Topic: Be careful with saxydev; he is a scammer - page 5. (Read 1688 times)

Although you seem biased to defend the scammer, I will try to answer you point by point.


I think that everybody could see that, since this is your very fist post.

---

You are entitling me with a power which I don't have, never had and, most likely, never will have.

---

I also noticed that you are not him, since your English is way better than his.

---

My answer is the following:
1. First of all, the title of this thread says his is a "possible scammer", not a scammer

2. First sentence of this thread says again the same syntagma: "I'd like to raise awareness about a possible Romanian scammer"

3. Checking money in Romania is illegal. As I told him too (in post 10), if you are unsure, go yourself to ANAF and tell the inspectors there you are doing what saxydev does. If you'll do that I also suggest you to bring a suitcase with some cloths and basic needs as it's possible to not return home for a long time.

4. Speaking at large, many Romanians are focused on pilfering. Do you know what pilfering is? "Gainarie" -- there, you know now. Most of those which are looking for pilfering are also illiterate, underclassmen and, as their intellect did not allow them to follow a proper education (finish high school, go to a college, get a good job), many of them become interested in earning money in a easy way, doing various small thefts and so on. Being Romanian, I believe you know this pattern. Many of them are Gypsies, but there are also Romanians sharing same behavior. Some of them managed somehow to learn a bit about technology and Bitcoin and ended up here, looking for online victims.

Since I came on this forum I also found other Romanians looking for pilfering: andulolika and bekli23. Do you know them? Both are illiterate; both are underclassmen (look at how they type in Romanian and English); both are shady; both try to earn a buck from those which are naive enough to pay them. andulolika was offering translation services, while he was unable even to spell his name (and after he made death threats on the forum and self admitted he is a ban evader), while bekli23 (which has a topic dedicated to him inside Investigations board) was claiming that he can decrypt any Bitcoin wallet or that he moved ("offline", according to him) the coins generated by Bitcoin's genesis block (which are technically not movable).

So each of these guys are trying to catch a fish, with various idiocies. saxydev is just like them: he is selling for money a service which can be accessed for free on Internet and which is also illegal. But, considering his pattern, I said he is a possible scammer (in the end he showed his real character and actually exposed himself as a scammer).

To conclude, while his shitty business did not automatically mean he is a scammer, his kind of being (which is very often found in Romania) made me raise an alarm about this guy. The topic was for raising an alarm. What happened later -- meaning the way he exposed himself as a true scammer, that's another story. But the topic was created for making people aware that he could be a scammer.

---

His shills toward Pi have nothing in common with our subject. The reference I made in OP was solely for mentioning another example of where he showed how illiterate he is and what monumental stupidities he is able to write.

---

I will explain.


Now read again the highlighted part.

Do you sense the difference between "tell" and sign (n.b. sign the deal)? Verba volant, scripta manent. You are showing as a counter-example a situation where you say some words out of your mouth and you compare that with signing an agreement?

Obviously, if you say on the phone to a car dealer that you want a car and then you call back and say you changed your mind, nothing will happen. That's because you did not sign anything. However, if you would have signed a paper with the dealer, the verbal cancellation could not occur. Or, at least not so easy. Maybe you could still cancel after you signed, but you would pay a penalty anyway, as a cancellation policy.

Furthermore, if the call would be recorded, in this hypothetical case of yours, then your "yes" would have the power of a signed agreement and again, you would not be able to cancel anymore (or you'd pay a cancellation policy).

So, as you see, even in your case (which is not saxydev's case), even just by "telling" you'd be in same situation.

Coming back to our case, saxydev and dkbit had no cancellation policy. However, since the deal was made based on mutual agreement of the two parties, it's common sense that it's cancellation would have also to imply both parties and not allow a unilateral cancelling. And, since dkbit98 did not agree with the cancelling proposal of saxydev, this implied that the deal was still valid. Does this make sense?

---

Thanks, I appreciate.


I am sorry for disappointing you. You should know though, while saxydev swore at me, I merely used a medical term for describing his condition. If you'll make some research, you'll find out that imbecility is a medical condition, not a libel. Regarding the low education of saxydev, or my statements about him being an illiterate -- just watch how he types; it's visible from the Moon. About my statement that he is an underclassman -- I admit, it's only a supposition. However, from the way he types I would bet that he is not a Ph.D. Feel free to think the opposite, though.


Perhaps you see him very well educated, uhm?

---

Pardon me for not repeating everywhere the term "possible" in front of "scammer".


Apparently, "scammer" is the correct term, since he scammed dkbit98 soon after I initiated this topic.

---

Thanks for the reminder. I will update OP with the amount scammed of 0.1 BTC.

Later edit: just did it. OP title is also updated accordingly, in order to properly reflect the situation.


The thread doesn't belong to Reputation, as it's dedicated to someone which was believed to be a "possible scammer" and which later became a "real scammer".

---

Probably I bribed them all. Most likely, I bribed dkbit98 as well, for him to create the flag and also to lure poor and naive saxydev with that appealing offer, making sure saxydev will bite the bait?


Yes, like a mafia. For more information, feel free to talk to wolwoo. He was first who exposed this:

---

I placed a screenshot above, perhaps you missed. Let me help you out:


Do you see the highlight from the screenshot? There is the key for your question.

---

I would not dare to speak instead of LV but, however, I believe that he did not understand the whole case from the beginning and he understood it when he said this:

---

Thank you for the compliments, but you tell me: how would you call someone unable to barely spell his name? A cultivated genius?

---

I hope I answered to all your claims. If I missed any, let me know.

Somehow this whole situation seems like OP and saxydev have a beef and OP has simply managed to raise a mob due to his bitcointalk influence.

Yes this is an alt account ( from what I'm seing having a beef with GazetaBitcoin is enough enough to be marked as a scammer and Trust to be nuked), no I am not saxydev, though I am from the same region as him and OP so I did follow their beef in the regional threads aswell, here's my 2 cents though:

Saxydevs aml service:   While it's unethical ( assuming he has access to some free tools which are probably available to anyone with a thorough search on the internet) how does it actually qualify as a scam ?  Unethical sure, as he's charging for it, but then again seems like one of those scenarios where people download a free e-book, no copyrightes attached and sell them to others.

Saxydevs shill of Pi token: A shit coin ? 100%.  Turned out to be a scam ? Nope, simply a shitcoin that people have been "mining" with their phones for years, remember the ads about it for years now, looked recently into it as I've "mined" about 300 of those, which apparently are trading OTC at this point.

Regarding the Flag, it seems that while he initially said yes, after 20 minutes he went back on it, and said "no deal", so how exactly does that constitute as a broken contract when the other party of the "agreement" didn't come forward between those 20 minutes.

Are you basically saying that for example, I decided to buy a car, I call the dealership and tell them I'll buy X car, then I change my mind call them back and say I won't anymore, that I'm liable for it? That I've broken a contract and the dealership expects me to pay the amount regardless?


Now regarding GazetaBitcoin, I've honestly always considered you to be one of the highest standing members of the bitcointalk community (at least in the Romanian section) and have always followed your articles/interviews, and honestly this is simply dissapointing, you've established an online image here, and presence, and honestly you should do better!  Saying things like " Based on his IQ, which is a number lower than the one of his shoe size"   or "He just writes idiotic stuff and, together with his level of very low education reminds me a lot of another Romanian imbecile".  

While you ended your OP with:  Although I have no clear evidence that he is a scammer, you also stated in the same OP "the scammer is willing to make deals only through PMs or Discord, not in plain sight." or "the scammer alleges that he has thousands of BTC, ETH and TRX addresses"  so which is it, wasn't the Scam Accusations thread supposed to be a place for actual scams !? Isn't the whole format there for a reason?  Amount Scammed, Payment Option, Proof of payment, Pm, Chat logs? Why isn't this thread in the Reputation sector of the forum, where you could have actually made a case regarding this, supposedly without the "low iq, low education" and actually do a proper analisys as you're well known for on this forum? Why did you go about it as an angry middle schooler?

Most dissapointing aspect, why did most of the higher trusted members participating in this thread didn't call out OP on this, is this how the Trust system should work? How the flag system is intended to work?  Why did no one other than Loyce question it?.

OP: You might want to reconsider your standing and general image when you feel it's appropiate to call someone "a very low level of education" and "low iq". Since you are/were one of the most respected members here, you should do better!



P.S. - Yes I do expect to be considered saxydev's alt account due to not following the general mindset on this thread, I do believe saxydev's oppinions on segwit are dog poop, same as his belief in PI token,  and yes I also believe that this was massively mishandled by GazetaBitcoin and most of the people on this thread.  And yes, I am expecting to be blasted with red trust for it.

Loooool!

---

To make sure, he will also ignore all DT2 members. At least, this is how things should be done thoroughly. Maybe DT3 too.


Based on his IQ, which is a number lower than the one of his shoe size, saxydev applies the following principle for solving issues: treat the effect, not the cause. For example, if he is driving and hears a weird sound coming from the engine or from under his car, he will simply insert some cotton wool inside his ears and - voila! - no sound is heard anymore! The car runs like it's brand new!

Similar, in this case, creating a personal Trust list will certainly clear his profile. Can't be otherwise, can it?

---

Thank you, NeuroticFish!

OK, OK, you convinced me. I'll support too the tag.

Now the profile of saxydev is painted with trade with extreme caution. I think now saxydev will ignore all the DT and also saxydev will create a new list of his/her trusted person. And in this way, saxydev will see a good profile of him/her. Trade with extreme caution will not be shown to him/her on his her profile.

This is why Besides, the scammer could also delete the post and I wanted to make sure it's still visible (here) for everybody.

---

Yup, very fun! And, apparently I was right before, when I said


Oh well, he did not get a negative feedback (yet), but he has a flag created against him.

---

Looooool!

---

It was funny the way you said but the truth is that while Tate has collection of Lambos inside his garage this pauper is eating the mess from under his fingernails while trying to scam innocent people from the forum.

---

Being serious now, I kept thinking about this case for the last days. I was first tempted myself to create a flag against the possible scammer. I believed that a type 1 flag (or even type 2) are correct. Then I thought again and I abandoned the idea. However, after more "analyse" (/s) I truly believe now that saxydev deserves that flag.

I saw LoyceV and NeuroticFish asking dkbit98 same question: "Be honest: you never expected to be paid 0.1 Bitcoin for this, right?.

The fact that dkbit98, I, others (most likely saxydev himself too) did not really expect to end up with a payment made by the scammer to dkbit98 does not change the fact that saxydev broke the deal unilateral.

Furthermore, the fact that "Deal. Let's see" was posted out of impulse and changed after 20 minutes is not a reason for a unilateral breaking of a written deal. And this is what saxydev did. Out of impulse or not, everybody is responsible for his actions. And has to respond for his actions. If I am brave idiot at a moment and decide to go in the middle of the street saying I won't be hit by any car and in the next 20 seconds I say "I changed my mind and I understand that cars may hit me" -- but just before finishing saying this a car hits me -- then what? I am allowed to travel back in time because I stepped in the middle of the street out of an impulse? No. I will go to a hospital instead (hoping that I am still alive) and I am paying for my actions, be it taken or not out of impulse.

Furthermore, the case here is not a hypothetical one as the one I wrote above. The case here has two parties, both responsible for their actions, which settled a deal together, on their own will, nobody forcing a party or the other to accept the deal. And the deal was the following:


This deal did not involve any clauses such as "deal can be cancelled unilateral if a party changes his mind within 20 minutes" / "the deal can be cancelled if a party acts out of the impulse" etc. The only specified clause is the highlighted part.

Having the deal terms set, the deal was sealed here:


At this point the deal is real, it's settled; it's written down.

Next, the party which respected his party of the deal proves the fact that he made his part and is waiting for the second part to honor his part as well:


The counter-party initiates the scam, by not willing to respect his part:


Again, being sad, gay etc. was not written as clause, therefore it can not be mentioned as a reason for not honoring the deal. At this point, the second party exited the deal, trying to unilateral cancel it. Furthermore, remember that the scammer already changed his mind once, at post #22. So at post 20 he accepted the deal; then tried once to cancel it, by editing his post. At post #22 he still wants the deal, only for trying to cancel it once more, after dkbit98 actually delivered his part of the deal. So he accepted, wanted out, accepted again and wanted out once more. This behavior can simply not be tolerated when it comes about written deals!

And this is the moment when (normal) consequences appear and each one has to be responsible for his own actions:


So we have (1) dkbit98, which honored his part of the deal and (2) saxydev, which did not honor his part. As a consequence, dkbit98 created the flag.

The definition of the flag says precisely what happened:



In this case, the damage consists in 0.1 BTC which dkbit98 did not receive from the other party, although he was entitled to receive this amount. dkbit98 was scammed by saxydev. Therefore I, for one, have to agree with dkbit98 when saying the following:


The following part is emphasizing even more the possible outcomes in the theoretic situation when he would actually have to sweat in order to deliver his part and, again, I fully agree:



Of course, it was no joke, but a written agreement. If saxydev considered it a joke then, again, it's his fault and, once more, he has to be responsible for the consequences of his actions.

Do you like to repeat same thing that LoyceV asked me or you don't understand answer I already wrote to him before?
Please don't make me write the same thing again, it's simple, we had a public deal agreement that he accepted, than he tried to evade and eventually he didn't honor his word.
If you don't agree with me than you can always support saxydev flag:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3086

Come on, you didn't realistically expected him to pay, didn't you?
And, as Loyce said, is somewhat a gray area there. So imho it make more sense you just tag him properly instead of pursuing a flag, since a tag is clearly your opinion.

I don't want to be one of his customers, clearly, since whatever he tells today may not stand tomorrow, but, again, that's not the material for a flag.

I thought of it as a bet, but you're right, it was an offer.

Yeah sure, and he could also have access to nuclear switch button... 

I did expect it and it was fair price I asked for something I delivered, and he broke agreement we made.
Imagine if we made deal about anything else and I spent hours doing some work for him, than I found out he changed his mind later.
In any normal website for selling stuff he would get negative rating for that, and if I wanted to make a joke I would ask for much more Bitcoin from him.
Since I didn't receive promised Bitcoin, flag stays and if you don't agree Loycev you can always vote against it.
I simply don't trust this ''dev'' who changes mind and sells shitcoins snake oil.

Why the heck would I have to pay him anything when I delivered website like I promised?!

You can't seat on two chairs at the same time.

Flag against saxydev:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3086

I don't think this is warranted. It reminds me of the DT-member who tagged anyone who posted in his sales topic because his local rule said to PM him.
Be honest: you never expected to be paid 0.1 Bitcoin for this, right? So the "Deal. Let's see" was posted out of impulse, and changed within 20 minutes. Besides, saxydev couldn't gain anything from it, you didn't offer him 0.1 Bitcoin if you couldn't keep up your end of the deal.

Since Flags are largely about semantics: I've checked back "the bet", to the post you quoted, which quotes your post which shows this quote:
Now the semantics part: saxydev is talking about a debt analyse, and as I said before:
I don't think there's any website that offers a free debt analysis on Bitcoin inputs. So, saved by his lack of English skills, saxydev is correct:

---

---

I strongly dislike saxydev's "taint" BS service, but I don't think Bitcointalk will be a better place if we start Flagging users on what I call a temporary lack of judgement.

Sounds a lot like a certain Andrew Tate guy, if you ask me  ^{sorry, I couldn't resist the joke.}


Well there may be free AML checking tools, but the real Wakanda-grade security checks that incriminate you, me, and the neighbor's dog are very hard to get access to, so it could be possible that he has somehow gained (legit) access to such a tool.

But you have not delivered what you said it's there for free.

So both parts are up to you? You decide if it's a bet, you decide that you are right?

Judge and executioner? lol ok

I don't care about your crazy mind changes, you said that you agree and that is written deal, if you fail to comply and you violated deal we had, so I have full right to create flag against you.
I am happy to hear that you don't care what happens with your account, and I am calling everyone to support this flag against scamming liar saxydev:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3086

Do what you want. But this is not even in the category of the deal you wanted or I have spoke about. You are even talking about two different services.

And again, I have changed my mind about the vote. It's my right.

You can create whatever flag you want, you just can't find it anywhere. It does not exist.

Plus the service you have sent is so poor, try to examine the address you have posted for payment and you will see how futile it is.

-> This is what you have sent me.

my prices for this:

this is what we have talked about:

It doesn't count because you say so?!
I will repeat again, you have 24 hours to send me 0.1 BTC because I sent what I promised, and nobody can compare something with invisible vaporware shitcoin serice you are offering.
If I don't receive Bitcoin by tomorrow I will create flag against you and give you negative feedback like I promised.
Have a nice day.

This is an aml score which I offer for free on Tron, 9$ on BTC and 9$ on ETH. Plus the site is outdated and limited. Not even close to my free service on trx.

those associations at the end of the page I offer them for free and most of the time, 3-4x more details. Even for the free service on TRX.

Nope. Doesn't count.

And second I have changed my mind about betting, I am sad now about it... But I keep my thoughts on it. There is not such a free service online, even as trial.

OK, you initially accepted to pay me 0.1 Bitcoin if I post a website that can make free analytics and you need to honor that deal or I will consider you a scamming liar and give you negative tag.
Like I promised, I am keeping my word and I am posting one free website that is called antinalysis.org, so I will now post my BTC address and I expect to receive 0.1 BTC you promised to send me.
I know few more services that are doing similar things and I know few people wanted to created their own websites like this, but I previously said I will post only one website for 0.1 BTC, I can post more if you send me more bitcoins.
Saxydev you have 24 hours to pay what you promised to my address: bc1qnnkav38ze4uxhk0ac70g8lqcgxc37492lrpwr9

Nose on that image you posted is getting bigger and bigger, and I am patiently waiting to see ''dev'' reaction

PS
I am going to donate % of Bitcoin I receive from saxydev to randomly selected members who wrote in this topic before this post, so we can have nice party time  

Haha, I have actually deleted you from the ignore list as you replied to my thread and this topic, I had to unignore to see your posts.

@loycev

----reply here later

@NewsletterBitcoin - idiots showing off his small pp with big screens

I could not understand why o much proof for the editing. ninjastic as well as image and so on. Proof could be required if it was denied and there was no mentioned edit. As we can see edit we do not need to do so much research. Anyway, when anyone edits that means s/he was wrong and that was his/her wrong/mistake and changed his/her mind.

---

All of us now on is on the ignorelist of saxydev.