Topic: Requesting-Vod be prevented deleting posts Self Modded thread/Removed from DT - page 7. (Read 35566 times)

I wish there was a 'like' button in the thread. I would 'like' this reply 100 times (Especially the last line)
Anyways since Vod has already left this thread and he is certainly not going to get removed from the DT, i guess this thread must be closed and the ongoing drama should be stopped.

Maybe you should make it clear what you are talking about.

I'm pretty sure you have your facts wrong:

  I didn't find a bug at crypto-games, someone else did; I was merely acting as an "escrow" for the bug.
  (that means I was an independent third party, in case you're unclear on that point)

  I neither left nor removed negative trust for crypto-games. When I remove negative trust I replace it with neutral trust so a record stands but it no longer counts against the account.

  I didn't sell trust.

I understand that you're mad because I didn't remove Vod from my trust list, but stomping your feet and making things up to try to get me into trouble isn't going to work for you.

I think I'll pass. And I think we are talking about two different instances. You had said that dooglus removed his negative trust after crypto-games paid the non-existent bug bounty that they did not agree to prior to the bug being reported. I cannot see any way that is possibly the right thing to do. And I cannot see how that is anything other then selling trust.

If he had expressed such a feeling that would have been OK. But he didn't say he felt that my site was less than honest, he claimed it was scammy. It isn't. He said I am a deceptive person. I'm not. He was lying about me and my site, so I left feedback saying not to trust him.


The guy was shilling for a known Ponzi, saying they were a good investment. Would you trust someone who did that? I wouldn't.


Check the reference. He was working through the sub-forum posting single-line crap in every thread just to bump his post count. The forum is overrun by people posting crap just so they can join signature ad campaigns. This guy was a particularly ugly example of that, adding nothing of value.


Well, that's because he refused to pay me the amount we had already agreed upon, and because his site was a scam... He was offering bets that he was unable to pay out.


Someone should take a look at some of the feedback you've left. I'm sure there's actual real cause for concern in there.


I don't think I have anyone who is already on the DefaultTrust list in my trust list. I tend to add people whose judgement I trust. Those will be people who I mostly agree with. Well spotted.


We had a deal. We arranged it via private messages. I think I posted the private messages on the thread in question, but I can post them here if necessary.

Edit: my trust list:



I don't think any of those accounts are on the DefaultTrust list are they?

Edit2: I just checked. DefaultTrust has 13 accounts in its trust list:


I have none of those in my trust list, but I do have DefaultTrust in my trust list, so indirectly I have them all.

Please read the whole thread.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9783924

what deal are you talking about lol

I don't think it was clear they had a deal. I would say quite the opposite.

What are you talking about?


They did agree and they did credit Dooglus' account at their site but they never processed the transaction.

Come on, they run a casino! If they can't complete their part in a small deal, how can you expect such kind of people to run legitimate casinos?

You're mistaken. I agree the site didn't have a bug bounty program but you can clearly see that they had a deal! Dooglus reported the vulnerability but the owner of Balloonbit didn't fulfill his part of the deal by crediting Dooglus' acoount but at the same time, not processing the withdraw.

So they don't have a bug bounty program, therefore they never agreed to pay any kind of bug bounty. While it might be reasonable to ask for a bug bounty, however not paying one certainly does not make them a scammer.

There's nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong with leaving negative trust if someone does not pay you a bounty (when they have no bug bounty program).

I don't see anything wrong in reporting a bug and asking for a bounty if the site "doesn't" have a bug bounty program. It's not that a site without a bug bounty program isn't vulnerable, is it?

Did the site have any kind of bug bounty program? I did not see any one published anywhere.

From wikipedia:

FYI, The bug was a critical one. Dooglus wasn't a thief so he reported it to the owner of the site and asked for a 1BTC bounty. He could have withdrawn 2 BTC but didn't. There was a deal between them. The BalloonBit owner credited his account with the Bitcoins but never processed his withdraw. What's wrong with putting a -ve trust if the balloonbit owner didn't fulfill his part of the deal?

I'm just going to leave this here since Meta doesn't show trust scores.

This is Quickscammer now, according to the default community:



I've accomplished what I wanted to - QS is now ostracized from the community.

I won't be pushing it any further. 

So if you are driving around in your car and I see a safety problem with your car, I should ask you for 1BTC to tell you what is wrong with it (without you ever agreeing to pay this or any amount) and when you don't pay up, I should call you a scammer?

Dooglus asked for a fair amount considering the severity if the bug he found! I don't see anything wrong in this.