Topic: [POLL] Should BCX get a SCAMMER tag? - page 2. (Read 7275 times)

being unethical is not illegal, being a big mouth is not illegal... Pointing a gun sure is.




People need to take this sort of talk with a grain of salt. ( Did I say that right?)


Have a great Sunday Ya'll (I wish I was a US southerner)

Nope, didn't sell because of the threat. Obviously others might have, and the person used its advantages over that, for that should be scammer tagged anyhow as it has been explained a couple times around here.

I had put my miners at solo as a precaution and ate up the lies and lost out because this person made such threats.

Someone put it in these laymen terms as it does make sense. Not exact terms but something like it. Cannot recall exactly, but something like so.

"I put a gun to your head and threat to shoot you, but it is for your own good, but, I am gonna remove my pointed gun from being pointed at your head and not shoot you, I don't think it was wrong, but, it was for your own good, it is ok for me to point guns at ppl's head and threat to shoot them" Which in this case, IT has done so many times, making forwarding threats with attacking and causing harm. All I know of is, threats made against BTC and LTC and unproving facts that he compromised many pools, and we all know IT ddos'd the pools or had a hand in it. I know nothing of SC, so I cannot make a statement on SC's stuff. And I might add, IT ddos'd the bitcointalk.org forums, and admitted to it.

This entire situation is beyond unethical. And to allow such a thing is really, truly, really sad. To watch this person walk up in here and let IT do the things it have done and push ppl around like IT has done.

You know what this feels like, the big company's holding the govt by the balls. I think, bitcointalk.org is scarred to scammer tag this person in resulting of ddos'ing of the forums. In which, admins could bring forth criminal charges towards the individual/individuals.

I do not agree with you here, No one was scammed..... If you sold whatever LTC because of shit talk, well that's your own fault...


If some moron starts blabbing something similar about bitcoin, MOST would laugh it off....


"IMO"

Unfortunately BCX is a sad amateur hacker trying to get a name for himself. His attack exploded in his face, humiliating himself.

He's got a name for himself, but not for the reasons he wanted.

Gentlemen. I am a firm believer in the fact that you are clearly underestimating his ability to activate one of his other personalities.

Sure, you can BAN BitcoinEXpress.....but what about DannyMaddox, Laney and Kaylee Wu ?

....Calgon, take me away.....

Exactly, attention is a scarce recourses these days.

Baning him without trial is the only reasonable move to solve this kind of behavior.

Ignoring him does no good since too many of his post have malicious intent.

One thing that would be worth doing is silencing BCX.

They have the power to disable BCX's ability to post and PM.

Let him be a forum member but ban him from posting anything further.

I vote scammer labeled.

The thing that I dont understand is why BCX didnt just make a post warning people about the risk of a 51% attack and what to do about it. It may have averted the attack without needing to go the drama queen route. Maybe they just like the attention 

I know, duly noted.

But actually, no.  I don't think LukeJr. should be banned too.  If you actually have the hash power, you are free to use it however you want.  That is not a scam, it's not deceitful;  yes, it's greedy, and I think LukeJr. is a dick for ruining someone else's project, but it's not a gross misuse of communication (which is what moderators are for anyway).

I'm well aware that this is a slippery slope and is even downright unfair.  For example, what if someone says "I'm going to commit a 51% attack, be ready!" and then they actually do it?  Wouldn't that be advantageous for people to know that it's coming ahead of time?  Yes, yes it would.

But it's ironic.  I'm almost more pissed (I don't really ever get pissed, but that's besides the point) that BCX said he was going to 51% attack it and didn't than if he successfully had attacked it.  If you're going to do something, then fucking do it.  But don't cry "fire!" if there's no fire.

There are going to be people who try to 51% attack things.  That's just how it is.  But moderators can't and aren't supposed to moderate that.  They're supposed to moderate forum communication.  BCX grossly abused his communication privileges on this forum and he should be banned.  That's what I think.

I wish.

Here's something else I think the moderators should consider.

Failing to take any kind of action against BitcoinEXpress suggests that his action (the threat to attack LTC) is justified and that anybody else in the community can be allowed to do the same thing.

Keep in mind, although no actual 51% attack occurred, the main problem here was communication.  The moderators do have the right to moderate the level/type of communication on these forums, and allowing this type of communication can be extremely harmful to the monetary investments of the forum's members.

Due to this, I've changed my stance -- BitcoinEXpress does not deserve a scammer tag; as he points out, he did not fail to provide a good or service promised to someone else in exchange for payment, and he also claims he did not trade any LTC during his little stunt.

BitcoinEXpress deserves to be banned, promptly.  I ask the moderators to set the example right here and now to send a message to all potential members who wish to suddenly claim that they are going to commit a 51% attack or any other action in an attempt to destroy a cryptocurrency for their own motives.

Judging how your signature indicates you were a victim of a scam IMO, you sure claim to think you know how to spot a scam huh? Good job man.

I hope you get your BTC back...I sincerely do.

Sold all my 5000ltc and wont be looking back to buying any.

The wasted time alone is worth a fag tag.

This has "unethical market manipulation" written all over, How is this not a scam ?

This thread is about the question of whether or not BCX Should get a SCAMMER tag?

I didn't realize that when I voted NO, BCX Should NOT get a SCAMMER tag

I didn't realize that when I explained why I voted NO, BCX Should NOT get a SCAMMER tag.

Thanks for keeping us on topic, sometimes I tend to digress and threadjack!

The red text was especially helpful, and your amateur pedantry quite impressive.

Copied from other thread...

I actually agree with this scammer idea.  Ordinarily, I would think that calling someone a scammer just because they made a threat and didn't follow through is a pretty ridiculous idea.  But, this was quite different.

I forget which moderator said it, but isn't it possible to be labeled a 'scammer' because you say things like "I traded with person x' when that didn't actually happen, especially when person y then trades with person x and loses money because they are under the impression that person x is legitimate?  The point is, a case like that has financial consequences.  BitcoinEXpress's little stunt also had financial consequences.

For example, I sold about 1300-1600 LTC at .005 BTC when I otherwise was planning on holding.  Why did I sell?  Well, just in case -- duh.  I was on vacation and I really didn't want to deal with the stress of watching over the markets the whole time.  In other words, BitcoinEXpress's little stunt had financial consequences on me personally.

There's a reason why it's illegal in some countries to do things like threaten to sue and then not follow through on it, make threats period, etc., and in this case I think that making a threat to attack an entire currency deserves punishment as it alters the nature of the way investors invest and the way that various pools and exchanges operate (e.g. BTC-e shut down LTC deposits/withdrawals for a little while). 

To make a similar analogy, let's say an announcement was made that terrorists were going to attack the NYSE and that this was made aware to the public -- except the head of the NYSE was in on it the whole time and didn't let anybody know, neither investors nor businesses.  Do you have any idea how pissed investors would be?  It would be talked about in the news for years.

I agree.  Mark BitcoinEXpress as a scammer and/or ban the fuck. 

You sure do spend a lot of energy, exclaiming your lack of fuck giving, for someone that spends a lot of energy exclaiming their lack of fuck giving.

I give a fuck because I'd like to use LTC pools without them being DDOSd.

I give a fuck because I'd like to use LTC transactions without them being forked with a 51% attack.

I already answered your question:


Agree or disagree?

That makes too much sense.  Why pay attention to so-called 'logic' and supposed 'definitions' when the important thing is that MY FEELINGS HAVE BEEN HURT!!!

You need to stop being so rational and engage in my ridiculous form of emotional claptrap.

From now on the definition of SCAMMER = anyone who does something I dislike, regardless of whether an actual scam is involved or not.

It's just like my special definition of SPAM = any content I dislike, whether it has anything to do with unsolicited commercial email or not.

BCX is not a scammer, because she did not seek to profit for her endeavor.  Plus she spend $400 on EC2 for our benefit.

BCX is a kind of a troll, but that's nothing unique and a part of what makes this place so damn entertaining.

BCX is a TRICKSTER.  She played a prank on us, but it was for our own good.  We learned many lessons.


BCX successfully discouraged the DDOS attacks plaguing LTC pools.  She was not the cause of them, but did foment a solution.

I couldn't have done it better myself, so hats off to her!

Let's promote her to moderator, so she can better humiliate the nasty rage machines demanding "zoh meh goad DOCKS KNAU!!!1."