: [ANN] Whirlwind.money | ⚡No Fee⚡ | Ultimate Privacy | Anonymity Mining 12% APR🔥 - page 4. (Read 12755 times)

I've just Opposed the type 3 Flag, because it's no longer correct. None of this makes sense.

The fact that there are over 17 thousand DAI, still available to cover the damages of any whirlwind user, pinpoints how upright mixer that was.

Even ChipMixer didn't do that, and I'm pretty confident that they've had the financial capacity to manage it.

That would tie-in with the part when the owner told Hhampuz he had travelled but was returning and during his absence he did not allow anybody complete access to the Whirlwind server. Though it would still not be enough negate any negligence on his part as things currently stand, with the funds untouched after all this time it raises more questions about whether something really did happen to him.

There is still 17,367.94 DAI remaining in the escrow address (from the initial 40k). Out of all the outputs, the largest transaction was 4,060 DAI.




Considering the fact that all the BTC is still untouched in their multisig address, what are the chances that something actually happened to the owner and he was the only one with access to everything?

It's kinda in the name to not boast about it. Is the escrow address public? I'm curious how much of it was claimed. Apart from the website still accepting deposits, it's looking more like an "exit" than an "exit scam".

Everyone who took part in their signature campaign got paid through notes on the WW platform. Those who didn't transfer BTC to their personal wallets right away ended up using their anonymity mining service indirectly, earning interest in the process. As far as I know, a few users managed to stack up several thousand dollars' worth of notes, but not much beyond that.

Do you know of anyone who has actually used their anonymity mining service though? Because to me at least, it looks like their advertisements of the alternate mining campaign fell flat in Bitcointalk, so it is a bit reassuring to know that people here are not candidly throwing money at silly services like investors and crypto meme "traders".

Regarding 'suspiciousness', it was honestly mostly the staking thing with 12% returns which I found quite high.

As for the rest, you're right that the correct term should be 'wariness' / 'skepticism' / 'caution'. This was my main reason not to apply for a signature with them since I actually didn't have any concrete suspicion of malevolence, indeed.
Main reasons for this initial caution were (as written before): basically it being a new custodial service, that was paying a lot of money on advertising right off the bat. That seems risky and unsustainable for the starting phase of a business and I'm personally much more comfortable with a service that has a long track record of being stable and reliable, especially when I evaluated that (by trying it myself) already.
I've seen legitimately good sounding services come and go by the dozens over the years, so even without 'suspicious activity', there were some aspects I did not fully like and needed some time to see how / if the platform holds up.

Agree to disagree! For me, it is only logical that a company basically pays for my signature space in the hope of making more money through new customers clicking on it. Otherwise it makes no economic sense.

You might argue that someone can have a signature with a product they absolutely hate and wouldn't recommend anyone using, and that's certainly possible, but I do think a bit otherwise.

I believe that people usually (e.g. on other forums) put stuff in signatures that they like and are associated with, like their system specs, a quote they like, links to their website and so on. So that is why I do think there is an inherent association between a forum user and their signature.

But it's possible that Bitcointalk is so used to using this space for advertisements that everyone knows signatures are not endorsements..

I would say that:
1 - We did not know but could have been wary / cautious about a new service, especially when custodial, and even more so when starting to motivate people to leave their funds on the platform with unusually high returns.
2 - We had no way of knowing for certain but could have identified that it was at the time still early to recommend this service (see point 1) and it became even more risky to advertise for them once 'staking' started, due to repeating pattern with previous crypto staking experiences.

Maybe it's because of what they've been used to from other forums, where signature space has no monetary value and people therefore basically only put stuff in there that they personally like and endorse?

If you're referring to me, that's not what I was trying to say, even though I see how it can be interpreted as such. I am sorry if that offended anyone.
The key takeaway was to show that other campaigns do exist on the forum (even though sometimes paying a bit less) for services that we have actually been using for years anyway (therefore eliminating the 'promoting-something-we-don't-actually-endorse' issue) such as used to be the case for me when I joined both ChipMixer and AgoraDesk.

For me, I only fully realized today that the majority here seems to agree that it is indeed usual to advertise something one might not actually use, recommend or endorse themselves. And that's simply something I need to accept and keep in mind when trusted members carry the signature of services I personally don't like, for instance.

That's the same 'unknown' as with tons of previous services that promised yearly returns in the crypto space. They were usually even higher, sometimes much much higher, which made them more risky / suspicious, of course, but there were definitely some with a seemingly legitimate and working real business behind them.

It's just that when you've seen it so many times you get cautious every time someone promises you free returns if you just deposit your coins with them (for whatever reason they claim to be making this money, at this point).

So, none of your so-called red flags were actually unique to Whirlwind because they could just as well apply to any other mixing service (or any other crypto-related service, for that matter, apart from the anonymity mining campaign, which, as you yourself mentioned, came later)? And you weren't really any smarter than the rest of us in that regard?

But let's break down some of your inputs one by one:


You applied for their campaigns four times, by my count. The last time was over a month from the start of the campaign. You didn't have enough time for your research?


Fair enough, I'll accept that. However, as they pointed out themselves, this could easily be attributed to the fact that they were a very young service back then. I have no basis for comparison with other mixers in this regard.


You said it yourself – this feature was added later, and we can't be sure if it was part of their initial plan. There were no signs of it, afaik. Personally, I'm not into the idea of handing over my coins to others for a small interest, so I didn't pay much attention to it. But this isn't new. Some other services have been providing similar offerings for quite some time.


From what I know, throughout Bitcoin's history, the vast majority of service providers have typically been forum newbies. Furthermore, I would expect this from a bitcoin mixer service provider, given the sensitive nature of the work they do.


Are you referring to the notes or the anonymity mining campaign? Regarding the notes, theoretically, everyone could withdraw funds at any time. It's no different than any other service provider, and not much different from ChipMikser.


I'm not sure about that. Their website and forum account existed before ChipMixer's end, so unless they had inside information, we can't really say they came after ChipMixer.


Exactly. It's kind of the usual practice. So, it can't really be considered a red flag. Can we even find an example of a decentralized Bitcoin mixing service?

I think a lot of what might be rubbing people the wrong way is how you're speaking in absolutes and with far too much confidence, IMHO.

Don't be so sure of yourself, man. You're coming across in this thread (especially in your replies to BlackHatCoiner) like we're all a bunch of idiots and you're not.

I'm very surprised by how things turned out. Sure, there's always the risk that a new service might turn out to be dishonest, but I read a lot of the OP's posts before joining the signature campaign, and (for me) a lot of signs pointed towards Whirlwind being a genuine attempt at running an honest mixing service. What basically totally convinced me, was chatting with the OP over PM a few times and being left with the impression that they were intelligent, candid, and eager to get things right (I had one exchange with them about making adjustments to the campaign, and one exchange with them about making their Note scheme a little safer).

Anyway, long story short: A lot of us do think deeply about what signatures we're wearing, and (I'm guessing) most of us (WW campaigners, that is) are a little embarrassed/sore about how things turned out. So, it hits a nerve when you show up here brimming with confidence and giving off "I kinda knew this would happen" vibes.

What everyone is overlooking is TIME.

- I applied for the signature campaign when WW was first released - not enough research or usage to conclude if it was a scam or not at this point.
- During the review campaign I put in my cons that WW offered a basic level of privacy, explaining further that it was the equivalent to a hot wallet, pooling all coins together. WW gave some responses which I didn't believe were entirely satisfactory for me to use the service, but not worth posting much more about UNLESS someone wanted to continue the discussion, which no one did.

The other red flags (as already mentioned in a previous post):
- Anonymity mining campaign (I did not voice anything here because anyone could and should have. I did not have time.to write a report and deal with responses to posting about this red flag) - this was the most major red flag.
- The creator was a newbie (anyone could have posted this red flag, I definitely didn't have to)
- The service took custody for extended periods (again, everyone knew this, I didn't need to point it out)
- It came right after Chipmixer (I elaborated in this IN the WW thread itself and even explained why I said it)
- Not decentralized. Centralized, and custodial. Everyone already knew that anyway and it is a norm (kind of).

These were all red flags that either existed by default or arose later just as I browsed the forum and checked in to see WW every so often. None of it was conclusive evidence that WW was a scam, thus not worth discussing. However, anyone could have seen the red flags - I definitely did not need to point them out for people to know them. All people needed to do was be skeptical and not endorse something so quickly. People did not do that - That is definitely not my problem.

Also, wishing a service and a campaign manager the best in the endeavor is not endorsement. It's wishing that things go smoothly. At the time that comment, only the default red flags (new account, chipmixer timing, not decentralized) existed. All of which not worth mentioning (though I DID mention them anyway, no one continued the conversation/caught my drift, not my problem).

When notes were added, the custody issue arose however it didn't prove to be a huge red flag until later, when signature payments were being made in notes (which wasn't worth highlighting because of the presumable response that "it's convenient and saves on fees").

I didn't withhold any information that would have prevented anyone getting scammed. I withheld some red flags, such as the above, and my thoughts when things looked fishy, because none of it was concrete evidence that WW was a scam UNTIL they became a scam.

Unless I had 100℅ concrete evidence that WW was a scam and I withheld that, (which is impossible until they are a scam) then I should not be blamed for not being a guardian for the forum. I don't think that anyone can disagree with that. Being a guardian is an option, it is not a responsibility for every user. That would be extremely unfair to put that burden on me, or anyone.

All I've been saying since my first post is that someone who was endorsing WW could not possibly be surprised of their runaway, - and this user was not just surprised, but apparently surprised to the point of making a sob story post about how he endorsed it and how duped he felt - This member advises people about privacy, security, being vigilant, etc. He isn't a regular old user. That's the main reason I came to this thread...because that user making that post for whatever reason he made it, prompted me to reply. I did it then, I'll do it in the future, without hesitation...because I think that given the circumstances, it was justified. Each to their own though I guess.

What red flags are you referring to? Where did you talk about these issues before they went completely dark? I read your review and didn't catch any mention of red flags or major issues with their service. And what's more, you even stated that you didn't find any flaws in their app:


It's easy to act like a general once the battle's already done. If you were aware of any reasons for concern, why didn't you mention them earlier? So, you either weren't truthful in your review, or you're being untruthful now.


So, why did you endorse them? Besides a few suggestions to "improve" their mixing process, you didn't really mention anything negative about them in your review. You even expressed gratitude for the opportunity and wished them success in their endeavours:


And now you claim there were red flags all along? Or was this all just a show because you were afraid you wouldn't get paid for your review?

I saw red flags - nothing was conclusive until they scammed. Major red flag was anonymity mining campaign, which was well after my application to their signature campaign.

WW was definitely not worth being endorsed. Signature campaigns are not endorsing though. It's a transaction, advertising space. Publishers for ad networks are not endorsing services provided by the ad network, neither are users in signature campaigns.


I'll reply to everything else with more depth at a later date. Can not be bothered nor do I have the time to prioritize this drama right now, just for giving an opinion and speaking in a way that clearly, some people do not fully comprehend or understand (not sure if purposeful or not, probably varies)


The only thing I'll say to this right now is that your post is really not pressing for me to reply to. You opened up so confidently but the whole post was pretty underwhelming. Good effort though.

I'll respond to it at a later date as mentioned anyway, and hopefully put this discussion to rest.

unibitcoinist is clearly attention-seeking and he is not the only one. BenCodie seems to be posting anywhere but here after his recent comments. No reputable campaign manager or reputable forum member would knowingly be part of a scammers signature campaign because if they did they would not be reputable.

Rather than question others behaviour, unibitcoinist should tell us about why he did not tag anybody related to the Whirlwind signature campaign?

Talk about that famous quote, "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"
It played out so well in that case  

---

Speaking of Whirlwind.money, hugeblack and I noticed some close simillarities between it and then troubled tornado.cash




Inspired scammer?
Copycat scammer?

Feel free to suggest.

Oh, what a genius! Just leave 40k in escrow, which apparently covered all claims, including those from the signature campaign participants. Truly a "mastermind" move, I must say!


Nice theory! It would be an absolute masterpiece if you could sprinkle in a little something called evidence to make it truly shine.

How strange.

I am disappointed at the way BenCodie has stated he was convinced Whirlwind was a scam (and posted flags) yet he tried to join the campaign on the basis he was not obliged to raise concerns. I wrote a post but decided to replace it with a watered down one asking him to reflect on his actions, he has not posted back since.

Now this stupid won't respond to you as he had ignored you in that thread. If you pose a legit question, he won't respond to that question. He was so much confident that Whirlwind will stay here for long. But if the campaign manager was someone other than Hhampuz, this cry baby would say the same for whirlwind as well.


While this is true that BenCodie knew nothing, none of you would have heard. The mastermind behind Whirlwind had a deep understanding of the forum and the appropriate starting points. Had the campaign manager not been Hhampuz, some of you would tag the service and probably the campaign manager as well.

Yeah, it turned out that many crystal ballers knew for sure WW was going to exit scam except for us the "fools" who advertised it, Ironically, none of them had the balls to warn us, and when it's all said and done, they put on their big boy pants and come here to lecture us.


It's because your application was not accepted by the campaign manager (probably for good reasons), had your application been accepted -- you wouldn't be writing these walls of text.

I would just add to this theory the possibility that the same people are behind Tornado Cash and whirlwind mixers.
One of the co-founders, Roman Storm was arrested in Washington on 23. August 2023

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/tornado-cash-founders-charged-money-laundering-and-sanctions-violations

---

Jollygood, how strange your negative campaign against the Sinbad.io mixer looks now https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/after-chipmixer-is-sinbadio-next-to-be-shutdown-5454407