Topic: [Meta divergence]re: Dooglus is supporting ponzis (Read 1159 times)

I love how quickseller pursuing personal vendetta back to dooglus. This guy totally deserve red trust, not sure why all you folks give him trust back just because the "self escrow" incident was considered "unethical" only. Give him red and he will stay from this community, and we can all live our life without even need to have some drama with QS

You can check the ancestry of a github repository by looking at the "forked from" links in the top left corner.

dooglus/CryptoPonzi forked from
  ClamBaker/CryptoPonzi forked from
    Crypton33/CryptoPonzi

I don't know if Crypton33's repo is the original code or not.

Would you mind linking to the original code for the tool?

I was hoping that others would come to the conclusion on their own, and have been somewhat pushing the bolded theory based on my statements in the thread saying that the ponzi script in question would outright not work if it was not for dooglus's help in coding the script. I will edit my OP tomorrow afternoon/evening to give more clarity in this claim, although the exact amount of money stolen is difficult to determine due to the open source nature of the script in question -- a minimum figure should probably be possible though, as well as a solicitation for people to report amounts lost on various ponzis that used the script in question. 

This is very much appreciated.

Then your claim is false. I didn't make the tool. I made a trivial bug fix to an existing tool. Also, the site I made the change for didn't steal from anyone or attempt to steal from anyone.

As usual you have your facts wrong. But you know that. For some reason you seem to want to discredit me when I've done nothing wrong. Is this still because I disagreed with you about timespacepilot? Really you need to get over it. Sometimes people are going to disagree with you.

Fair enough. I think I explained why in my opinion it (as it is now) belongs in reputation rather than scam accusations. But I'll briefly recap what it was that makes me see it that way.

Your claim: Dooglus fixed bugs in a ponzi scheme script, therefore he is liable to some extent, as the ponzi scheme operators used his script.

your statement:


Is what really gives it the ole reputation feel. A scam report is absolute. You make a claim, Party A is responsible for scamming Party B for this amount in this manner. This snipet of your OP to me reads. Some people don't like ponzis, and find them scammy or unethical, Dooglus is involved with supporting a ponzi to an extent, do the rest of you find this unethical as well? This part really feels like you are trying to alert people of Dooglus' questionable actions, and asking people to evaluate his character due to involvement in a ponzi, rather than claiming that Dooglus' involvement has directly caused this many Bitcoins to be stolen.

Of course, there are a lot of other details, but I don't really care about anything other than your claim, as thats all that is needed for classifying the thread. That is why I believe that the thread belonged in Reputation rather than Scam Accusations, however, I also understand that it's not a moderators privilege to substantiate or judge your claims, which is why I told you outright that you are welcome to move it back if you personally intended on persuing the thread as a scam accusation rather than a reputation thread. At this moment, I'd say with about a 95% degree of certainty, it is a reputation thread, however, that doesn't account for additional information you intend to post, nor your intentions on the direction you plan to take the thread. I found it very possible that you could change the direction you are taking things, and decide to pursue it as a scam accusation, which is why I said you are welcome to move it back to scam accusations.

I was hoping to discuss the section that the thread should be posted in.

You had posted that it would be okay for me to move the thread back, however by the time I looked at that specific part of your post closely (and saw that you wrote that), I had already invested ~1 hour into researching and formulating a response to everything else you wrote. I guess I didn't want that hour to go to waste.

The fact that you moved it back to scam accusations means that you interpret the situation differently, and fully intend to persue the thread as a scam accusation, rather than the reputation thread I thought you were going for. Pretty sure I said that was fine, just making sure thats what you intend to do, because it didn't seem like it to me. Is there a specific part of what I said that you are unhappy with, or are you just trying to get your thread more exposure?

I'm not sure but it might be that a ponzi can be advertised as a form of gambling without risking legal threats. Though that would only work when every investor had to be aware of it being a ponzi and that he could lose all of his investment once no new investors pay in their money.

Though even so, I think there are laws against snowballsystems in general, so I'm not sure if these are based on the sole fact that they work that way or only can apply if people took part without fully get informed about the risk, like a big warning above the investment form or something like that.

Guess that's something a lawyer should check.

So, I guess it's not fair that other ponzi script sellers receive negative trust while being called scumbags?

This does make those who have been leaving negative feedback for ponzi supporters look bad. Their reasoning for such feedback would suggest that dooglus deserves negative too. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

FYI: I don't think dooglus deserves negative feedback over this. That being said, I don't think a few others deserve the negative feedback they've received. I don't see the problem with a ponzi clearly advertised as just that, a ponzi, unless they're using terms like "guarantees" and etc. It all comes down to trust. You would need to trust the ponzi operator not to run with funds before the ponzi collapses due to no more investors. Damn! By saying that, I think I just earned myself some negative trust for supporting a ponzi scheme  

EDIT:
Just seen the other thread.

Because I asked him to update his previous feedback to reflect current situation of the klyemax project, as his previous feedback was no longer true.

dooglus first left a +ve feedback on MRKLYE on 2013-11-15 and then left a -ve feedback on him on 2016-01-14. Why so?

Seller, you need to go get a life bud and stop trying to stir up shit.. You calling everyone a scammer doesn't null the fact you're untrustworthy.

I, for the record never scammed anyone, nor had any intentions to do such, same cannot be said about you and your alt account escrow fuckery.
If we'd like to go into details about the IPO, the amount lost, the amount refunded and what is currently left outstanding to shareholders we can start a thread elsewhere and I will gladly point out what's been done to rectify my wrongdoings of the past. http://klyemax.com is getting ready for full launch shortly, despite the set backs caused by myself in the past.

A person has ~3 options when they fuck up around here:
1. Run off and make alt accounts
2. Admit they fucked up and rectify the situation
3. Whine like a bitch and call others scammers

Seeing as how you've mastered 1 and 3 as clearly illustrated in your needless shitposting and 1337 escrow skills may I suggest you attempt 2?

Now, I'm not exactly sure where you get off calling out dooglus for giving a hand to a person operating a site that for the record no user ever lost any CLAM on and that all payments were paid out. dooglus by his nature goes about auditing sites and fixing them and helping where he can. I do not believe for a second that dooglus had any intention to scam anyone nor did he even support the idea of the site after pointing out the time to stake the necessary coins.

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.


Once again, you are grasping at straws Seller. Trying to make dooglus or myself look bad in regards to what may have been the only non-scam ponzi to ever operate on these forums is both a testament to how little you actually think before you shitpost and also how desperate you are to call down others attempting to boost your absolutely fucked reputation.


Calling out dooglus on this scam accusation was dumb. But calling me out was probably a bad judgement call on your part.
At the very least I'm honest enough to admit I've fucked up and try to rectify what's been done, Same cannot be said for you.



TL;DR: Seller is whining that dooglus helped fix code on a site where no one lost any money.. also he's a little bitch.

I'm interested too,

@Quickseller you opened a 2 thread and posted a lot of message about this... why can't you use only one thread?

Is there a tldr available?

I had replied to Salty in my other thread, however it seems that his response was regarding the placement of my thread, so I have replied to him here.

I think you may have a ponzi game confused with a ponzi. A ponzi game is a game in which it is disclosed that after a certain point additional funds will not be paid out to players based on some specific trigger (the operator would also likely take some fee in exchange for running said game, out of the money that would be paid out to the players -- also disclosed). A ponzi game is very similar to a ponzi in that the "winners" are paid with money from the later participants of the game.


A ponzi (scheme) on the other hand is something that promises unrealistic returns to investors while claiming little risk to investors (source). A ponzi (scheme) will use money from later "investors" to repay earlier "investors", and in my experience here, the ponzi schemes in bitcointalk often will simply run away with investor's money once they are in possession of a certain threshold of "investor's" money.

The ELI5 explanation between a ponzi scheme and a ponzi game is that a game is honest while a scheme is dishonest. In my experience, when most people are discussing a "ponzi" throughout bitcointalk, they are most often referring to (or describing) a ponzi scheme. However most people will participate in ponzi schemes as if they are a ponzi game, and will acknowledge that the ponzi scheme will eventually collapse.

I did point out that the ponzi that dooglus was helping was dishonest because it was claiming that any investment would be risk free regardless of if additional people sent money ("invested") to the ponzi, and that everyone would end up receiving 125% of their initial investment, which is obviously not true.

I am not claiming that dooglus is a scammer because he is associated with ponzis, I am saying that I believe him to be a scammer because he is an accomplice to (ponzi) scams (/schemes). An associate is someone who is connected to someone else. An accomplice to a crime is someone who helped another person commit a crime.

You are associated with theymos because you are a moderator of the forum. If, theymos were to hypothetically run away with all of the forum's money tomorrow (I believe the forum's money is actually theymos's property, but that is besides the point, and I hope you can still understand what I am trying to say), then you would not be at fault simply because you are a moderator of the forum -- you being a moderator would have nothing to do with theymos running away with the money. If, however on the other hand, you were to give theymos a great cover story that would allow him to get away "clean" with the money then you would be an accomplice to the theft because you helped theymos steal the money.

Speaking to your specific points, if godaddy were to have prior knowledge that the operator of a website they were in the process of creating was planning on doing something illicit then they would probably be held liable if such information were to be revealed. Regarding the gun manufacturer example, what dooglus did is similar to a gun manufacturer fixing the barrel of a gun, and then giving said gun to someone who they knew was planning on using said gun to commit a violent crime, and the gun manufacturer had such knowledge both when they agreed to fix the gun and when they actually shipped the gun back to the gun owner.

Going back to your above point, yes I would agree that it is possible that a ponzi could "wind down" (close) in an "orderly" fashion, however I am not aware of any ponzis that have actually done this. (being that you are not very active in the ponzi/investor games section, I would find it unlikely that you have any examples of a ponzi closing down in an orderly fashion, and I am not aware of any either; all of the ponzis that I am aware of either ran away with player's money or never received any money in the first place). It is also possible that this person is going to repay any money that he is lent, however realistically speaking that will simply not happen. The pattern of those that operate any kind of ponzi here has always ended with the operator running away with money that does not belong to them. IIRC, there was one ponzi operator that operated "honestly" for a while early last year, however he was able to quickly build up a lot of trust within the gambling community and was able to run away with several hundred thousand dollars worth of player's bitcoin.

It is my understanding that you claim to have never been scammed in the bitcoin world before, and if this is true, then I would say there is a good chance that this was accomplished in part by you not entrusting your money with a ponzi operator (among other things).


I think the forum should probably be fairly conservative in terms of when threads should be moved out of scam accusations, primarily because the forum makes a point not to moderate scams.

For the reasons stated above, I believe that my thread is a scam accusation, and I hope that it will serve as a warning to others prior to others potentially entrusting dooglus with money, information, access to code, or otherwise (including listening to what he says, and his arguments), and it is a best practice to check the scam accusation sub prior to trusting someone with any of the above, not the reputation sub. Also I believe that dooglus should have the opportunity to respond to my claims, which might not be an option in a reputation thread because threads in reputation can be self moderated while threads in scam accusations cannot.

Since the discussion of moderation of a thread is automatically off topic in threads outside of meta (citation needed), and also out of not wanting to derail my other topic, I decided to create a divergence thread here regarding the issue of which section my thread belongs in.

First of all, it is my understanding that a theft does not actually need to occur in order to create a scam accusation, as you could accuse someone of attempting to scam. A good example of this would be this thread, which technically discusses someone who never actually scammed anyone, however I think that it is fairly obvious that person who attempt to scam others. So I think that requiring that a thread about dooglus to link him directly to something that has already scammed is unfairly specific.

My claim is that dooglus is an accomplice to a scammer because he made a tool that will help said scammer steal from others. Furthermore, the open source nature of his tool makes it difficult to determine all of the ponzis that have used the script in question.

In your redirect post, you wrote that I could edit my OP to reflect a scam, and not just a questionable moral association.

Dooglus had mentioned that he knew that the name of the operator of the ponzi he was helping as being "Kyle"
Kyle is also the name of MRKLYE, who gambled away 25BTC of other people's money that was intended to be some kind of investment (source), and this money was gambled at Just-Dice, which means that dooglus profited from these losses.

I could update my post to reflect that I believe that dooglus was helping a known scammer develop a tool whose only use would be to eventually steal money from others. This would further solidify my thread being a scam accusation, however I believe my thread already meets the criteria to be in the scam accusations sub.

I also could update my OP to reflect that I believe that dooglus has contributed to an unknown amount of losses/thefts by others, however I think this would be somewhat redundant.

---

---

It is the forum policy to not moderate scams, which includes not deciding what is and what is not a scam. I would argue that the question of is something a claim of being a scam should be left up to the OP of the thread, unless it is very clear that there is no such claim.