If pirateat40 came on this forum after getting out of jail and started dissecting arguments of people he suspected of scamming--and all the while denying that he himself is a scammer--my guess is that he would get a collective STFU from the community. That's how I feel about quickseller. No credibility whatsoever, and the difference between the two is a matter of degree of course, but it's a similar scenario.
In any case, this is just fighting that shouldn't be happening. If we're so concerned about ponzis then the obvious solution is to ban them. What's the excuse why we don't do this again? And if they're not banned then everyone should back the F off. And I agree with vod that there should be disclosure but that's not happening. Just nuke ponzis. They will die off. I see so many of the older members defending the status quo around here, and it's nauseating. Not just about this, either but 'nuff said.
Topic: Dooglus is supporting ponzis - page 4. (Read 9858 times)
Vod do you think it is okay to help ponzis become more popular?
My stance is the same as Dooglus and Theymos - if a Ponzi scheme is presented in an honest fashion then it's not fraudulent.
The issue I have is most ponzis are not honest - they do not state that you will lose your money when the program collapses.
Even if a ponzi is obviously a ponzi, newbies may not know the risks. The risks need to be posted clearly on the ponzi. If they are, I consider it gambling, and have no problem with it.
Dooglus is respected.
At the end of the day Dooglus took a tool that ponzi operators use and improved by using his abilities to read and edit code to remove a few lines of code and making it easier for ponzi operators to scam. By being made aware of this behavior and withholding a negative rating you are defacto endorsing that it is okay to support, help and work for ponzis.
Vod do you think it is okay to help ponzis become more popular?
Respected by whom
and what for bullshitting?? side-stepping?? As with soooooooooo many on this board, he is just another fraud. It may be possible he was legit?? I am new and do not know, nor do I care. As far as this newbie is concerned........he is a participant in SCAMS. It is obvious to this newbie, the scam ponzi's that keep creeping up are the SAME GROUP of people, setting up scams in ponzi's, loans, sales, etc. My stance on this is that if a Ponzi scheme is presented in an honest fashion then it's not fraudulent.
Most Ponzi scams promise to double your money in a certain amount of time. They obviously aren't able to do this indefinitely, and so inevitably end up breaking their promise to at least some of the players.
This Ponzi tells you up front that at least some players will be making a loss.
I don't think it's fair to require that 100% of customers fully understand the terms up front. You can't expect 100% of people to understand anything at all, since there exist some incredibly unintelligent people. So long as the claims made are true, that seems to me to be enough. If people fail to understand those claims that's their own responsibility.
The quote about it being illegal to run a business where the income is only from new recruits doesn't apply I think. Ponzi schemes aren't generally funded by referrals, and many players player repeatedly. Obviously if nobody was ever "recruited" into playing a Ponzi then there would be no business, but the same could be said about any business. If a store never "recruited" any customers they wouldn't make any sales. That's not what the law is talking about. It's talking about schemes where you have to buy a membership to get involved.
One problem I see is that even though OP is being upfront about the way his Ponzi operates in this thread, he (or his friends) could well be promoting the same scheme elsewhere using dishonest ("double your money, every time!") claims, and we wouldn't know. But I guess in that case we negrate him there, and not here.
Most Ponzi scams promise to double your money in a certain amount of time. They obviously aren't able to do this indefinitely, and so inevitably end up breaking their promise to at least some of the players.
This Ponzi tells you up front that at least some players will be making a loss.
I don't think it's fair to require that 100% of customers fully understand the terms up front. You can't expect 100% of people to understand anything at all, since there exist some incredibly unintelligent people. So long as the claims made are true, that seems to me to be enough. If people fail to understand those claims that's their own responsibility.
The quote about it being illegal to run a business where the income is only from new recruits doesn't apply I think. Ponzi schemes aren't generally funded by referrals, and many players player repeatedly. Obviously if nobody was ever "recruited" into playing a Ponzi then there would be no business, but the same could be said about any business. If a store never "recruited" any customers they wouldn't make any sales. That's not what the law is talking about. It's talking about schemes where you have to buy a membership to get involved.
One problem I see is that even though OP is being upfront about the way his Ponzi operates in this thread, he (or his friends) could well be promoting the same scheme elsewhere using dishonest ("double your money, every time!") claims, and we wouldn't know. But I guess in that case we negrate him there, and not here.
Dooglus is respected.
At the end of the day Dooglus took a tool that ponzi operators use and improved by using his abilities to read and edit code to remove a few lines of code and making it easier for ponzi operators to scam. By being made aware of this behavior and withholding a negative rating you are defacto endorsing that it is okay to support, help and work for ponzis.
Vod do you think it is okay to help ponzis become more popular?
Quickseller, give it up.
Dooglus is respected. You are not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMTAUr3Nm6I
Dooglus is respected. You are not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMTAUr3Nm6I
It is very difficult to put a dollar figure on the amount of money that was stolen as a result of dooglus's help (only in relation to his coding of a ponzi script) because it is not public information when someone uses his script.
I keep telling you. I don't and didn't code a Ponzi script. I removed some broken code from an existing Ponzi script.
The correct answer to the question "How much did dooglus steal?" is "nothing at all". But don't let that get in the way of your story telling.
You don't need to be the one who received the money in order for you to have helped third parties steal from others. 3 - IIRC, dooglus had made roughly 100BTC in profit between gambling at dicebitco.in and investing in their bankroll. This is when they were cheating their high rollers and stealing from their bankroll investors.
IIRC it was much less than that. I had a couple of good runs using Martingale betting but hit the inevitable losing streaks that put an end to it. Whether I won or lost doesn't seem to be relevant to whether I'm a scammer however, so what's your point? And I didn't play on their site once it came out that they were cheating their players. Why would I?
4 - Dooglus was downplaying the possibility of the operators of dicebitco.in being scammers up until very shortly before it was revealed they were scamming
This is completely false. I always said that I didn't know who they were and so had no way of knowing whether they were scammers or not. I was active in outing their scamming when Finile (was that his name?) first spotted the evidence.
You were also not active in outing dicebitco.in as being scammers as you were initially (url=http://archive.is/NWf4V]archive[/url] defending them.
I was just looking at my deposit address on the blockchain, and noticed that the amount was transferred to the address of https://btcgains.com/ central address. How is that site related to dicebitco?
If you think of it as "your" deposit address, you're probably going to make wrong assumptions. The address is owned by the site, and the coins you send to it can be used however they like. Most likely they were used to fund some other user's withdrawal.
The only thing that makes it "yours" is that coins sent to it are credited to your account on the site. After that, the coins may move to cold storage, but most likely they will be sent to a different player when he requests a withdrawal.
dooglus has a very long history of profiting from when other people have been scammed to the point of tens of thousands of dollars, and the amount of money stolen as a result of these scams is to the tune of millions of dollars.
I was lucky not to be scammed myself by those scammers,
In both cases there were warning signs. dicebitco.in were caught skipping bets, and dice.ninja stopped showing proof of solvency via their cold wallet. I posted about both of these things and withdrew my coins.
yet you twist the reality to try to make it look as if I was somehow to blame.
Or had advance knowledge of the scam, yet pushed (and advertised) the sites anyway. But this is off topic in this thread, it can be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3I had no advance knowledge. You have no evidence that I had any advance knowledge, and yet keep insinuating that I did.
For a brief time I advertised a couple of sites that appeared to be running an honest service. Later, there were warning signs that they might not be honest. I withdrew my coins and warned people about the sites.
How does any of that mesh with your theory that I was somehow complicit in the scams? It would make no sense for me to post anything negative about the sites if I was "in on" the scams.
You were defending dicebitco.in after it was revealed that they were skipping rolls. Once both of the sites had sufficient amounts of others' BTC it really did not matter what you posted one way or another. You knew that Kyle (the operator of the CLAM based ponzi) had stolen 25BTC from investors of his ICO/IPO
As I understand it he has paid the majority of his debt back and is working to pay back the rest. He strikes me as a good guy with some problems, trying to make things right.
Your own negative trust rating against Kyle says that he should not be trusted with other people's money/coins
You knew that Kyle was the person running the CLAM based ponzi
The CLAM based ponzi would need to be trusted with player's CLAMs in order to operate
When you became aware that the operator of this CLAM based ponzi was Kyle, you actively chose not to warn others not to trust this person
Instead of warning others not to trust Kyle, you instead helped him potentially become trusted with more of other people's money via helping edit the code of the ponzi script he was using
You knew that Kyle was the person running the CLAM based ponzi
The CLAM based ponzi would need to be trusted with player's CLAMs in order to operate
When you became aware that the operator of this CLAM based ponzi was Kyle, you actively chose not to warn others not to trust this person
Instead of warning others not to trust Kyle, you instead helped him potentially become trusted with more of other people's money via helping edit the code of the ponzi script he was using
I don't think it's a good idea for him to hold other people's money. He has shown in the past that he can't be trusted with it, and I'm not convinced that he wouldn't make the same mistake again in the future. Maybe he learned his lesson but I wouldn't be sure of it.
But despite that, the fact remains that he was indeed running a Ponzi scheme, and he was using a crappy open source PHP script to do it. The script had paid the first few players out twice each by mistake, and he had no idea why. He asked for my help in fixing the script and I gave it. I posted that I didn't think it was a good idea to be running the scheme, and that the staking rewards wouldn't pay for the returns. Having the script continue paying out incorrectly would be more likely to lead to the scheme defaulting than having it work right and so I decided to take a look at the script. After seeing how poorly coded it was I gave up and recommended he just stop using it.
At the end of the day you still helped improve a script designed to run a ponzi. This is a script that is designed to help someone hold other people's money. And at the end of the day, it is a script that is going to be used to help people steal other people's money. One should not value their position in DT more than exposing a scammer. Would you disagree?
I do agree that one should not value their position in the DT network more then exposing a scammer, but that does not mean that is how others value their own position in the DT network. I was speaking about how I believe other people are thinking, not how I am thinking myself. Sounds like a long-winded equivalent of "I made it up". Would you consider now the possibility that the lack of support for your accusations is being caused not by this "fear" but perhaps by the tenuous nature of said accusations?
There are pros and cons for it being public. For example discussing CiTM in the public before he was overthrown got you disavowed from DT and negative trusted. People can be unwilling to speak out at their own risk and also propagates people using smurfs.
4 - Dooglus was downplaying the possibility of the operators of dicebitco.in being scammers up until very shortly before it was revealed they were scamming
I was hanging out around dicebitco.in at that time and I know this to be the opposite of truth, to put it mildly. Dooglus was one of the few consistently warning about the dangers of these anonymous dice sites. Save me a lot of aggravation and some coins too.
Worried here this is going to one day be like everydice. Does anyone know the admin's identity or know their rep is as significant as Dooglus's was when he created Just-Dice?
EveryDice refunded everyone in full I believe.
Why would you worry about that?
"Why would you worry about [this being like the other site that refunded everyone]?"
Where do you see a problem with that statement?
A little off topic: in 2013-14, I lost quite a fuckton of money on just-dice.com. At first, I was mad at the website, its creator and everything. Now who's to blame, just-dice.com (or any other website I would have used if just-dice wasn't there) or me?
I realized that it was solely my mistake. Learned an expensive lesson, which is still very present in my mind, and I consider it valuable, because that former mistake protects me from making that very same mistake again.
Unless you are saying that dooglus/Just-Dice was cheating you when you lost your money then the comparison is not the same. If you were not cheated when you had your gambling losses then the results of each of your rolls were predetermined and your loosing bets would have been winning bets had you chosen "high" instead of "low" (or visa versa, whichever would have applied). What is the case with a ponzi on the other hand, is that there are certain circumstances in which a player should win, however the operator decides to run away with players' money, in other words the player looses when they "should have" won. The reason why this is so prevalent in happening is because of the fact that ponzi operators almost always have nearly zero prior reputation and ponzis are designed to hold an exponentially larger amount of others' money over a very short period of time.I realized that it was solely my mistake. Learned an expensive lesson, which is still very present in my mind, and I consider it valuable, because that former mistake protects me from making that very same mistake again.
Your logic is seriously flawed, dude.
Contributing to Open Source is a good thing, and if I were to partake in a ponzi scheme, I'd definitely prefer one which is open source, so I can see what the code does.
The players do not see the code in any way. It is only the operators that have anything to do with the code. The code is run entirely behind the scenes. Contributing to Open Source is a good thing, and if I were to partake in a ponzi scheme, I'd definitely prefer one which is open source, so I can see what the code does.
And when I see experienced coders contributing / fixing errors, I'd feel even better using it, because it increases chances that eventual payouts go to the address they're supposed to.
Except when the operators decide to simply send money to their own btc address stealing all the money that the players trusted the operator withNot the script itself makes it a scam.
No, it just helps scammers get more of other people's money. The script is just a transcripted form of the logic which already exists in the heads of many, many people. It's the intentions of those using the scripts. And if someone is clear about running a ponzi, warns about the risks and doesn't bullshit others with some "we generate money by trading" nonsense, I'm completely okay with it.
Like I said above, this is not what happens. But if they do bullshit others and eventually scam them, who's to blame? The one who used the gun and shot, the manufacturer, the shop which sold it, the government which created laws about possession of guns, or V/God* who created mankind in the first place?
When a gun manufacturer creates/produces a gun, there are several legitimate uses for said gun (eg self defense, hunting, ect.), and the vast majority of people who use such guns will use them for said legitimate uses, and a very small number of gun users/owners use guns for illegal/nefarious purposes. On the other hand, operators of ponzis almost always (when they are entrusted with other's money) will end up stealing from their players. There is a legitimate use for a ponzi script, however such use is almost never used. Question for those who neg ponzi script sellers:
I buy a ponzi script
Script's code is fucked so I fix it or pay someone to fix it
I decide to make the code available for FREE and upload to github so there is no excuse from ponzi owners not to pay because of bad coding, script was hacked and etc
Would I receive negative trust? Yes or no but please include why?
This is something I probably wouldn't do but I'm still interested in hearing what you all think.
I buy a ponzi script
Script's code is fucked so I fix it or pay someone to fix it
I decide to make the code available for FREE and upload to github so there is no excuse from ponzi owners not to pay because of bad coding, script was hacked and etc
Would I receive negative trust? Yes or no but please include why?
This is something I probably wouldn't do but I'm still interested in hearing what you all think.
I don't think I ever left feedback for anyone for selling a script, but I'll answer your question anyway.
If you buy any code on the understanding that you wouldn't publish it, but you do publish it, then I would see that as evidence that you aren't very trustworthy. You don't have the right to open-source somebody else's closed source code against their will.
I don't understand what you're saying about "no excuse not to pay".
Others have though. I'm pretty sure anyone else selling or releasing code that would benefit ponzi owners or their members would receive negative trust.
If I were to buy full rights to the code, fixed it up and released it.
I've seen ponzi owners blame bad code for not being able pay out, exploited code and etc.
But if they do bullshit others and eventually scam them, who's to blame? The one who used the gun and shot, the manufacturer, the shop which sold it, the government which created laws about possession of guns, or V/God* who created mankind in the first place?
You're right! We should be going after the authors of the PHP programming language itself. If they hadn't made their language available this evil script could never have existed. Surely they must have known their programming language was able to be used to implement scammy scripts and should therefore be held accountable for all the bad programs that exist due to their negligence.
Note for the hard of thinking: this is a joke; I am following the flawed QS logic to its natural conclusion.
[snip]
I did not miss that quote. The improved version of the script was not available prior to Dooglus making said improvements. Furthermore Dooglus helping code the ponzi enabled more ponzi scammers to be able to steal from others because they now have a better working script.
Most importantly, I believe that Dooglus knew the person behind the ponzi that he was helping is a known scammer, and in effect was providing a way for said known scammer to be able to be in possession of other people's money.
What would be more interesting: what do you say to the comparison of dooglus supposedly helping others scam by fixing a script vs. you offering forum accounts for sale, which are 90% of times being used to scam in any way?I did not miss that quote. The improved version of the script was not available prior to Dooglus making said improvements. Furthermore Dooglus helping code the ponzi enabled more ponzi scammers to be able to steal from others because they now have a better working script.
Most importantly, I believe that Dooglus knew the person behind the ponzi that he was helping is a known scammer, and in effect was providing a way for said known scammer to be able to be in possession of other people's money.
I think this kind of comparison is way more appropriate than the ISIS bomb nonsense you came up with, to be honest.
A little off topic: in 2013-14, I lost quite a fuckton of money on just-dice.com. At first, I was mad at the website, its creator and everything. Now who's to blame, just-dice.com (or any other website I would have used if just-dice wasn't there) or me?
I realized that it was solely my mistake. Learned an expensive lesson, which is still very present in my mind, and I consider it valuable, because that former mistake protects me from making that very same mistake again.
Your logic is seriously flawed, dude.
Contributing to Open Source is a good thing, and if I were to partake in a ponzi scheme, I'd definitely prefer one which is open source, so I can see what the code does. And when I see experienced coders contributing / fixing errors, I'd feel even better using it, because it increases chances that eventual payouts go to the address they're supposed to.
Not the script itself makes it a scam. The script is just a transcripted form of the logic which already exists in the heads of many, many people. It's the intentions of those using the scripts. And if someone is clear about running a ponzi, warns about the risks and doesn't bullshit others with some "we generate money by trading" nonsense, I'm completely okay with it.
But if they do bullshit others and eventually scam them, who's to blame? The one who used the gun and shot, the manufacturer, the shop which sold it, the government which created laws about possession of guns, or V/God* who created mankind in the first place?
QS, you're really making yourself look ridiculous here. What are we talking about, aren't there any real problems to be solved? And where is the facepalm smiley, ffs.
* Disclaimer: it is not my belief that mankind was created by god.
Question for those who neg ponzi script sellers:
I buy a ponzi script
Script's code is fucked so I fix it or pay someone to fix it
I decide to make the code available for FREE and upload to github so there is no excuse from ponzi owners not to pay because of bad coding, script was hacked and etc
Would I receive negative trust? Yes or no but please include why?
This is something I probably wouldn't do but I'm still interested in hearing what you all think.
I buy a ponzi script
Script's code is fucked so I fix it or pay someone to fix it
I decide to make the code available for FREE and upload to github so there is no excuse from ponzi owners not to pay because of bad coding, script was hacked and etc
Would I receive negative trust? Yes or no but please include why?
This is something I probably wouldn't do but I'm still interested in hearing what you all think.
I don't think I ever left feedback for anyone for selling a script, but I'll answer your question anyway.
If you buy any code on the understanding that you wouldn't publish it, but you do publish it, then I would see that as evidence that you aren't very trustworthy. You don't have the right to open-source somebody else's closed source code against their will.
I don't understand what you're saying about "no excuse not to pay".
...
I am sure Theymos could give a flying fuck about any of this, I was more referring to the trust ranger dictator squad. I understand that you don't really care about the code, but that is besides the point, you are teaching these loons that they can get what they want with this stalking obsessive behavior. IMO this could be better addressed by removing a few people from your trust list and giving users here some peace from the bored OCD stalkers on your down trust list rather than giving in to this nonsense. That seems to be more of the issue this is resulting from anyway. I think people care less about the fact that you modified this code and more about the fact that you have people in your trust list negging everyone left and right while the same rules don't apply to you personally. That is my impression of the complaints here other than those of Quickstalker.
Sooner or later the ones receiving negative trust will try and make their point over that.
Question for those who neg ponzi script sellers:
I buy a ponzi script
Script's code is fucked so I fix it or pay someone to fix it
I decide to make the code available for FREE and upload to github so there is no excuse from ponzi owners not to pay because of bad coding, script was hacked and etc
Would I receive negative trust? Yes or no but please include why?
This is something I probably wouldn't do but I'm still interested in hearing what you all think.
See also the constant "but that's nothing compared to what is coming in part 3" bullshit.
He would have led with his best foot forward - his first argument would have been his most damming.
"Why would you worry about [this being like the other site that refunded everyone]?"
Where do you see a problem with that statement?
Where do you see a problem with that statement?
He doesn't. He wants others to see the problem that he is hinting at but which doesn't really exist. It's how he operates. He has no evidence so he has to rely on this kind of half-truth.
See also the constant "but that's nothing compared to what is coming in part 3" bullshit.
One should not value their position in DT more than exposing a scammer. Would you disagree?
I do agree that one should not value their position in the DT network more then exposing a scammer, but that does not mean that is how others value their own position in the DT network. I was speaking about how I believe other people are thinking, not how I am thinking myself. Sounds like a long-winded equivalent of "I made it up". Would you consider now the possibility that the lack of support for your accusations is being caused not by this "fear" but perhaps by the tenuous nature of said accusations?
4 - Dooglus was downplaying the possibility of the operators of dicebitco.in being scammers up until very shortly before it was revealed they were scamming
I was hanging out around dicebitco.in at that time and I know this to be the opposite of truth, to put it mildly. Dooglus was one of the few consistently warning about the dangers of these anonymous dice sites. Save me a lot of aggravation and some coins too.
Judging by the factual tone of your statements it shouldn't be hard to provide extensive proof/links. Why are you not doing that?
Worried here this is going to one day be like everydice. Does anyone know the admin's identity or know their rep is as significant as Dooglus's was when he created Just-Dice?
EveryDice refunded everyone in full I believe.
Why would you worry about that?
"Why would you worry about [this being like the other site that refunded everyone]?"
Where do you see a problem with that statement?
If you only exclude someone from your trust list after they start questioning you (and nearly immediately thereof, and reasonably was aware of such prior squabbles prior to being questioned), then even if such personal squabbles are being arbitrated via the trust system, that is not the reason for the exclusion, the reason for the exclusion is to silence your critics and to warn others against speaking out against you.
I excluded BAC from my trust network shortly after he started leaving unwarranted negative feedback against all the CLAM developers. His feedback was no longer correct or useful and so I excluded it. That is what exclusion is for.
It is very difficult to put a dollar figure on the amount of money that was stolen as a result of dooglus's help (only in relation to his coding of a ponzi script) because it is not public information when someone uses his script.
I keep telling you. I don't and didn't code a Ponzi script. I removed some broken code from an existing Ponzi script.
The correct answer to the question "How much did dooglus steal?" is "nothing at all". But don't let that get in the way of your story telling.
1 - People have been labeled as scammers in the past for wearing signatures of scam/ponzi sites.
I have never knowingly worn the signature of a scam or Ponzi site. I did were signatures for 2 dice sites that ended up being scams, but I had no idea they were scams while I was wearing the signatures, and stopped wearing them as soon as I became concerned about the possibility of foul play.
2 - I don't think that receiving the .4BTC (or whatever few hundred dollar equivalent amount) in exchange for wearing the signature of a website that eventually turns out to be a scam would make you a scammer
That's my point. If you advertise an obvious Ponzi scam then you cannot reasonably claim you don't know you're advertising a scam. If you advertise what appears to be a regular dice site that eventually scams people I think that is quite different.
3 - IIRC, dooglus had made roughly 100BTC in profit between gambling at dicebitco.in and investing in their bankroll. This is when they were cheating their high rollers and stealing from their bankroll investors.
IIRC it was much less than that. I had a couple of good runs using Martingale betting but hit the inevitable losing streaks that put an end to it. Whether I won or lost doesn't seem to be relevant to whether I'm a scammer however, so what's your point? And I didn't play on their site once it came out that they were cheating their players. Why would I?
4 - Dooglus was downplaying the possibility of the operators of dicebitco.in being scammers up until very shortly before it was revealed they were scamming
This is completely false. I always said that I didn't know who they were and so had no way of knowing whether they were scammers or not. I was active in outing their scamming when Finile (was that his name?) first spotted the evidence.
5 - Much more information on this topic will come in Chapter 3
I can hardly wait.
Worried here this is going to one day be like everydice. Does anyone know the admin's identity or know their rep is as significant as Dooglus's was when he created Just-Dice?
EveryDice refunded everyone in full I believe.
Why would you worry about that?
Is that your evidence of me downloading the risk of them scamming?
I am saying that worrying about them turning out like a site that didn't scam isn't something to worry about. That is not the same as saying there is nothing else to worry about. Of course there is always a risk when trusting third parties with your money.
dooglus has a very long history of profiting from when other people have been scammed to the point of tens of thousands of dollars, and the amount of money stolen as a result of these scams is to the tune of millions of dollars.
I was lucky not to be scammed myself by those scammers,
In both cases there were warning signs. dicebitco.in were caught skipping bets, and dice.ninja stopped showing proof of solvency via their cold wallet. I posted about both of these things and withdrew my coins.
yet you twist the reality to try to make it look as if I was somehow to blame.
Or had advance knowledge of the scam, yet pushed (and advertised) the sites anyway. But this is off topic in this thread, it can be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3I had no advance knowledge. You have no evidence that I had any advance knowledge, and yet keep insinuating that I did.
For a brief time I advertised a couple of sites that appeared to be running an honest service. Later, there were warning signs that they might not be honest. I withdrew my coins and warned people about the sites.
How does any of that mesh with your theory that I was somehow complicit in the scams? It would make no sense for me to post anything negative about the sites if I was "in on" the scams.
He also has a long history of hacking sites, and other transgressions that I intend on exposing, and preventing others from getting scammed similarly in the future.
More weasel words. You know how the word "hacking" has both ethical and blackhat meanings. I have never "hacked" a site in the way you are implying. I have found vulnerabilities in sites and reported them to the site owners.
The vulnerabilities were visible to anyone with a brain. You do not need permission to notice things. It's not like I went looking for them. I noticed that the sites were open to abuse by unethical people and responsibly disclosed the vulnerabilities to the sites. You somehow want to turn that into evidence against me? Go ahead!
You knew that Kyle (the operator of the CLAM based ponzi) had stolen 25BTC from investors of his ICO/IPO
As I understand it he has paid the majority of his debt back and is working to pay back the rest. He strikes me as a good guy with some problems, trying to make things right.
Your own negative trust rating against Kyle says that he should not be trusted with other people's money/coins
You knew that Kyle was the person running the CLAM based ponzi
The CLAM based ponzi would need to be trusted with player's CLAMs in order to operate
When you became aware that the operator of this CLAM based ponzi was Kyle, you actively chose not to warn others not to trust this person
Instead of warning others not to trust Kyle, you instead helped him potentially become trusted with more of other people's money via helping edit the code of the ponzi script he was using
You knew that Kyle was the person running the CLAM based ponzi
The CLAM based ponzi would need to be trusted with player's CLAMs in order to operate
When you became aware that the operator of this CLAM based ponzi was Kyle, you actively chose not to warn others not to trust this person
Instead of warning others not to trust Kyle, you instead helped him potentially become trusted with more of other people's money via helping edit the code of the ponzi script he was using
I don't think it's a good idea for him to hold other people's money. He has shown in the past that he can't be trusted with it, and I'm not convinced that he wouldn't make the same mistake again in the future. Maybe he learned his lesson but I wouldn't be sure of it.
But despite that, the fact remains that he was indeed running a Ponzi scheme, and he was using a crappy open source PHP script to do it. The script had paid the first few players out twice each by mistake, and he had no idea why. He asked for my help in fixing the script and I gave it. I posted that I didn't think it was a good idea to be running the scheme, and that the staking rewards wouldn't pay for the returns. Having the script continue paying out incorrectly would be more likely to lead to the scheme defaulting than having it work right and so I decided to take a look at the script. After seeing how poorly coded it was I gave up and recommended he just stop using it.
This sounds vaguely familiar to me for some strange reason
Because you have somehow got it into your head that I'm doing bad things, and so you see everything I do in the same light.
Capitulating to these stalkers and trust dictators only feeds their behavior. This was a bad move IMO. ...
You in effect just paid the ransom to the people who are trying to kidnap your reputation, and now they will want more, and more, and more, and when there is nothing more left to take they will just kill your rep anyway.
You in effect just paid the ransom to the people who are trying to kidnap your reputation, and now they will want more, and more, and more, and when there is nothing more left to take they will just kill your rep anyway.
BAC left Dooglus a negative rating and Dooglus excluded BAC from his trust list, which puts him close to being out of the DT network. Dooglus excluded me around the time I was questioning him about his reputation loan to tspacepilot, and while I was still on BadBear's and Tomatocage's trust list.
I'm still not seeing a problem. If someone values their position in DT more than exposing a scammer that's really not the right example to bring up here. Not to mention that neither one of you was harmed in any way by the exclusion, the trust system worked as it was supposed to.
No, I don't think it's a problem. For example I'm excluding people who I think are using the trust system to arbitrate their personal squabbles (so I can't rely on their trust ratings) and I don't think there is any problem with that even if they happen to leave me negative feedback or question me. It's an essential feature of the trust system and two DT1 exclusions are needed for a DT2 member so I'm still failing to see how that could prevent anyone from speaking out against a scammer.
One should not value their position in DT more than exposing a scammer. Would you disagree?
I do agree that one should not value their position in the DT network more then exposing a scammer, but that does not mean that is how others value their own position in the DT network. I was speaking about how I believe other people are thinking, not how I am thinking myself. You don't think that coding a script for a ponzi is not support for a ponzi? That sounds like the definition of supporting a ponzi to me. Without the help of dooglus, any ponzi that was using the script in question would not have been able to steal money from others.
I think that's the part that's missing from your scam accusation. How much did dooglus steal?One known instance of when a ponzi was using the script that dooglus fixed is here (archive). The amount stolen via this ponzi is unclear looking at the blockchain, especially considering there was never a deposit address posted. There were a couple of different addresses that people were posting that they had sent to. There were claims that the ponzi in question had run away with .5 BTC (which would mean that it had unmet obligations of 1 BTC since it promised to double the amount deposited), and at one point there was a post claiming there was a queue of ~.69 BTC (which would equal unmet obligations totaling 1.38 BTC).
minifrij-
You don't think that coding a script for a ponzi is not support for a ponzi?
Fixing a bug in a script != coding a script. I've fixed bugs in scripts previously, I cannot then put that on my portfolio and imply that I made it.No, you cannot fix a bug and then imply that you made the entire script, however you can (accurately) say that you contributed to said script.
Without the help of dooglus, any ponzi that was using the script in question would not have been able to steal money from others.
You're over exaggerating again. Do you really think that the 5 lines doog fixed were so detrimental to the script that it would have rendered the script unusable? I can almost guarantee that the script was used prior to dooglus' involvement, and had been used to steal money from others. Trying to argue that he had such a large effect on the script is stupid, as it is plainly obvious he didn't.Any Ponzi actually using the script would have quicky realised they were paying the wrong people. It takes very little effort by anyone with familiarity of coding and Bitcoin to locate and remove the error in the script
You could argue that the bug in question was trivial, however it was non-trivial enough to have remained in the code for >a year. Also The number of people that have the ability to code on here is very limited. I do not dispute the fact that the script was used to scam people prior to dooglus's involvement, however I believe that dooglus's involvement has allowed ponzi operators (or could potentially allow ponzi operators) to steal larger amounts of others' money. See my explanation below:
dooglus has a very long history of profiting from when other people have been scammed to the point of tens of thousands of dollars...
I would ask for evidence, though I can already tell you're just going to bring up the dicebitco.in signature campaign again.2 - I don't think that receiving the .4BTC (or whatever few hundred dollar equivalent amount) in exchange for wearing the signature of a website that eventually turns out to be a scam would make you a scammer
3 - IIRC, dooglus had made roughly 100BTC in profit between gambling at dicebitco.in and investing in their bankroll. This is when they were cheating their high rollers and stealing from their bankroll investors.
4 - Dooglus was downplaying the possibility of the operators of dicebitco.in being scammers up until very shortly before it was revealed they were scamming
5 - Much more information on this topic will come in Chapter 3
Worried here this is going to one day be like everydice. Does anyone know the admin's identity or know their rep is as significant as Dooglus's was when he created Just-Dice?
EveryDice refunded everyone in full I believe.
Why would you worry about that?
dooglus -
dooglus has a very long history of profiting from when other people have been scammed to the point of tens of thousands of dollars, and the amount of money stolen as a result of these scams is to the tune of millions of dollars.
--snip--
I was lucky not to be scammed myself by those scammers,
yet you twist the reality to try to make it look as if I was somehow to blame.
Or had advance knowledge of the scam, yet pushed (and advertised) the sites anyway. But this is off topic in this thread, it can be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3He also has a long history of hacking sites, and other transgressions that I intend on exposing, and preventing others from getting scammed similarly in the future.
More weasel words. You know how the word "hacking" has both ethical and blackhat meanings. I have never "hacked" a site in the way you are implying. I have found vulnerabilities in sites and reported them to the site owners.
Given the fact that the clambaker site was closed only after it had fully refunded the remaining waiting payments and no one lost anything on it besides the owner paying out the remaining investments out of pocket your scam accusation and shitposting is absolutely unwarranted and frankly you have no ground to stand on with your accusation.
So do you admit that you were behind this ponzi? Or are you just speculating that no one lost any money via the clambaker ponzi?
This is the Klye that first showed me the Ponzi script he was using, yes. Are there multiple Klye's in this space?
- You knew that Kyle (the operator of the CLAM based ponzi) had stolen 25BTC from investors of his ICO/IPO
- Your own negative trust rating against Kyle says that he should not be trusted with other people's money/coins
- You knew that Kyle was the person running the CLAM based ponzi
- The CLAM based ponzi would need to be trusted with player's CLAMs in order to operate
- When you became aware that the operator of this CLAM based ponzi was Kyle, you actively chose not to warn others not to trust this person
- Instead of warning others not to trust Kyle, you instead helped him potentially become trusted with more of other people's money via helping edit the code of the ponzi script he was using
- This sounds vaguely familiar to me for some strange reason
...
I am sure Theymos could give a flying fuck about any of this, I was more referring to the trust ranger dictator squad. I understand that you don't really care about the code, but that is besides the point, you are teaching these loons that they can get what they want with this stalking obsessive behavior. IMO this could be better addressed by removing a few people from your trust list and giving users here some peace from the bored OCD stalkers on your down trust list rather than giving in to this nonsense. That seems to be more of the issue this is resulting from anyway. I think people care less about the fact that you modified this code and more about the fact that you have people in your trust list negging everyone left and right while the same rules don't apply to you personally. That is my impression of the complaints here other than those of Quickstalker.
I have pushed a commit to my fork of the CryptoPonzi repository removing all the code and editing the README to say not to use the code.
https://github.com/dooglus/CryptoPonzi
https://github.com/dooglus/CryptoPonzi
Capitulating to these stalkers and trust dictators only feeds their behavior. This was a bad move IMO. Almost no one was buying this bullshit, and the ones that were seemingly were simply opposed to the people within your trust list who are trying to dictate to everyone else what they can and can not do here based on their own personal preferences, not the forum rules. This is totally antithetical to what Bitcoin was created for.
I know, it makes no sense to remove the code given that it all already exists and existed before I forked it, but if this makes people happy then so be it.
I have no interest in a crappy PHP Ponzi script anyway. I only looked at it because Klye asked for my help debugging the script he was using, and we both ended up concluding that the script is beyond help.
If it was a project I actually cared about then it would be different.
This is why this forum is shit, because all that one needs to do is gangstalk the more reputable members and they capitulate out of fear of losing their position in the trust system. In effect anyone within the trust system is either corrupt or spineless and stands for nothing. If you stand for nothing, you fall for everything. You in effect just paid the ransom to the people who are trying to kidnap your reputation, and now they will want more, and more, and more, and when there is nothing more left to take they will just kill your rep anyway.
I have no fear of losing my position in the trust system. If theymos wants to remove me from DT I won't miss it. It would be a shame if he takes it away based on QS' trouble making, rather than because I actually did anything wrong, but I doubt that would happen. QS has been making trouble for me for a year or so now. If theymos was going to fall for his lies and manipulations I'm thinking he would have already done so.
Boy it sure stinks like butthurt in here. You all know who I'm talking about. Be a little more transparent, why don't ya?
Jump to: