Pages:
Author

Topic: Do not trust suchmoon, a blatant trust abuser. (Read 2386 times)

full member
Activity: 626
Merit: 234
September 21, 2020, 01:22:57 PM
Yes ladies and gentlemen, suchmoon has a habit of providing a way out for suspected extortionists and self admitted account sellers and ICO money collectors. I'd suggest to read their left positive and negative feedbacks to see what I mean, they'd silent people like me who'd try to help the powerless forum members and they'd try to counter valid red tags to provide a cover so that certain people could hide their shady activities.
It's not a secret. Suchmooon is a trust abuser, troll & escrow scammer. Suchmoon should be banned
legendary
Activity: 2772
Merit: 3284
Who is asking money from tagged exposed scammers and do you have proof of this statement?

digaran was  Roll Eyes
sr. member
Activity: 714
Merit: 254
why is BitcoinTalk (their staff) started to give negative trust to ICO's which dont want to pay racketeering?

Quote
Your "friend" has a banned account or is using a VPN/Tor exit node that a banned user has used.

So if he pays (racketeering), his IP will be magically unbanned?
What the fuck first statement has to do with second?

Who is asking money from tagged exposed scammers and do you have proof of this statement?

Which staff member? Troll of.

eat a (bag of) dick(s) ass-kisser

either you are incredibly stupid or you are a complete idiot

lol
legendary
Activity: 1932
Merit: 2272
why is BitcoinTalk (their staff) started to give negative trust to ICO's which dont want to pay racketeering?

Quote
Your "friend" has a banned account or is using a VPN/Tor exit node that a banned user has used.

So if he pays (racketeering), his IP will be magically unbanned?
What the fuck first statement has to do with second?

Who is asking money from tagged exposed scammers and do you have proof of this statement?

Which staff member? Troll of.
member
Activity: 80
Merit: 10
DAMN SON!
Lol
At least you are laughing, the humor is effective.

Oh anyway,
No audience to clap u for that fake humor.
It's still a violation of PayPal's Acceptable Use Policy and on top of that you're violating PayPal's User Agreement, which does not allow the use of the Friends and Family option for goods and services.

Care to dig your hole a little deeper? I hope we end up in Australia, always wanted to visit.

*clap
sr. member
Activity: 714
Merit: 254
Eureca!

Thats why I dont buy bitcoin directly from a Paypal account. It is known that Paypal can limit your account when you PURCHASE crypto with it.

The payment is sent as Family and friends - which is  considered as a gift (sending money TO FAMILY AND FRIENDS) , not a purchase.

See, you dont have a clue.


Oh, you are so considered about my (imaginary) counterparty, you are such a sweetheart (read, hypocrite).

It's still a violation of PayPal's Acceptable Use Policy and on top of that you're violating PayPal's User Agreement, which does not allow the use of the Friends and Family option for goods and services.

Care to dig your hole a little deeper? I hope we end up in Australia, always wanted to visit.

Stop trying.

Going to bed.

No audience to clap u for that fake humor.

Lol
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
Eureca!

Thats why I dont buy bitcoin directly from a Paypal account. It is known that Paypal can limit your account when you PURCHASE crypto with it.

The payment is sent as Family and friends - which is  considered as a gift (sending money TO FAMILY AND FRIENDS) , not a purchase.

See, you dont have a clue.


Oh, you are so considered about my (imaginary) counterparty, you are such a sweetheart (read, hypocrite).

It's still a violation of PayPal's Acceptable Use Policy and on top of that you're violating PayPal's User Agreement, which does not allow the use of the Friends and Family option for goods and services.

Care to dig your hole a little deeper? I hope we end up in Australia, always wanted to visit.
sr. member
Activity: 714
Merit: 254
Nope, you dont have a clue.

Dont be full of yourself.

Even fuckin Paypal employee said what Im saying.

So, im not lying, you are just delusional and power-drunk.

And Im glad that every sane person now can see that.

I rest my case.

It doesn't matter what you're saying. Your counterparty has no way to ensure that no dispute or chargeback will be filed by the sender. Also there are other scenarios where the counterparty can be at risk, such as your account being suspended for policy violations, which is likely to happen if you use it to buy bitcoins.


Eureca!

Thats why I dont buy bitcoin directly from a Paypal account. It is known that Paypal can limit your account when you PURCHASE crypto with it.

The payment is sent as Family and friends - which is  considered as a gift (sending money TO FAMILY AND FRIENDS) , not a purchase.

See, you dont have a clue.


Oh, you are so considered about my (imaginary) counterparty, you are such a sweetheart (read, hypocrite).
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
Nope, you dont have a clue.

Dont be full of yourself.

Even fuckin Paypal employee said what Im saying.

So, im not lying, you are just delusional and power-drunk.

And Im glad that every sane person now can see that.

I rest my case.

It doesn't matter what you're saying. Your counterparty has no way to ensure that no dispute or chargeback will be filed by you. Also there are other scenarios where the counterparty can be at risk, such as your account being suspended for policy violations, which is likely to happen if you use it to buy bitcoins.
sr. member
Activity: 714
Merit: 254
Well you don't have a clue obviously about Paypal.

Transaction will be (would be) sent from Paypal balance (which i can screenshot - but hey wtf, its like im convicted for murder or something, i have to prooof everything, even to  people not at all interested in doing the transaction with me - for what reason - thought police?), not from cc or bank account - so if you had a clue, you would know that this is not reversible.

I know PayPal quite well, done a lot of business with it. Your screenshot is meaningless, as is your escrow. Again, the fact that you're still blatantly lying about this extremely risky transaction makes you a scammer.

BTW, never heard of anybody being banned here.

https://bitcointalk.org/modlog.php

Nope, you dont have a clue.

Dont be full of yourself.

Even fuckin Paypal employee said what Im saying.

So, im not lying, you are just delusional and power-drunk.

And Im glad that every sane person now can see that.

I rest my case.
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
Well you don't have a clue obviously about Paypal.

Transaction will be (would be) sent from Paypal balance (which i can screenshot - but hey wtf, its like im convicted for murder or something, i have to prooof everything, even to  people not at all interested in doing the transaction with me - for what reason - thought police?), not from cc or bank account - so if you had a clue, you would know that this is not reversible.

I know PayPal quite well, done a lot of business with it. Your screenshot is meaningless, as is your escrow. Again, the fact that you're still blatantly lying about this extremely risky transaction makes you a scammer.

BTW, never heard of anybody being banned here.

https://bitcointalk.org/modlog.php
sr. member
Activity: 714
Merit: 254
So Bitify is no sane escrow?

Of course it's bullshit. PayPal transactions can be reversed within 180 days. Credit card chargebacks can happen within a similar timeframe.

So if he pays (racketeering), his IP will be magically unbanned?  Cheesy

No, but his account will be allowed to proceed. It's a measure against serial offenders.

This has nothing to with me though, so stay focused on your primary objective here.

Well you don't have a clue obviously about Paypal.

Transaction will be (would be) sent from Paypal balance (which i can screenshot - but hey wtf, its like im convicted for murder or something, i have to prooof everything, even to  people not at all interested in doing the transaction with me - for what reason - thought police?), not from cc or bank account - so if you had a clue, you would know that this is not reversible.
Quote
No, but his account will be allowed to proceed.


OMG i cant choose which is it - a total lie or a total bullshit


It is said once a member pay a fee, he will be whitelisted.

So, no matter how serious offender you are, you will be welcomed again on Bitcointalk, once u payed




BTW, never heard of anybody being banned here.

legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
So Bitify is no sane escrow?

Of course it's bullshit. PayPal transactions can be reversed within 180 days. Credit card chargebacks can happen within a similar timeframe.

So if he pays (racketeering), his IP will be magically unbanned?  Cheesy

No, but your new account will be allowed to proceed. It's a measure against serial offenders.

This has nothing to with me though, so stay focused on your primary objective here.
sr. member
Activity: 714
Merit: 254


No sane escrow would touch PayPal. The fact that you keep repeating this makes you a scammer.



So Bitify is no sane escrow?



https://bitify.com/bitify-escrow-service/

LOL

u r funny, i give u that



Quote
The fact that you keep repeating this makes you a scammer.

Really, how old r u?

Just read what u wrote...again and again.



Quote
Your "friend" has a banned account or is using a VPN/Tor exit node that a banned user has used.

So if he pays (racketeering), his IP will be magically unbanned?  Cheesy



Quote
Your account contains 668.76 units of evil. To atone, you must pay a total of 0.00188544 bitcoins (1.88544 mBTC; 188544 satoshi). Pay to the address 3PV9nLSKstE9ZYYPDHzT4RypyswbWNiJZu. Once you have paid the full amount, wait a few seconds and then reload this page. If the fee is so small that your wallet is unable to send it, you can send any larger amount, though you will not be refunded the difference.



you can send any larger amount, though you will not be refunded the difference

OMG, cant stop laughing

so, Im the scammer, right?
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
Joining the club - although i really dont take it to the heart

Left me red trust, conviniently, after my post on Scam Accusations topic

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.45146865

Huh?

Im here for almost 2 years, and I have 30 positive feedbacks on Bitify - name me one person I have scammed so far? Also provided written response from Paypal employee on subject - it was ignored - called me a scamer for wanting to pay first, to do business with trusted members only and to use well known escrow (not his/hers)?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.45094694

No sane escrow would touch PayPal. The fact that you keep repeating this makes you a scammer.

And here is some material for thinking

why is BitcoinTalk (their staff) started to give negative trust to ICO's which dont want to pay racketeering?

Not sure what this has to do with me. I'm not "staff".

Also one of my friends tried to register - and they got a message that their IP is dangerous, and they should send BitcoinTalk some BTC to let them post?

https://i.imgur.com/D8RG6Lr.jpg

Your "friend" has a banned account or is using a VPN/Tor exit node that a banned user has used.

Why is BitcoinTalk supporting Cloudbet - which has 20+ unresolved scam accusations here?

Why are Hhampuz and suchmoon trying to silence users by giving them red trust?

I would only attempt to silence you if you step on my property and force me to stand my ground. My trust rating doesn't prevent you from speaking.
sr. member
Activity: 714
Merit: 254
Joining the club - although i really dont take it to the heart


Left me red trust, conviniently, after my post on Scam Accusations topic

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.45146865

Im here for almost 2 years, and I have 30 positive feedbacks on Bitify - name me one person I have scammed so far? Also provided written response from Paypal employee on subject - it was ignored - called me a scamer for wanting to pay first, to do business with trusted members only and to use well known escrow (not his/hers)?



https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.45094694


And here is some material for thinking

why is BitcoinTalk (their staff) started to give negative trust to ICO's which dont want to pay racketeering?

Also one of my friends tried to register - and they got a message that their IP is dangerous, and they should send BitcoinTalk some BTC to let them post?



Why is BitcoinTalk supporting Cloudbet - which has 20+ unresolved scam accusations here?

Why are Hhampuz and suchmoon trying to silence users by giving them red trust?



legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
Bumping for more visibility.

What was the response from Blazed?
copper member
Activity: 1330
Merit: 899
🖤😏
Bumping for more visibility.
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2374
The OP is offering to contest negative ratings the recipient feels is unjust, which has the potential to expose negative ratings given out for less than kosher reasons.

I would say any recipient of unjust negative trust has a better capability to contest the negative rating themselves. Including digaran would be counter-productive in this regard.
I agree, in most cases, it will be best to contest a negative rating yourself. However there are cases when this is not true, for example if you do not speak english very well, or if you are having trouble articulating an argument.

Exposing unjust ratings is not something to be regulated by a commissioned 3rd party; that is a community effort.
I would not say the type of service the OP is offering is regulating the contesting of unjust ratings in any way, the recipient is free to contest the rating himself.

Also on your point this being a community effort, I would agree, however I would also say the community has failed in this regard. The instances of cases in which contested ratings are really even discussed are few and far between. Most of the time, conversations about contested ratings both start and finish with "xx doesn't trust you, therefore the negative rating is valid" which in no way is looking into the legitimacy of the underlying rating.



The fact that someone is a shit poster is handled by the merit system, and handled by the fact that they will get banned if they post too much nonsense.

Not entirely handled, though, is it? I would say that some sort of assistance or augmentation is appropriate, such as tagging people you believe to be untrustworthy for maliciously spamming.
I would disagree. Someone breaking forum rules needs to be dealt with via the administration either themselves or via delegated authority of the moderators. Most instances of rule breaking are dealt with by giving the person some kind of warning -- be it a PM, a post being deleted or a temp ban -- and the person doesn't break the underlying rule again (or they don't after multiple warnings). A negative rating on the other hand is pretty much always going to be longer lasting than any warning, and in most instances will be permanent -- this will result in many people effectively being excluded from the community that probably should not be.

A negative rating would still be appropriate if there was a failed scam attempt, or if someone is showing signs they plan on attempting on scamming someone in the future.

Believing someone is untrustworthy and believing someone is going to scam are not necessarily one in the same. You can believe someone will betray your trust simply because they are unable to understand what would constitute "your trust"; there are endless subjective reasons to distrust someone. All of these are valid, in our system, as it is currently "enforced".

You have a small number of people who leave negative ratings for subjective reasons (that are often questionable), it just appears this is more widespread because of the vast number of ratings they hand out. In my prior post, I provided an example of when I received a negative rating for no reason other than I was calling out a scam attempt someone was engaged in. By the criteria that you can leave a negative rating because you "distrust" someone would mean you can leave a negative rating for someone calling out your scam attempt, and if this is acceptable, then those in the DT network get a free pass in scamming.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1123
The OP is offering to contest negative ratings the recipient feels is unjust, which has the potential to expose negative ratings given out for less than kosher reasons.

I would say any recipient of unjust negative trust has a better capability to contest the negative rating themselves. Including digaran would be counter-productive in this regard.
Exposing unjust ratings is not something to be regulated by a commissioned 3rd party; that is a community effort.


If we're being honest, the idea of the service is not invalid once it is polished; the problem is the methods digaran claims they would pursue, the misleading nature and the combination of their previous desire to extort scammers over feedback. With the proper contingencies, terms, disclosures and methods this service may have had a prayer. Similarly to how escrow services are acceptable, unless you attempt to do so with no trade history or build reputation through escrowing for your alts.


The fact that someone is a shit poster is handled by the merit system, and handled by the fact that they will get banned if they post too much nonsense.

Not entirely handled, though, is it? I would say that some sort of assistance or augmentation is appropriate, such as tagging people you believe to be untrustworthy for maliciously spamming.

A negative rating would still be appropriate if there was a failed scam attempt, or if someone is showing signs they plan on attempting on scamming someone in the future.

Believing someone is untrustworthy and believing someone is going to scam are not necessarily one in the same. You can believe someone will betray your trust simply because they are unable to understand what would constitute "your trust"; there are endless subjective reasons to distrust someone. All of these are valid, in our system, as it is currently "enforced".


Pages:
Jump to: