Topic: Dooglus is supporting ponzis - page 5. (Read 9919 times)

The only one who was asking for the script to be removed was me so I'm not sure who you think you are referring to here. As for stalking, show me one other thread, any thread, outside of this one where I have even said anything negative about DT members.

Not once did I mention anything about anyone being removed from DT or that someone should get negged for something. All I want is that everyone be held accountable for implied rules on this forum.

His removal of the source means that there is one less place for scammers to get that script. It is a win-win for everyone, not sure why you would even bitch about it.

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.

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.

Great, thanks. One less way for folks to abuse that script.

Again, I didn't code a script. I removed some code from a pre-existing script.

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. To say that without my help no Ponzi using the script would have been able to use it to steal money is simply wrong.


Maybe you should clear this up. The way write it appears to imply that the people being scammed was somehow related to me profiting. I suspect that what you are referring to is when I played and invested at a couple of dice sites run by scammers. 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.


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.

Maybe you should get to exposing these "transgressions" rather than hinting at them. Let the people see that what you have amounts to a big pile of nothing.


This is the Klye that first showed me the Ponzi script he was using, yes. Are there multiple Klye's in this space?


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

Basically QS is gripping at straws to try and justify his petty arguments with other people.

What point? I don't see CD trying to distract from anything. If anything, by tagging those who take part in Ponzis he is bringing it closer to light.

Nice conspiracy. have you got any evidence towards that, or are you just trying to push the anti-CD circle-jerk more?

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.

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.

I would ask for evidence, though I can already tell you're just going to bring up the dicebitco.in signature campaign again.

Hey, remember when you worked directly with TF to try and get a lawsuit against Vod (where he sent you money towards it)? TF, someone who single-handedly stole over $1,500,000 (at current prices) from people using his services, sent money he stole from others directly to you?
Yeah me neither. What am I talking about, burn dooglus for advertising a site that scammed!

Really QS, this is starting to get a bit sad. Do you really have nothing better to do with your time than follow internet vendettas against people who don't trust you?

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.


Apples and cabbages, as we have already established that dooglus didn't neg BAC or yourself. I will say however that you still failed to address the major underlying flaw in your argument, which is:

One should not value their position in DT more than exposing a scammer. Would you disagree?


I think that's the part that's missing from your scam accusation. How much did dooglus steal?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13858034

Using my nifty Googling skills there is all sorts of info pertaining to the code that Dooglus fixed being used massively to scam people.

You are just showing how two faced you are. It isn't ok for new people to have anything to do with ponzis but its ok for DT users to host it as a repo on their github while it is actively being used to scam people with.

It's ok though, blocking you from my trust list as you can no longer be trusted to do what is right.
Next.

Logic fail.

He did not 'post about it' in the thread, he merely confirmed he had fixed some bugs and stated that the code was shit and shouldn't be used on a live system. That is not 'posting of your participation' in the ponzi.

I don't know, depends on whether I'm about at my desk when you do.

If you posted a link encouraging people to download it so they could run their own ponzi schemes, it would warrant tagging you. If you posted a link discussing the shonky code inside it, that is something else.

Next.

He is an obvious alt account which is solely made to troll or distract people from the point.It is also not a co-incidence that he is under doo.

I bet if someone else would have done such a thing then people would have made that person red in a matter of seconds.

Posting about it is worthy of a negative rating but hosting the source code is ok to do.

Curious, if I went and posted a thread with this same exact ponzi script linking to his github for download how long would it take before you would give me a negative rating?

Look what I found, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/double-cclub-yet-another-bitcoin-doubler-paid-1134-btc-1345741

Someone already has been negged by 2 default trust users here for using Dooglus's repod github of this script to scam people...


Seeing as you posted your little warning on that thread I take it you already knew this but chose to ignore it.

There is a very good possibility that this site, https://cryptospout.com/blowout/clam_blowout.html , is using the same script to operate their ponzi with as well.

Riggggght, so anybody on DT who adds somebody else is required to agree with absolutely everything they say? I must have missed that rule, can you point it out for me?

I was under the impression that adding someone to your trust list was because you generally trusted their ratings to be correct. But you're saying that isn't true, that there is a hidden rule somewhere which actually declares some kind of symbiotic morality requirement?

Dooglus and I have a different opinion on 'Honest' Ponzi schemes, that is all. Seeing as not many people bother trying to fly that particular approach to running their scam, asides from QS as 'Honestbit' who as a US resident is actually prohibited by law from operating and promoting his "Hey we're a Ponzi" Ponzi, it isn't something that comes up that often. So we generally do agree on most issues concerning ponzis, just not that one.

For a minor difference of opinion about this to draw the spittle-flecked rage of ponzi-whores is absurd.

QS, why don't you and your sock-puppets take a break from the internet for an hour or two. Take a shower, clean yourself up, go for a walk in the sunshine for a little while. It'll do you the power of good.

No,doo if you dont stop the person in your list and say you completely agree with him then you both are one appeal on this context but with different bodies or color's.


It's not what you think doo.The rule should be the same for one & all.Either you change your insanity on Ponzi or resign from the position you hold as you contradicted your own believes and principles. Doesn't matters if that was your interest or what but your action supported a Ponzi.

No you don't.You would have removed CD if you did.


Exactly.It's not bout the OP saying but doo supported a Ponzi.No loopholes 

Occasionally a sliver of light slides into the darkness, in this case it just happened to be the github repo of the ponzi script. Everything else he says is mostly full of shit.

Personally I couldn't care about ponzis as I stated earlier but due to the recent mass ruin of dozens of accounts that just happened to post in a ponzi thread I feel that everyone should be held accountable not just the new people.

The eggs don't add up that those who host ponzis and those who just make a simple post asking about a particular ponzi in a thread get negged by DT members but actually giving public access to a ponzi source code is ok. That just doesn't sound right to me.

Hell, I wouldn't even be posting here if I didn't catch the word Ponzi in the thread title, wouldn't even have read the thread.

Either that policy needs to change or it needs to be applied to everything related to ponzis with no exceptions to it. It is either ok, or it's not ok, there can't be any loopholes or 'overlooked' things.

Going back to QS, it most likely wont end for his part but any validity that he may have had with this thread would be gone if the github repo was just removed. He was full of shit while on DT and is still full of shit to this day.

You don't think it is a problem when someone excludes someone else when they are questioned or receive negative trust? Someone in dooglus's position can effectively since those criticizing them, and can create an environment in which people may be intimidated about questioning him, or agreeing with those that question him. You can also say that negative trust does not harm a person because it does not prevent them from trading with others. 

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.

---

---

cloverme --

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. 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.

---

---

MRKYLE --

responding to this in the correct thread

Right, "never" lol

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?


Hmmm, it doesn't look like you have admitted very much.

---

---

Anyone that has lost money as a result of the clambaker ponzi or any other ponzi that used the same script as listed/referenced in the OP can post here with the amount they lost.

I'm not. I didn't post much feedback at all recently.

You may be thinking of cryptodevil?


I'm not working for a Ponzi. I was looking at the Ponzi script that Klye was using many months ago and saw an obvious bug in it. There was an exclamation mark where there shouldn't be. So I forked the repository and removed the exclamation mark. I also deleted 5 lines of code that weren't needed. That is the sum total of my "contribution" to the script - I deleted 5 lines and an exclamation mark.

Here's the first line I deleted: https://github.com/dooglus/CryptoPonzi/commit/e71472

Here's the next 4 lines and the exclamation mark I deleted: https://github.com/dooglus/CryptoPonzi/commit/6b26cd

Pretty far fetched to call that "working for a Ponzi"!


My list members? What list? I don't harass anyone or force anyone to do or not to do anything. If you're referring again to cryptodevil, I think he is only tagging people who are promoting Ponzi schemes. It seems he and I disagree about the scaminess of "honest Ponzis" but overall I think he's doing a good thing in tagging Ponzi promoters.



I think you might be offtopic. This thread is for QS to make weird allegations about how I support Ponzis.


Again, you're mixing me up with someone else.


So don't. Stand up against abuse whenever you see it. I personally don't find it abuse when people who advertize Ponzi scams get negative feedback saying that they advertize Ponzi scams, but if you disagree you are welcome to stand up for the rights of the Ponzi scammers.


Klye was running an honest Ponzi, but using a crappy script to do so. He couldn't figure out what was going wrong with it, so I took a look. I fixed the first bug I found with it, then realised how crappy the script was and recommended that he should stop using it.


I agree completely.


What is being said here is that I am untrustworthy for fixing a bug in some open source code that I saw.

For me, fixing bugs in open source software is like picking up trash you see on the sidewalk. If everyone did it, we'd have better code and cleaner sidewalks for all. If I see some trash on the sidewalk outside of a known gangster's house I don't refuse to pick it up because someone might accuse me of "supporting" the gangster. I pick it up because it shouldn't be there no matter what. Dumb analogy. Whatever. Check my github account - I've forked lots of projects to make a one-off fix. That's how you make changes to github projects. Fork, edit, merge.


It isn't hard to delete the repo. The only reason I didn't delete it already is that QS would spin that into proof that I have something to hide.

Note that deleting the repo wouldn't "end this all together". No matter what I do QS will continue making a big deal out of this and other assorted imagined wrongdoings forever.

My only two changes:

https://github.com/dooglus/CryptoPonzi/commit/e71472 - Remove unused variable.


https://github.com/dooglus/CryptoPonzi/commit/6b26cd - Fix getAddress() so it correctly finds the address to which the first input was sent.


Hardly worth 'preserving'. Note how every line but one starts with a '-'? That means I deleted lines. The only line without a '-' at the start is where I removed a '!' character.

And aside from anything dooglus did or his status on DT or future status---QS should absolutely not be back on DT.  I was chagrined to see his red trust score come down when escrow.ms got booted.  But I've removed DT from my trust list anyway.  This whole drama, the dooglus thing included, is fucking high school bullshit.

Why is it so hard to just delete the repo from github and end this all together?

As Dooglus stated he only fixed it for a person. Well you fixed it so you no longer need it so why is it still there?

Saving it for 'reference' isn't a viable answer as you have stated it can be found elsewhere.

Want to touch on a issue brought up here about people active in threads like this not negatively commenting on the people they feel should have it.
Since I am not in DT my trust comments would do nothing and appear as trolling from a unknown account,so thats most people not in DT.
The people in DT usually tend to follow/support those that brought them into the tree and the tree works more like a gang than a actual trust system. So you risk retaliation from people you have never interacted with.
This is my observation on a lot of the trust squabbles we see here and those that actually do not care are quickly dismissed in one form or another as a troll,sock puppet or mental health. Its kind of sad that a good idea seems to have been corrupted for the better interests of those in it,as opposed to the whole forum working together.

The more you write the more people nit pick the words or ask for references to distract from the situation.

This is not unique to just this forum,seems a natural cycle for any power set up.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Back to the show...

***Will stay out from now on,I promise. Please hit me on p.m if you want me to address anything else.

Noted.


Is this in your personal interest(for whatever reason) or in the communitys interest, or maybe both?


I would like to see the full picture before giving a statement about it, anyways this is above my level of influence.


Yes i do. But as stated before, it doesnt work for things way back in the past. I made that timeframe limit after doing the coin-gnt feedbacks. It works like this: Posting a warining (PSA) that all future support will result in a negative feedback. Tag people who go on. The definition of support is: Promoting and advertising, this includes posting about investments, taking part in promotions. (Thats just how i personally handle it)

I am not sure if having code on your own repo is support. I also have forks of code in my repo that i dont support. I do so to be sure there is a copy of the code for future reference.


BSM was advertising it and his intention was to sell it, it was not public available. In addition he told people first he would stop doing so but started to sell it again short after feedbacks were removed.

I understand the argument but i dont see doogs personal benefit of having the source in his repo. Yes, i am aware he did changes to it.

Exactly, a lot of times QS was right but other times completely wrong... Nothing of personal @QS .