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.
Topic: Cases of members with massive positive Trust that ended up scamming? (Read 1991 times)
January 05, 2015, 12:40:23 PM
January 05, 2015, 12:22:09 PM
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.)
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.
January 03, 2015, 03:48:33 AM
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 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.
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.
January 03, 2015, 03:29:10 AM
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 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.
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.
January 03, 2015, 03:00:28 AM
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 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.
January 03, 2015, 02:55:22 AM
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.
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.
January 02, 2015, 06:04:15 AM
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.
January 01, 2015, 07:37:53 PM
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.)
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.
January 01, 2015, 06:51:43 PM
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. 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.)
January 01, 2015, 05:58:01 PM
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.
January 01, 2015, 04:47:59 PM
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.
January 01, 2015, 07:32:38 AM
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.)
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!
January 01, 2015, 06:20:05 AM
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.)
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.)
January 01, 2015, 04:20:01 AM
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.
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://bitcointalksearch.org/user/bfl-44366
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/inaba-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.
January 01, 2015, 04:16:49 AM
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.
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://bitcointalksearch.org/user/bfl-44366
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/inaba-8198
BFL, I should've thought of that.
Whats eclipse mining? (the 2nd one)
December 31, 2014, 11:57:13 AM
You can't predict a trusted member's breaking point. Let's not lie, most people would break if they had $1 million trusted to them and could scam anonymously. Some would at $500,000. Some would at $100,000. And some do at $1,000. All you can do is not trust someone with more than you'd be comfortable to lose. Obviously more trust makes the breaking point higher, and there are a few people who will never break, but a lot of people will unfortunately.
I think Douglas had 50 million dollars worth of Bitcoin in just dice cold storage at one point. You are right though. Most people have a point where they will not be honest when trusted with a certain amount of money. This point is usually lower when their identity would not be associated with the theft however the irreversible nature of Bitcoin makes it so any stolen money cannot be recovered even if the person is caught
December 31, 2014, 11:39:26 AM
You can't predict a trusted member's breaking point. Let's not lie, most people would break if they had $1 million trusted to them and could scam anonymously. Some would at $500,000. Some would at $100,000. And some do at $1,000. All you can do is not trust someone with more than you'd be comfortable to lose. Obviously more trust makes the breaking point higher, and there are a few people who will never break, but a lot of people will unfortunately.
December 31, 2014, 11:26:59 AM
I was wondering if there has been cases of bitcointalk members that had a massive positive trust but ended up scamming themselves?
Maybe cases of the account being hacked or sold?
Maybe cases of the account being hacked or sold?
A Trusted member is a trusted member & Scammer stays a scamme . he can't be Trusted to turn into a scammer unless he is a Scammer on the first place and he just want to scam high amounts of money .
But Basically and most of them people either sells their accounts on the forum or simply get hacked
So what about TradeFortress, his account wasn't stolen or hacked AFAIK. If the was hacked, he would definitely post here about it. Try not to post things which you don't know but humans do make mistakes.
~~MZ~~
Read again what I said mate , so basically I wouldn't call him "Trusted" member , he just got trust from a lot of people . maybe he was simply pretending that he is trusted to he scam higher amounts of money later .
December 31, 2014, 11:21:20 AM
All of the major scams were orchestrated by members with high trust ratings.* Those ratings eventually fell, just like TF's, but only after the traps were already shut.
*The trust system is about a year old, so I'm talking about the scams which happened with the trust system in place.
*The trust system is about a year old, so I'm talking about the scams which happened with the trust system in place.
So what about TradeFortress, his account wasn't stolen or hacked AFAIK.
Nor was Ukyo's, nor cryptocyprus' (Danny Brewster/Neo Bee), Garr255, KSlaughter, etc., etc. All the major scams were done by trusted members as long as the trust system was in place.
Are you trying to conclude it is due to TRUST SYSTEM? You are probably an old user or you are an alt of ... ?
~~MZ~~
I'm not trying to do anything. What I am doing is pointing out that "All the major scams were done by trusted members as long as the trust system was in place."
Not sure why this needs to be explained.
My being an alt of another user is irrelevant - having alts is a standard practice on this forum. Because freedoms. If you feel alt accounts should not be allowed, petition Theymos/mods.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 506
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
December 31, 2014, 11:15:58 AM
All of the major scams were orchestrated by members with high trust ratings.* Those ratings eventually fell, just like TF's, but only after the traps were already shut.
*The trust system is about a year old, so I'm talking about the scams which happened with the trust system in place.
*The trust system is about a year old, so I'm talking about the scams which happened with the trust system in place.
So what about TradeFortress, his account wasn't stolen or hacked AFAIK.
Nor was Ukyo's, nor cryptocyprus' (Danny Brewster/Neo Bee), Garr255, KSlaughter, etc., etc. All the major scams were done by trusted members as long as the trust system was in place.
Are you trying to conclude it is due to TRUST SYSTEM? You are probably an old user or you are an alt of ... ?
~~MZ~~
Jump to: