Topic: Bitcointalk.org supports illegal ponzi schemes (Read 3719 times)

1: Bitcointalk doesn't support, oppose or care. There are bitcointalk members who support ponzis, participate in ponzis, oppose ponzis.
2: He is free to.
3: Only those in the previous trust level who have added the person to their trust list can remove him. This is done at his/her own discretion same as just can edit your trust list. You can remove cruptodevil from your trust list if you don't want in him in your trust network,

This whole thread and topic is just filled with... wow. So much logic has been presented by... Well, everyone except for OP.

The way I look at it is this. If people choose to participate in any of the investor-based games after heeding the warning by cryptodevil and many other members of the forums, then they willingly understand the risks involved, and (in a nutshell) deserve to get screwed over when the ponzis collapse. They've had fair warnings before they opted into the game.

Now, imagine if cryptodevil chose not to take his time to brigade and warn users of these potential threats and dangers. I joined the forums late last year, and I was one of the ones that fell victim to two of these ponzis (Coinbooster and Coin-GNT). If I had someone like cryptodevil around, I would not have lost as much as I did with these sites. And there were HUNDREDS, if not thousands, of victims from these sites. Now, anytime a new site pops up that looks like it may have potential, imagine the thousands and thousands of dollars saved by cryptodevil's actions of warning people against the risks of joining and promoting these ponzis. Yes, it always seems a bit over the top at first. But if you think about it in the long run, I'm willing to bet that cryptodevil has saved users from losing a collective amount of TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars in the past few months. Hell, that number may be even more.

Now, OP, by you stating that bctalk supports illegal ponzi schemes... All I have to say about that, based on your logic and argument within this thread: you haven't convinced me that they support these sites, which should be your job to do so if you're going to start such an accusation. So many other people are defending the website's POV when they do not need to. YOU need to provide evidence and facts if you're to get the average forum member like myself to believe you.

The only possible explanation to your situation is bias (due to the rating that you've received). You're the only one (in this particular thread) who thinks that this is the case, even though many have argued that it isn't. Take a look again at:

(In this case): Neither does theymos agree with them, nor support their actions.

That is a bad example because the staff does remove illegal content when we find it.

No actually, bitcointalk does not in any way endorse or support ponzi schemes. That board is getting less and less attention as the days go pass, because people are starting to realise themselves that they are scams, and nowhere near a legitimate forex trading company.

There is a big warning above your screen when you enter the gambling board. That applies for the investors based games as well. There are also a lot of helpful members of the forum that has started to issue warnings to people who participate and run ponzis. It seems like you're one of them, too.

out of arguments, huh. you are too proud to accept fail? Anyway how come i wasn't on your ignore list already.

FFS, you're an idiot. I'm putting you on ignore.

ok guys so now prove me wrong:

if i had a file sharing website, i would include the common bullshit in TOS like i'm not responsible for the content uploaded by users, i'd still have to take an action and remove the illegal content, right?

bitcointalk hosts the ponzi and scam content.

 

yeah, bitcointalk tolerates the ponzis, i agree Dredd

edit. take it easy, this is just my opinion and i have no law knowledge, and no time to look up the law's point of view. chill

No they do not. Unless you have evidence to show that this forum is hosting ponzi operations on its server or within its domain stop repeating that incredibly shonky fallacious reasoning.

There are also some ultra-right-wing racist and homophobic threads on this forum. Does that mean this forum supports them? No, it means the community can choose to challenge or ignore the shit that is posted in them.

Same for ponzi threads.

blah blah blah...let's cut the shit
Does bitcointalk.org make the ponzi shemes available to public? YES (promotion)
so as long the 'ponzi' board exists, bitcointalk.org promotes the ponzies and scams.
the forum staff don't moderate it so there is not any action against ponzi and scams taken by bitcointalk.org

but they'll just show up in other sections if removed

I rephrase what you say in a real life scenario, I haven't posted anything unrelated or twisted your words in this thread.

And posting a ponzi where it isn't meant to be is charged by having the topic moved/deleted.
To try and make it completely clear, let me try to explain my scenario again. I'll even put the forum equivalent in italics for you.
A person drops a piece of trash on the street (a member posts about a HYIP scheme on the forum). If this person were to drop it randomly on the street (If this member were to post it outside of the Investor-Based Games Sub-board) they would be told to pick it up and move it (The post would be moved to the Investor-Based Games Sub-board (the rubbish bin)). If this person were to put their rubbish in the trash can (The member is to post it in the Investor-Based Games Sub-board) then no punishment would be given.
Let's say that there wasn't a trash can around (The Investor-Based Games Sub-board didn't exist) then everyone would probably throw their litter all over the ground (The forum would be spammed with HYIP scams).
Do you understand why the Investor-Based Games Sub-board exists yet (AKA why the forum 'endorses' Ponzis)?


Thanks for posting what we're all trying to say. Maybe you do understand.

twisting words and posting unrelated scenarios is what you do, littering is charged by fine btw.

while " 19. Possible (or real) scams and Trust ratings are not moderated (to prevent moderation abuse). " on bitcointalk.org
source: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/unofficial-list-of-official-bitcointalkorg-rules-guidelines-faq-703657

Perhaps this thread isn't, however you clearly do not properly understand why the forum works how it does. Currently, it is obvious you are trying to run a smear campaign against the forum after you got negative consequences for your shady actions.

However, that is out of context. The quote "The government tolerates dropping litter on streets" sounds negative, until you learn that they tolerate it only if it is being dropped in a rubbish bin. Twisting people's words to try and stretch a valid point does not then make it the truth.

Personally I think this is a better quote, and I don't have to even take it out of context for it to be valid - "Bitcointalk User 'freedoge.co' condones pyramid scams". Perhaps you should promote that one a bit more; it would save you looking like even more of an ignorant idiot than you already do.

it's not about me understanding it ok so bitcointalk.org tolerates ponzi schemes, right?

does it sound positive to you?

Let's say that someone posts how much they hate theymos and how they want him dead. If theymos doesn't ban them, does that mean that he likes them? Does that mean that theymos agrees them? (Hint: No)

Tolerating something (as in, creating a trash can for it to not litter the rest of the forum) != condoning it. I really don't see what you are having such a hard time understanding about this.

Nothing, as scams are not moderated (and hopefully never will be).

^how about this crap you posted? explain your logic there

Maybe you should stop posting tendentious crap and read the replies you get.


That doesn't mean they are condoned.

Maybe everyone who is against ponzies should start to report every ponzi topic and every post in that topic to moderators, let's see what's gonna happen.

Scams aren't moderated because of the potential for bias. Meaning that if a mod hates someone and that someone opens a service without the intention to scam, the mod might pull down the service just to spite that someone. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.