Topic: Evidence of alias (u=1764044) long con scam! - page 9. (Read 6711 times)

Agreed. That's the one thing that is making me still pay attention to this drama. However, the fact that she won't admit she/her brother did anything wrong, and is still pushing a scam, is really working against her.

I would seriously consider the advice given elsewhere to take a few weeks off from the forum and return with a clear head for moving forward.

We have been going in circles for the last few pages. Probably time to lock and move on.

I feel like this thread has more or less run its course. aTriz has been refunded, and no person who understands basic math will ever purchase alia's gambling script. Credit where credit is due, I don't think many people would have actually sent the money back after being hounded like this, so respect for that.

And once again, who can I scam? aTriz scammed me, and I am in the process of proving people wrong about my gambling script

I think there is a decent chance she is a 19 year old girl and has a 15 year old brother. I also wouldn’t hold it against her for having a scammer brother as long as she covers any losses he causes in her name.

What gets me is the fact she is very clearly (or was) trying to sell a gambling script that is impossible to live up to how she was representing it. I would say the same about anyone who is vouching for said script, aTriz included.

Exactly this. She is fixated on a Skype call, but even if she proves she is a 19 year old girl, we still know that a known scammer (her/brother/someone else) uses her computer, accounts and wallets. It changes nothing, not even mentioning the scam gambling script.

Honestly, at this point it looks like alia is just trolling. I don’t think there is anything that can be said or shown that will change my (or anyone’s) opinion about her status as a scammer. The points that she is trying to prove are moot.

Of course. Betting on a 9.9x multiplier has a 10% chance to win, which would lose 90% of the time on average.

Oh well, I can extend the 10 days to 100 days, wouldn't make much of a difference.

What “rep”?

Your “rep” here is deeply in the negative.  You have less than nothing to lose in terms of reputation!

The downside isn't my money. It's my rep. If the script doesn't work I'll admit I'm a scammer and fuck off forever.

Now, I’m confused (per my above post).  Usually, when somebody in such a context calls out “anecdotal” evidence, it’s a criticism.  Thus, my assumption that she was referring to something which I put forth.  Her statement was ambiguous in the context.

Whereas if she was referring to her purported attempt to empirically disprove the laws of mathematics—well, RGBKey already calculated that she would have a 29.4% probability of meeting all her stated “proof” criteria by blind luck.  —  And as I noted, she was only risking a total of 0.00004 BTC, plus her promise to abandon a useless user account here.

29.4% probability of success, little to no downside risk—what an empirical “proof”!

Excellent point. But if I profit 100 times for myself and 100 times for investors, even if it is against math, I'm happy. And it is not against math - check out combined probability.

Which is insubstantial when verifying the success of a script.

I can run a script 2 times, get a positive profit on the second run and claim a 100% chance of success.

My sample size contains only that very last one. It's anecdotal evidence.

“Anecdotal/empirical evidence”, says the individual who claims that the “evidence” of 20 gambling runs of your script would override the laws of mathematics.  (As RGBKey calculated, you would have a 29.4% chance of “proof” by blind luck.)

Or do your words “anecdotal/empirical evidence” refer to something else?  It’s a bit ambiguous; and you have a recent history of word-conflation and patent self-contradiction to the point of nonsense:


Latest snapshot:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180302042930/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.0;all

---

Alia, I hate to tell you this, but I’m probably the only user on this forum who still gives so much as three damns about whether you are favours, or favours’ big sister.

I do still want to resolve that.  Not sure how.  Won’t expend too much effort on my own part; to use a concept you understand (from econ class—and otherwise), what incentive do I have?  But if you’re really a 19-year-old girl rather than an all-around lying sack of shit with external plumbing, I don’t want to leave you in some Kafkaesque situation where you can’t prove you’re not your scamming little bro’.  Call it the principle of the matter.

Not going to help you with the mathematically impossible gambling script or your flip-flops there.  Obviously.

No problem. Some people enjoy evidence and rationality; OgNasty and QS come to mind. Others such as yourself... plague to this planet. Good luck to you too (if only I meant it)

I have already stated quite clearly that my neg will stay as it's not based on the aTriz drama or on identity questions. It's based on the scammy gambling script.

Some others expressed similar POV. This Skype thing is pointless for any practical purpose, just like the gambling "proof" thread.


Great. Bye. Good luck in school.

I know. I have no hope of getting the red off. That is further proof that I am not a scammer (knowing that fact I still did a refund)

Whatever, this account is useless to me.

Well, at least that clarifies what you had meant by "one-way", but I question whether you have not dug yourself in so deeply into a large number of seemingly contradictory assertions and even outrageous slandering of other forum members that such an identity verification process, if it were to occur, or if any trusted forum member would be willing to agree to such, would help you in any way.  

Currently you have 11 negative trusts from trusted members, and some of those negatives would likely not even resolve if you were able to pull off a successful identity verification video interview, if one were to occur.   I mean the trusted members seem to be very very very (and maybe even more veries) repelled by your contradictory and aggressive conduct.  Surely, each of those trusted members would need to be satisfied that your reputation could be redeemed (somewhat) through such an identity verification video move...   Seems like half or nearly half  of those negative taggers have asserted that a video verification with you would be a BIG ASS waste of time.  Right?   Seems like spinning wheels, no?  

Sophisticated comes from age, experience and education and is not really an age or gender matter, but whatever your combination does not add up and seems to be unduly contradictory, whether that is 15 year old boy or 19 year old girl or some other demographic category.

If I'm sophisticated and have lots of worldly experience, that makes me 15 y/o boy and not a 19 y/o girl. Best. Logic.

Yes, that is EXACTLY the kind of Skype call I want.