Topic: REQUEST FOR ATTENTION OF: All betking.io Signature Campaign Participants (Read 878 times)

No, of course they're not--but 1) Scams aren't moderated on this forum, which is unlike many other forums, and 2) There are probably way more scammers concentrated into the whole of bitcointalk than a random sampling of 10 forums put together (though I don't have data on that, of course).  Newbies do need to be warned in my opinion, because they could easily click on a signature like that of a Betking campaign participant and get scammed.

I do agree that people are responsible for themselves and should be wary in the land of bitcoin as a general rule, but giving them a heads-up about possible scams is a neighborly thing to do.

Yay! And *groan*.  I'm not so sure how many accounts are going to be parked, but hopefully it's a small enough number such that their posts get buried under time and a mountain of other posts until the next opportunity for them to awaken comes around.

For the campaigns yes, there might be some repercussions. I am talking about the users. Give them a good enough deal, there are a lot of people who will still trade with you.
And as we can see there are still a ton of scammy campaigns, including casinos and tokens that will still pay you if you wear their sig.

Since the board is not going to change it's something we can try to fight, but for the most part are probably just going to have to live with.

-Dave

I'd say the image of the user wearing a signature reflects on the image of the service in their signature. That's why some signature campaigns have special criteria for highly trusted users, and I've seen campaigns with special arrangements for Staff members. With negative feedback, I assume viewers are less likely to trust the advertised service. Except for the boards that don't show Trust, unfortunately, and except for guests on all boards. But it's something at least

Pegasus company now just need your phone number to hack you. They will not send you and email, a text message with any link. They will not ask you to click any link. They will just give you a call, and you even do not need to receive the call. Once they call, you are automatically connected to their server, and they can control your device. Now, imagine how far they have gone.

So, they are basically paying the same shills those were hired by Adkinsbet and 1xbit (I guess). At least, a comment left on my service thread indicates this suspension 100% LOL

There is the moral issue.

IMO, a simple PM explaining they are advertising a scam, and why doing so is wrong would be much more effective in stopping betking's ability to advertise via signatures than negative trust. It might not outright stop it, but would curtail it.

There is a warning message on all Long Term (lending) offers, and securities threads. It would probably be a good idea to add a generic similar warning to other marketplace sections of the forum.

The majority of the forum rules are really just codifying what should be common sense for most people. It take a lot to get into trouble for breaking the rules, so if you break a rule as a new user, you will suffer no real consequences if you were unaware of the rule, and are alerted to the rule, unless you are posting malware or plagiarizing, but again rules related to both are just codifying common sense.

No reason why they would not, it's not a lot of money and it lets them go back and say, "look we pay our people, wear our sig next time and get paid too"

And, that is part of the problem here. There are no repercussions for massive negative trust unless you are selling stuff, and even then if you agree to escrow will people care?
If the deal is good enough, and there is no negative trust saying that they stole money, people will trade. Not as many, but enough.

-Dave

Actually, it turns out that they did get paid, but I understand your point and it could have easily gone the other way. It wouldn't be the first time that someone scams signature campaign participants.

These transaction IDs were posted by their admin:
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/142fb82c5351dc97c84b073990108f03e2f932951dcb3686054e4bac81c884b5
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/499115b1e095c38a137a76759945979e12a63244958fbc22bc5a9dddd7e17cf9

I compared some random addresses in the spreadsheet to the blockchain info real quick and it seems correct.

The problem is not that, it's  how many people do we loose because of the lack of scam moderation who come in, take a look / get the info the need at the time and then leave never to come back again since there are so many scams here that it just looks like a cesspool and it's not worth their time to have to sort through it.

I *know* and I would like to make this perfectly clear that is *know* not "I heard" or "I think" of but *know* 2 people, who are very into BTC and work extensively with it who will not come to this forum because of the crap here. Both have very successful crypto businesses but avoid this place because of theymos's hands off we don't regulate scams attitude and letting the conspiracy people run around in P&S. Having a free and open forum is good, but thinking that we don't loose useful people because of it is just naive.

There are also a lot of projects that don't come here because of it too.

Is the forum better or worse because of that is tough to say. All I CAN say is that it causes some of us the get help elsewhere which drives other people to get help elsewhere which takes away from the userbase and information available here.

-Dave

More likely: they got free advertising, they'll never pay, and some still wear the signature until now.

The campaign only lasted for 10 days. Maybe they didn't expect such a backlash from the community and decided to cut it short. Looking at all those accounts who participated, there are many high ranked individuals that we would think should know better. All are now painted in red and useless except for similar activities such a scam campaigns and different AMLs. People can fall very low when they smell the opportunity to make some quick money.   

Those are yellow, hence my confusion.

I don't think it's very useful. The threads they create aren't the main problem, and a guest/Newbie warning banner above their threads only applies for the small percentage of their posts that create a new topic.

This is true.

Is there some reason why telling new users that scams are not moderated/bannable on this forum is unnecessary? This is not redundant information. Something along the lines of, "WE DO NOT MODERATE SCAMS! SCAMMERS ARE ALLOWED HERE!"

How about any indication of where the forum rules may be located? As far as I'm concerned, you're just tossed into the snake pit and told that you're surrounded by Full, Sr, Hero, and Legendary members.

---

Thankfully, since people are given the proper tools to learn about the forum, they should take full responsibility for their foolish actions.




I'm not asking for the banning of scammers. Though, some people are... and their confusion could be easily cleared with a simple message, don't you think?

@JollyGood
It looks like Betking finally gave up that ridiculous campaign and "announced ^[yesterday]" it's done and dusted.
^{- Having said that, a lot of them are still wearing those signatures, and since almost all of them are considered as a bunch of throwaway or parked accounts, then there's a big chance that at least half of them would keep wearing it [unintentionally] for the meantime.}

The internet is full of scammers and scams. Even if you receive a phone call from a random number, there is a good chance it is a scammer calling.

Scams are not limited to this forum, and people need to use their own good judgement in order to judge if something or someone is a scam.

You can make someone type a message saying they understand someone they are dealing with is a scammer, and you wouldn't be telling them anything they don't already know.

If there is a case of a specific warning not being obvious to someone giving scrutiny, this should be addressed. But blanket, generic warnings is probably unnecessary and may result in someone missing a specific warning about a potential scammer.

There is an adage that says "a fool and his money are soon parted" and this likely applies to many victims of scams on this forum.

I have nothing against a welcome message, nor a guest landing page.  As I've said before; I think it's a good idea.  I don't expect it to solve the scammer problem on this forum (I don't believe you do either,) but sure, it could prevent a few scams here and there, and it couldn't hurt either way.

And no, it would have no affect on my liberty.  I only brought that up because I've gotten the impression that you would be supportive of more extreme measures to prevent scams.  Perhaps I misinterpreted something you wrote in the past to get that impression.


I don't claim to be Joe Sixpack as I tend to believe I'm more skeptical than most (raising three daughters will do that to a man.)  I've been using and visiting forums for a long time, many that focus on subjects in which I'm well versed and experienced, such as BMW motorcycles, Ford trucks, and American rifles.  I've seen so many posts by users who claim to be experts only to find them spreading the most preposterous bullshit as if it's fact.  I don't pay attention to site specific reputation or reviews.  I assume everyone is full of shit until proven otherwise.


I'm not arguing with you about that, I think we're closer aligned on this issues than not.  My argument is that there are plenty of warning signs in existence already to help newbies and guests avoid scams.  There's nothing wrong with adding one more.  Just don't get your hopes up, because odds are it'll be as ineffective as the current "Red Flags."


I can't say for sure, I'm not an alt of theymos (or satoshi for that matter.)  I always figured it had more to do members' privacy than anything else.

I  meant type 1 flags. Only that I didn't specify the type of flag and ended up looking like I was generalizing.

What do you think if one opened type 1 flags against all accounts wearing the betking signature, which is a known scam? Is it in order, or is it too harsh when it comes to trust flag usage?

Risk is perfectly fine, as long as the willing participants are given awareness.

I was under the impression that a welcome message - an introduction to the trust system + scammer indifference - could bring about that awareness and could be a very simple and non-restrictive measure. I don't think your liberty is going to be compromised with a few extra hand movements as a guest. It is not unreasonable to request a landing page for guest users.

---

Are you able to leverage people's comments in accordance to their actual content via research, or do you place some bias on their site-based reputation? Similarly to as if someone were to trust a member based on rank, the expectation of some local reputation system is perfectly reasonable. Yet, who do you actually trust? Sure, staff can be trusted to some degree, but apparently even DefaultTrust is a bad measure of trust due to the legacy of past exit scams: I would even grant that someone new, having read through enough of the forum, would rather trade (and post) elsewhere unless they wanted to scam others.

Which other forums do you visit to where the rules are inaccessible unless you go to their forum discussion board located at the bottom of the front page, view an "Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules" buried within SIX sticky threads, and go all the way to rule 19 to find out that scams are not moderated? This is an excessive scavenger hunt.

In fact, unless you count an warning to use escrow as a direct "scams aren't going to be removed and we're not going to do anything about them" message, then there's almost nothing said about forum policy.

---

Was it a programming issue, integrating a DefaultTrust rating as a guest view of trust (preferably with some description/links to explanations)? DefaultTrust is good enough for registered users, after all, and the only difference is a few minutes!

Or, is it instead a fundamental problem?

Honestly, it's not that cut and dry.  The internet is full of misinformation, and most of us have learned to be skeptical when researching solutions to our problems.  I don't blindly copy and paste code from stackexchange without researching the commands, nor do I assume that the youtube videos about misfiring Fords are going to address my specific mechanical issues.


I tend to agree with theymos, which is the point I was trying to make to actmyname.  We can't protect everyone, nor can we prevent all scams.  I'm in no way suggesting that we stop trying, but we're going to have to accept some risk.  A quote that's often attributed to Benjamin Franklin goes something like this:  "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

It's one of the things that makes Bitcointalk so unique. If I have a problem with my computer, I go to Stackexchange, copy/paste some code, and it works again. The same for car related problems on specialized forums: I follow the instructions, and it solves my problem. But if you do the same on Bitcointalk, you lose your money:

This is theymos' view:

The Currency Exchange board is filled with scammers. Can you imagine a multi billionaire who wants to buy 500,000 Bitcoin and uses an "agent" who barely speaks English to buy it on a forum, paying cash with truckloads of money? The scam is so obvious, if he manages to scam $100 he can buy food for a month again. People who fall for that can't be helped.

Writing a welcome message

---

As it currently stands, imagine you hit the front page of Bitcointalk: there's no way for you to even know about the existence of the trust system unless you see a thread in Meta or some discussion about it. What's the likelihood of that? You accept the risks of a free forum now, because you know the conditions. Anecdotal evidence is not always sufficient, but our sample size well exceeds 10 at this point (in relation to ONE scammer): how many scam victims were ignorant of the forum policies and expected intervention?

Suppose you are a guest and you want to investigate the currency with say, $10. Currency exchange seems good! (and any variety of potential situations as a result of easily-preventable ignorance)

Consider a scammer that exclusively uses Newbie accounts: do we flag them so that guests will see a warning? If so, then what if the Newbie is genuine? If not, then what action do we take to caution users if not a message on visit?

If we're to specifically target marketplace sections and boards where scams proliferate, a warning that uses a significant amount of screen space and cannot be easily-avoided (i.e. a banner that requires scrolling down or a landing page) can be applied to guest users. If this is annoying, all the more reason for people to register and see (at the very least DefaultTrust) defined trust ratings, with numerical degrees of impact. After all, having -1 red trust is different from -8 red trust, and untrusted ratings are only accessible to registered users.


It's not as if you can't make a ^M_W^A_A^S_R^S_N^I_I^V_N^E_G in bbcode.

Maybe big red warning on every trading board post started by a newbie; something simple like "Scammers flourish in a free marketplace, WATCH YOUR ASS!"  That might get the job done, but then again it could get ignored just like all the other giant red warning signs.

At some point one has to accept the risks of living in a free society.  We can police our own in the hope of preventing repeat offenders, and sometime we can't even do that.  The only alternative is regulation and enforcement, and I doubt theymos will ever venture there.  Personally, I would rather accept the risks of a free forum than the alternative. 

This is like one of 20 cases all of which include vareole, spanning a duration over multiple months (check trust page for some history).

No welcome message. View some of vareole's threads as if you were a guest user, but bear in mind your current knowledge greatly exceeds that of them. For example, you have to forget that the forum doesn't moderate scammers and forget that rank doesn't equate to reputation. Moreover, look at how generously the red (though somewhat pink) message paints the scammer: "while the bitcointalk.org administration does not verify such claims, you should proceed with extreme caution."

I'm not sure what you imagine when you read that sentence, but I see something akin to eBay, with some malicious users having marked another as a scammer. Of course, since the administration doesn't verify the claims, they're not a verified scammer! At least since there is a link to something that tells me about trust in greater detail in the flag warning so that I may be educated and cautioned against scams.

Wait a minute!

---

How many people do you think wander into large forums with the expectation, "I need to be on my guard or else I will be scammed, because the forum allows scammers to stay here."

This is actually an easy case, since Dean wants to keep using his old name. Most of the time it's much more difficult to find alts.

You're right about that, but there's only so much we can do.  Scammers are gonna scam, victims are gonna be victimized.  I'm not trying to downplay it, it's a sucky situation. 

I know you've campaigned for a welcome page that will attempt to warn newbies about the proliferation of scammers on this site, and it's a noble effort on your part.  It certainly couldn't hurt, but I don't think it'll solve much.  Here's a situation where it appears that the victim didn't even register an account on the forum before getting scammed.  The victim ignored the scammers flags and negative reviews.  All those flags and tags did nothing to prevent that scam.  Had the victim registered for an account and seen a scary warning message, would we have had any different of an outcome?  I reckon it would have likely been ignored just like the other warnings.

There are many out there who's greed will overcome their skepticism.  There's absolutely nothing we can do to prevent them from being scammed, and unfortunately those are ones scammers are banking on.

Your ability to create flags does not impact my ability to create subsequent alt accounts and new threads.

Victims will need to actively seek out their scammers to constantly add red flags. A battle of attrition. Only difference is that the scammer profits from their behavior.

Victims are allowed to create type 3 Flags on all alt accounts:

I've created type 3 Flags on all known Betking accounts:

---

Which is unfortunately evadable via alternate accounts. Once a scammer is given a red flag, there is no consequence to repeated account creation as a means of trust evasion. Of course, since trust is subjective, all this means is that if the scammer is more persistent than the victims (a likely scenario) apropos to scamming, then you can expect an efficient scammer to have a yellow flag at worst, and no flag at all at best.

Correction: "red flags" (I assume you mean type 2 or 3) should only be created by actual victims of the scammer.
See the Flag creation page:

A ban is not possible in cases of multiple accounts cheating on bounties, unless if one of the connected accounts was banned earlier on and the remaining ones were evading ban.

The evidence is more than good enough, so red tags and/or red flags can be left on the profiles by you or any member.

3 Accounts Connected

1. Celot
2. Muratsink
3. Tazmantasik

[ archive ]


[ archive ]


quote posted by tazmantasik on 2021-08-09 03:44:24 UTC
Bitcointalk Username: tazmantasik
Bitcointalk Profile Link: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/tazmantasik-558299
Current amount of Posts (Including this one): 991
Forum Rank: Hero Member
BTC address for payouts: bc1qj0erpqj7t2qeezxvrkylfyfp7g5cud58g7zpmc
[ archive ]




Related Addresses:

I looked at the list in the spreadsheet and there were 3 Accounts Connected with the same address but one of them was deleted (Tazmantasik).
each of accounts already has negative trust and I hope accounts like this need to be given a more deterrent effect, I mean banned. Is it possible?

looking at their spreadsheet, the majority of the participants are the ones who are suspected to have been bought to shill adkinsbet in the past. looks like whoever bought the account for adkinsbet is trying to make full use of it hoping to get the money back wasted for buying those accounts.

No use dropping a line against them it will be deleted they have a moderated thread compared to 1XBIT who maintain an open thread Betking is worse than 1XBIT they put the thread moderated and they are not trying to resolve their existing issues, I saw some members of 1XBIT transferring to this campaign, it's a big surprise since 1XBIT is offering a much better rate, soon bounty hunters will be the next victims of these two scammers.

They're much worse, they don't defend themselves since there's already a big red warning when you click on their thread, I tried to post a reply there to remind people about the implications of joining the scam campaign of Betking and the next day, I got a message that it was deleted.

Seeing that all of them already had multiple negative ratings for various reasons + previously promoting ^{[except for two of them so far]} another known scam ^[1xbit], I think our best bet is to look for alt accounts that were previously banned ^{[if there are any]} and report them for ban evasion ^{[easier said than done]}.

You have a point but unfortunately, there are still a lot of tech/computer-illiterate people out there that tend to completely ignore such ratings.

So they decided to copy what their fellow scammers 1xbit did and think they will be successful?
It more like they are even just doing way more damage for themselves instead. I mean, who would trust a casino being advertised by a bunch of red tagged and untrusted accounts?
No one sensible enough would.

Here is the betking.io signature campaign thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/closed-betkingio-signature-campaign-the-best-bitcoin-casino-full-members-5353071

Here are some threads which highlight why betking.io is a scam and why the betking.io owner/operator serial scammer Dean Nolan cannot be trusted:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/flagged-scam-betkingio-broke-ico-promise-and-dropped-token-value-99-5122856
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/betkingio-refusing-to-answer-key-questions-about-ico-owner-bans-me-instead-1703778
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/betkingio-is-a-blatant-scam-operated-by-dean-nolan-4751127
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/betking-dean-nolan-disastrous-reputation-read-this-reddit-post-4913034
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scam-alert-legal-action-against-dean-nolan-betkingio-5047787
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/betkingio-relaunch-uncensored-betking-scam-thread-5287553
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/betking-scam-top-casinos-give-betking-scammer-affiliate-links-5231103


From cursing members and the forum to vowing to leave and never to return back, serial scammer Dean Nolan has returned. He needs this forum to peddle and perpetuate propaganda while he tries to pocket more cash from gullible investors and game players that do not know winners in the past have had their winnings withheld under false pretences.

Many signature participants, game players and investors do not know serial scammer Dean Nolan faked a website hack in order to steal the remaining bankroll funds of the previous betking.io incarnation but after this thread and so many other threads there can be no excusing for those applying or joining the signature campaign.

---

In simple terms, all signature campaign participants for the betking.io scam are kindly requested to withdraw because they are in most cases knowingly supporting and promoting a well known scam organisation. All those applying to join the signature campaign or those who promote betking.io will receive appropriate trust and ratings.



Please stop promoting a known scam for the sake of pocketing some Bitcoin from a shameful signature campaign. Thank you.


FLAG: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=3364966
FLAG: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=565024