Pages:
Author

Topic: Hhampuz embezzling signature campaign funds from BestMixer - page 2. (Read 14709 times)

HCP
legendary
Activity: 2086
Merit: 4361
We do NOT say that IS your reason.
No, but you're happy to insinuate it. Nice way to try and take a parting potshot with your ever so virtuous "we're getting off topic, lets take this elsewhere, but first let me just sling some mud in your direction" approach to debating. Roll Eyes


The only thing proven in this thread regarding the movement of funds from the Bestmixer campaign address... was that the funds were moved. There is NO OBSERVABLE PROOF for the reason why these funds were moved. Everything regarding the motives as to why they were moved is currently speculation and circumstantial evidence.

The only person who knows why the funds were moved is Hhampuz, and I haven't seem them post anything regarding this. If anyone has any actual proof of Hhampuz "embezzling" funds, I'd be happy to see it.
member
Activity: 252
Merit: 56
Really it does not matter who is a campaign manager.. so long as if people meet a certain posting standard and are not scammers they get to join the campaign first come first served and they get paid for their posts as per the transparent rules. ANYTHING else is rightly to be termed SHADY and should be rejected.
That's such a ridiculous concept. That's akin to saying an employer should simply accept the first applicant that comes through the door for a job if they met the minimum specs? Companies pick and choose employees all day every day using all sorts of arbitrary metrics. It isn't shady, that's their right and their freedom of choice. You can't force someone to hire somebody just because they happened to be the first one to put an application in...


At the end of the day, campaign managers are free to have arbitrary rules for joining, that's their prerogative (assuming the employer is fine with it)... So, if you don't like their rules, complain to their employer... or become a campaign manager and run campaigns how you think they should be run. Continually lambasting managers to run campaigns in a manner you find acceptable is not going to change anything. Talk to the people who are actually paying for the campaigns. They are the ones who ultimately control the campaign managers.



No.

I wouldn't start drawing too many direct comparisons between legitimate organisations that are accountable for their actions legally and an anonymous forum, anonymous projects, anonymous employers and anonymous employees. This is a very different situation and to ensure people are treated fairly (as much as possible and there is not gaming , abuse and discrimination) you will need to take a bit of a different approach.

There can be NO ARGUMENT for not having TRANSPARENT rules and thresholds.

You are correct first come first served is not OPTIMAL. However if you want to select the very BEST posters that post the most objectively valuable content then you will need only the VERY SMARTEST campaign managers that can recognize the most valuable post. This makes the work load far larger.

Set a minimum post quality level and go first come first served cuts the workload dramatically and allows the less able minds to be campaign managers.

You claiming campaign managers can use HIDDEN ARBITRARY rules means you are  leaving this entire arena WIDE OPEN TO GAMING AND ABUSE. This leave the projects themselves open to legitimate criticism ESPECIALLY with initial token distribution resulting in collusion and market making. The campaign managers are also open to legitimate criticism regarding kick backs, bribes and favoritism. It leaves the ENTIRE BOARD open to scamming via collusion and market making with regard initial distribution of tokens (if not a btc based payout)

TRANSPARENT RULES that are applied equally to all members is the ONLY way to avoid such criticism and ensure fair opportunities to all members.

You want the very best posters then you better have the VERY SMARTEST campaign managers matching people against TRANSPARENT CRITERIA.

You want a good standard of posters you better have  a good standard of campaign managers matching people against TRANSPARENT CRITERIA.

You want gaming, backhanders, colluding, market making, unfair treatment of all members except those paying back handers, bribes, colluding, "pals" that are not even meeting in most cases a basic level of posting value. Then continue screaming for the right of campaign managers to use HIDDEN ARBITRARY PERSONAL reasons to hire and fire.

NO. Sorry. TRANSPARENT RULES that are applied equally to all persons. THE ONLY FAIR WAY TO ENSURE FAIR TREATMENT AND PROTECT PROJECTS AND CAMPAIGN MANAGERS AND THE ENTIRE BOARD OF INVESTORS. Since if you allow the initial distributions of projects to be gamed then you bring the danger to every person here.

"hidden arbitrary rules like....errr must be called tman, cabalism13  LOL or some other low functioning schmuck " lol

No thanks. Transparent criteria ALL members are matched against EQUALLY.

Hhampuz REFUSES to be transparent. Hhampuz opens himself and his projects up to legitimate criticism.

This is going off topic. So to bring it back on topic let' agree to take this debate off to another thread if you do not believe I have demonstrated you are incorrect.

This is only partially relevant to this thread and the matter of hhampuz potentially taking 0.5btc that was not his to take. If he was not refusing to be transparent with regard his selection process. I think that would cause the readers here to feel it "less" likely he was stealing the money for himself and perhaps there was another more legit explanation. Same the with supporting of doxxing the forum treasurer. If people see a pattern of potentially shady behaviors then that can cast a shadow other ambiguous behaviors... possibly.

We notice also you happen to be one of the lucky few chosen to wear the chipmixer sig? this the reader should also factor into the possible motives for wishing for these hidden arbitrary "reasons" for the selection process to remain AS THEY ARE NOW.  People generally that benefit from the status quo are generally loath change for the "better".  We do NOT say that IS your reason. Perhaps you believe the specious argument you presented for real. Hopefully now we have given you cause to reconsider and have helped you see it would be far better for ALL if it was more PROVABLY FAIR.
HCP
legendary
Activity: 2086
Merit: 4361
Really it does not matter who is a campaign manager.. so long as if people meet a certain posting standard and are not scammers they get to join the campaign first come first served and they get paid for their posts as per the transparent rules. ANYTHING else is rightly to be termed SHADY and should be rejected.
That's such a ridiculous concept. That's akin to saying an employer should simply accept the first applicant that comes through the door for a job if they met the minimum specs? Companies pick and choose employees all day every day using all sorts of arbitrary metrics. It isn't shady, that's their right and their freedom of choice. You can't force someone to hire somebody just because they happened to be the first one to put an application in...


At the end of the day, campaign managers are free to have arbitrary rules for joining, that's their prerogative (assuming the employer is fine with it)... So, if you don't like their rules, complain to their employer... or become a campaign manager and run campaigns how you think they should be run. Continually lambasting managers to run campaigns in a manner you find acceptable is not going to change anything. Talk to the people who are actually paying for the campaigns. They are the ones who ultimately control the campaign managers.

copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2374
And I have no idea why the hell are you trying to stretch it hard, very hard and push us to believe what you're trying to make us believe.
Didn't we all decide that it was because QS got kicked out of one of Hhampuz's campaigns or something like that?  The accusations he's making here are obviously being done out of spite.
Yeah, the only one who can provide the truth is Hhampuz, and it's so far not clear whether he's going to comment on this.  I think it would be good if he did, but there may be reasons why he won't or can't.  And as much as I don't like Quickseller, I don't think he's wrong for bringing attention to this.  If this was something jamalaezaz or Quickseller did, I'm very sure there wouldn't be such a fuss if the same evidence was presented.
Roll Eyes
legendary
Activity: 3500
Merit: 6981
Top Crypto Casino
And I have no idea why the hell are you trying to stretch it hard, very hard and push us to believe what you're trying to make us believe.
Didn't we all decide that it was because QS got kicked out of one of Hhampuz's campaigns or something like that?  The accusations he's making here are obviously being done out of spite.

On a related note, if I didn't know any better (and I don't), I'd say that QS was an attorney who got disbarred because of mental issues affecting his ability to make logical arguments.  My evidence?  See everything he's written in this thread and pretty much his entire post history as well.

Hhampuz is a good campaign manager and from what I can tell, a decent guy.  There's no telling what happened to those funds and why they moved.  That's between him and his bosses.
member
Activity: 252
Merit: 56
WHY are we allowing campaign managers in these positions that even need to take out loans? this looks like needless risk and temptation. Bring in some wealthy people who do it fairly and transparently for some "extra" non essential income. Less temptation to scam or game the entire thing and ensures fairer treatment for all those that apply for the campaign.
Why should anyone be prevented from being a campaign manager if they so choose and other parties are happy to hire them to do so? For someone who is keen on everyone being treated fairly and equally... are you actually suggesting that only rich people should be allowed to have certain jobs now? Huh

Strange we never hear your support FOR these FAIR AND TRANSPARENT RULES THAT ENSURE EVERY MEMBER IS TREATED EQUALLY before? 

NO, we mean simply MORE wealthy that those that NEED To take loans out. Look it is simple. Perhaps we must accept people in financial difficulties MAY be MORE likely to feel pressure to do what they believe is essential to survive.

The clear goal here should be FAIR AND TRANSPARENT RULES THAT ENSURE EVERY MEMBER IS TREATED EQUALLY.  So if hhampuz is saying NO i will not be transparent about who and why i hire certain people, and now it looks like 0.5 BTC it could have been liberated from a  projects funds - then perhaps we need people that are not in debte or not needing to borrow money in small amounts from other people.  Both of these things do not look great.

Really it does not matter who is a campaign manager.. so long as if people meet a certain posting standard and are not scammers they get to join the campaign first come first served and they get paid for their posts as per the transparent rules. ANYTHING else is rightly to be termed SHADY and should be rejected.

I very much doubt REAL wealthy people are going to do all this annoying shit that campaign managers have to deal with. Wealthy compared to those in perhaps dire situations financially that could be factors that prevent the fair system we are pushing for.

If ANYONE is not prepared to be transparent and treat all members fairly and not take money that is not theirs then they are NOT a good choice for campaign manager.

Good to know you HCP are now fully going to help pushing for transparent fair standards for all members.

HCP
legendary
Activity: 2086
Merit: 4361
WHY are we allowing campaign managers in these positions that even need to take out loans? this looks like needless risk and temptation. Bring in some wealthy people who do it fairly and transparently for some "extra" non essential income. Less temptation to scam or game the entire thing and ensures fairer treatment for all those that apply for the campaign.
Why should anyone be prevented from being a campaign manager if they so choose and other parties are happy to hire them to do so? For someone who is keen on everyone being treated fairly and equally... are you actually suggesting that only rich people should be allowed to have certain jobs now? Huh
member
Activity: 252
Merit: 56
I have no idea what you are saying. It is not a complicated concept that a person needs to pay for living expenses on an ongoing basis. It is also not a complicated concept to expect a person to not be able to use all of their income to go towards a loan.

And I have no idea why the hell are you trying to stretch it hard, very hard and push us to believe what you're trying to make us believe. You said Hhampuz had ~BTC0.54 earnings during that month + BTC0.08 extra for his signature and avatar totalling it to more than BTC0.6 (enough to repay his loan). One more thing, Hhampuz had been here and working since more than 2-3 months and if we even average his earnings out based on that (half of it each month if not full BTC0.6), he still had his money to repay his loan to DarkStar_

Quote
The loan is only evidence of a motive. There is blockchain evidence to support the underlying accusation that remains true regardless of motive.

I've the same thing here to say what suchmoon said: You're making stories here, so stop doing it (I mean stop trying it here and go, write a story like this for a movie and you may get your 100 BTC back to start your lending business back, then you may decide not to lend Hhampuz  Kiss).


I don't think we should be side tracked by speculating on "other " motives either way. People do not need an EXTRA motivation/incentive to take 0.5 btc  "for free".  Give most people here an opportunity to take 0.5 btc that is not theirs if the opportunity is there and you will see that it gets taken as could be the case here.

Saying well hhampuz "should" have the funds to repay another loan without this 0.5 BTC does not mean he is not guilty of what the initial post asserts. WHY are we allowing campaign managers in these positions that even need to take out loans? this looks like needless risk and temptation. Bring in some wealthy people who do it fairly and transparently for some "extra" non essential income. Less temptation to scam or game the entire thing and ensures fairer treatment for all those that apply for the campaign.

copper member
Activity: 2562
Merit: 2510
Spear the bees
Once you disclose the existence of the money publicly, you lose the benefit of hiding its exact location.
What?

I'm still looking for an explanation to your comment. I don't see how you can't obfuscate the output of the escrowed 0.5 BTC in order to prevent the tracking of the funds. Sure, you might know the amount... but how do you trace it from just that metric?

Maybe you're onto something that can break certain privacy-coins. Smiley
legendary
Activity: 3052
Merit: 1273
I have no idea what you are saying. It is not a complicated concept that a person needs to pay for living expenses on an ongoing basis. It is also not a complicated concept to expect a person to not be able to use all of their income to go towards a loan.

And I have no idea why the hell are you trying to stretch it hard, very hard and push us to believe what you're trying to make us believe. You said Hhampuz had ~BTC0.54 earnings during that month + BTC0.08 extra for his signature and avatar totalling it to more than BTC0.6 (enough to repay his loan). One more thing, Hhampuz had been here and working since more than 2-3 months and if we even average his earnings out based on that (half of it each month if not full BTC0.6), he still had his money to repay his loan to DarkStar_

Quote
The loan is only evidence of a motive. There is blockchain evidence to support the underlying accusation that remains true regardless of motive.

I've the same thing here to say what suchmoon said: You're making stories here, so stop doing it (I mean stop trying it here and go, write a story like this for a movie and you may get your 100 BTC back to start your lending business back, then you may decide not to lend Hhampuz  Kiss).
legendary
Activity: 1932
Merit: 2272
I think, at this point, we are spinning in circle and we have reached start point. With lack of proofs it is impossible to prove anything.

Hhampuz is actually secret code for sting operation which lasted for a year and money was later seized by Europol. Of course, I made this up and theory is extremely likely not true but I guess it is OK to have at least one theory in this thread. Now prove me wrong...
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
No. it is not reasonable to assume what is being suggested is actually true.

You probably lost a negative there trying to be too clever, but damn right, your whole speculation is not reasonable.

Further there is blockchain evidence of the theft.

Except there isn't. All you have is the fact that coins moved. You made up the rest of the story.
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2374
If Hhampuz wants to go on the record

So we're back to "he hasn't denied it so it must be true" bullshit Smiley

No. it is not reasonable to assume what is being suggested is actually true. Further there is blockchain evidence of the theft.
legendary
Activity: 2198
Merit: 1989
฿uy ฿itcoin
Hhampuz has not even bothered to respond to this thread in a meaningful way

Double standards as usual.

There allegations in the OP are so outrageous that they do not deserve to be acknowledged, to the extent that the OP is likely operating in bad faith (in multiple ways).

Which brings us to this.....
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
If Hhampuz wants to go on the record

So we're back to "he hasn't denied it so it must be true" bullshit Smiley
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2374
I have no idea what you are saying. It is not a complicated concept that a person needs to pay for living expenses on an ongoing basis. It is also not a complicated concept to expect a person to not be able to use all of their income to go towards a loan.
Is it possible that Hhampuz is in a position where they are not the ones paying for all/most of their living expenses?
If you are looking for an excuse for saying Hhampuz is innocent, then sure, his landlady actually pays him for living where he lives. Realistically, looking at the blockchain around his known addresses and other public information, I can confidently say this is not the case.

If Hhampuz wants to go on the record to say that he has no/few living expenses, or some other excuse others have offered for him, he is free to do so. If he does make this kind of assertion, unless there is evidence to the contrary, it would be unreasonable to not accept it as fact, however without the assertion coming from him, the mere possibility falls outside of the scope of reasonable doubt. If he were to make an assertion in his defense that is shown to be untrue, he would be shown to have lied, and it would be additional evidence he is trying to cover up what actually happened.

Also
Quote
The loan is only evidence of a motive. There is blockchain evidence to support the underlying accusation that remains true regardless of motive.
member
Activity: 62
Merit: 41
I have no idea what you are saying. It is not a complicated concept that a person needs to pay for living expenses on an ongoing basis. It is also not a complicated concept to expect a person to not be able to use all of their income to go towards a loan.
Is it possible that Hhampuz is in a position where they are not the ones paying for all/most of their living expenses?
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2374
Hhampuz has other bills. The money could have been used to pay for his various living expenses so that his forum earnings could be used to solely repay the loan.

I don't really understand where are people actually coming in your defense when you look clearly confused and jumbled in your own thoughts trying to shuffle things and repeat back the same music you've had been constantly singing since you tried to inflame things here. Why are you blaming Hhampuz when you're not clear whether you know his actual earnings are more than what the repayment amount was? As well, one more question here:
Do you personally know Hhampuz?
As that's the only way someone can be very thoughtful and known to things like ^bills and living expenses^ as you've described here so clearly in your words. It's actually weird because everyone here has a life, so there's nothing new that we heard.
I have no idea what you are saying. It is not a complicated concept that a person needs to pay for living expenses on an ongoing basis. It is also not a complicated concept to expect a person to not be able to use all of their income to go towards a loan.

The loan is only evidence of a motive. There is blockchain evidence to support the underlying accusation that remains true regardless of motive.
legendary
Activity: 3052
Merit: 1273
Hhampuz has other bills. The money could have been used to pay for his various living expenses so that his forum earnings could be used to solely repay the loan.

I don't really understand where are people actually coming in your defense when you look clearly confused and jumbled in your own thoughts trying to shuffle things and repeat back the same music you've had been constantly singing since you tried to inflame things here. Why are you blaming Hhampuz when you're not clear whether you know his actual earnings are more than what the repayment amount was? As well, one more question here:
Do you personally know Hhampuz?
As that's the only way someone can be very thoughtful and known to things like ^bills and living expenses^ as you've described here so clearly in your words. It's actually weird because everyone here has a life, so there's nothing new that we heard.
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
If suchmoon is rushing to the defense of anyone you better really be careful.

Awesome, I think I found a way to harness your energy for a good cause.

Craig Satoshi Wright is totally not a fraud

Please go to the above thread and prove how wrong I am.
Pages:
Jump to: