Topic: Do not trust suchmoon, a blatant trust abuser. (Read 2384 times)

It's not a secret. Suchmooon is a trust abuser, troll & escrow scammer. Suchmoon should be banned

digaran was 

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

either you are incredibly stupid or you are a complete idiot

lol

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.

At least you are laughing, the humor is effective.

Oh anyway,

*clap

Stop trying.

Going to bed.

No audience to clap u for that fake humor.

Lol

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.

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 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.

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.

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.


https://bitcointalk.org/modlog.php

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.


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.

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


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.

So Bitify is no sane escrow?



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

LOL

u r funny, i give u that




Really, how old r u?

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




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






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

OMG, cant stop laughing

so, Im the scammer, right?

Huh?


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


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


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


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.

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?

What was the response from Blazed?

Bumping for more visibility.

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.

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.



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.

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.

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.



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.


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".