Topic: Should people who promote ponzis in their signature be given a negative trust? - page 10. (Read 14637 times)
September 18, 2015, 06:27:59 PM
A better question is: should BitcoinTalk be investigated for allowing ponzi schemes and rip-off artists to solicit their scams. I cannot count the number of times I've been ripped off by scams I found here while at the same time I get censored or moderated when complaining or commenting about my plight. I find myself constantly having to censor what I am saying just so I don't attract the attention of a moderator who has an invested interest in the scams that take place here. Now watch this get deleted!
September 18, 2015, 06:16:42 PM
I have noticed that although promoting a ponzi in the investor based games may be allowed by default trust members as the promotion is limited to people who fairly understand the risks of investing.
But what about accounts that promote it in their signature and essentially promise a fake return to people who may not understand yet how ponzis work?
I have heard about cloudminig's example where dserrano5 was about to be given negative trust for such behavious but was probably forgiven by most people, but should the other people be allowed to promote it?
No.you cant hold members responsible for promoting ponzi or anything which later turned out to be a scam unless there is a solid evidence to prove that the said member was aware that it was a scamBut what about accounts that promote it in their signature and essentially promise a fake return to people who may not understand yet how ponzis work?
I have heard about cloudminig's example where dserrano5 was about to be given negative trust for such behavious but was probably forgiven by most people, but should the other people be allowed to promote it?
September 18, 2015, 02:39:47 PM
September 18, 2015, 02:33:18 PM
I hate to derail this thread as neither you personally nor your "start up" are the topic here, you are just an example. I will however take the time and answer to your post. If you want argue this further you should create a topic in the appropriate section.
Winspiral isn't a scammer nor his website is a scam website. I know him since he was a member on another forum and he asks to invest cents (not even dollars). We shouldn't assume ALL investment websites as scam websites.
thanks
I have forgotten who you are...perhaps had you an other nickname...
The only bad thing in this story is that an innocent has now negative trust points for a wrong thing.
I keep up saying loudly that my system is not a ponzi,unfortunately i cannot prove it.
Can you explain it? Can you explain why the information you present on your site do not match the data on the blockchain?
Giving a negative rating in hindsight is the only way to have proof of a scam. Thus it could never prevent a possible scam. Consider it my personal - slightly amplified - opinion based on the above findings. I encourage you to answer to what I found and explain it.
I was put in a positions where my warnings matter more than that of others. I have never asked for it, nor worked towards it. I will still make the best of it. If thats what you consider "my duty", yes.
How?
You too.
If anyone wanted an example of someone doing the things I have written in OP that is promoting ponzi in their signature here is an example.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/winspiral-492957
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/winspiral-492957
Winspiral isn't a scammer nor his website is a scam website. I know him since he was a member on another forum and he asks to invest cents (not even dollars). We shouldn't assume ALL investment websites as scam websites.
thanks
I have forgotten who you are...perhaps had you an other nickname...
The only bad thing in this story is that an innocent has now negative trust points for a wrong thing.
I keep up saying loudly that my system is not a ponzi,unfortunately i cannot prove it.
Can you explain it? Can you explain why the information you present on your site do not match the data on the blockchain?
In the other hand you cannot prove that it is a ponzi.
You prefer give negative points to an innocent without proof than letting a probably scammer steal people.
You prefer give negative points to an innocent without proof than letting a probably scammer steal people.
Giving a negative rating in hindsight is the only way to have proof of a scam. Thus it could never prevent a possible scam. Consider it my personal - slightly amplified - opinion based on the above findings. I encourage you to answer to what I found and explain it.
Without knowing that the guilty are you...Among you and me...I'm right and you are wrong.
Of course for you negative points for an innocent is not a shame...
You believe that you have done your duty.
Of course for you negative points for an innocent is not a shame...
You believe that you have done your duty.
I was put in a positions where my warnings matter more than that of others. I have never asked for it, nor worked towards it. I will still make the best of it. If thats what you consider "my duty", yes.
I keep up saying that it is not a ponzi and that after 100 days all will be given back with profit.
How?
Have a nice day...
and thanks again "erikalui" for your trust.
and thanks again "erikalui" for your trust.
You too.
September 18, 2015, 02:08:55 PM
If anyone wanted an example of someone doing the things I have written in OP that is promoting ponzi in their signature here is an example.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/winspiral-492957
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/winspiral-492957
Winspiral isn't a scammer nor his website is a scam website. I know him since he was a member on another forum and he asks to invest cents (not even dollars). We shouldn't assume ALL investment websites as scam websites.
thanks
I have forgotten who you are...perhaps had you an other nickname...
The only bad thing in this story is that an innocent has now negative trust points for a wrong thing.
I keep up saying loudly that my system is not a ponzi,unfortunately i cannot prove it.
In the other hand you cannot prove that it is a ponzi.
You prefer give negative points to an innocent without proof than letting a probably scammer steal people.
Without knowing that the guilty are you...Among you and me...I'm right and you are wrong.
Of course for you negative points for an innocent is not a shame...
You believe that you have done your duty.
I keep up saying that it is not a ponzi and that after 100 days all will be given back with profit.
Have a nice day...
and thanks again "erikalui" for your trust.
September 18, 2015, 11:11:27 AM
Their "proof of payment" is fake. Please explain to me how its not a scam or at least how they work.
I could only find this: http://www.moneymakergroup.com/Bitcoinwinspiralnet-B-t499992.html
I dint find their proof of payment nor I am an investor of his/her website. I just know him from EMS forum that I was a part of.
Source: http://bitcoin.winspiral.net/
Code:
Id Inv date BTC address BTC sent pending BTC Next payout BTC paid
5 150905 1QGgNKBft1T42Po2YUd2vWAcAuC47uBQsN 0.01000000 0.0071207410 0.00089500 0.00200000
TX to/"from" that address on the given date:
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/d2257878f06daec86f1a90b7520fb4b3fd0fc5cca37f13479bb448d16fa0b40f
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/4e35d016a9a2315d12b05e130cda6348702fd63bc8915899c7861292e47491ad
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/be0f68f82d5d45eec9cc2892a0b8e75f84f081559063567a4e3c2f06e8b97feb
None of the given amounts match any of the inputs or outputs of any of the transactions. The site also does not explain how they work, but only states:
Quote
You invest minimum 0.001BTC
This system is not a ponzi because you will get back your investment.
If you invest less than 0.001BTC it is a donation.
This system is not a ponzi because you will get back your investment.
If you invest less than 0.001BTC it is a donation.
as well as:
Quote
Your investment will be returned in less then 100 days.
Amount of returns are always more then 10000 satoshi(except the last return)
Amount of returns are always more then 10000 satoshi(except the last return)
From the forum link as "explanation":
Quote
The principle is simple:
You invest in a start-up.
As usual...nothing is promised because we do not know the future.
Normaly your principal is given back,but we do not know when.
Minimum investment is 0.001 BTC.
Be carefull:if you send less it is a donation.
Send here;
3FpVS2KwmsVCpsz8EHzEEyrrtaDma9Lt4x
Dividends and parts of ptincipal will be returned to your wallet...it is why you have only to send from YOUR WALLET.
Good luck.
You invest in a start-up.
As usual...nothing is promised because we do not know the future.
Normaly your principal is given back,but we do not know when.
Minimum investment is 0.001 BTC.
Be carefull:if you send less it is a donation.
Send here;
3FpVS2KwmsVCpsz8EHzEEyrrtaDma9Lt4x
Dividends and parts of ptincipal will be returned to your wallet...it is why you have only to send from YOUR WALLET.
Good luck.
I marked the typical ponzi bullshit for your concenience.
The rest is copy pasta from bitcoin.org.
https://istdasliberaloderkanndasweg.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/shut-up-and-take-my-money.jpg
Dont be gullible just because you think you know someone.
September 18, 2015, 11:00:14 AM
Their "proof of payment" is fake. Please explain to me how its not a scam or at least how they work.
I could only find this: http://www.moneymakergroup.com/Bitcoinwinspiralnet-B-t499992.html
I dint find their proof of payment nor I am an investor of his/her website. I just know him from EMS forum that I was a part of.
September 18, 2015, 10:50:07 AM
Ponzis are considered as gambling by this community.
Not by me they're not.
You must draw a distinction between the "last one in loses" games that people knowingly play in the "Investor Games" section, and deliberately misleading schemes run by professional thieves masquerading as legit investment opportunities.
A Ponzi scheme involves deceit aimed at swindling money out of investors. Knowingly promoting one deserves red trust.
A Ponzi game is gambling. Why warn someone off if they are happy with the (lack of) rules?
September 18, 2015, 10:48:34 AM
Ponzis are considered as gambling by this community. (Check the Gambling section: and you can see the ponzi section under it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=56.0 )
No, ponzis got their own section because some people consider it a form of gambling and it was too much to handle for the gambling section.
And you're wearing a gambling signature. Since gambling is illegal in the most of the world, You should get neg trust too by your logic.
Lets not get into the "a ponzi is not provably fair" discussion again, shall we?
If anyone wanted an example of someone doing the things I have written in OP that is promoting ponzi in their signature here is an example.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/winspiral-492957
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/winspiral-492957
That's a poor example, some twobit semi-game based on "last one in gets nothing". Kids play them they know the rules, they're harmless (as harmless as any gambling).
Check the wording of the signature. I would not consider "this is a startup, invest pl0x" as harmless and assume that the risks are known. The site does not even explain how the ponzi is supposed to work and they in fact flat out deny to be a ponzi. Oddly "this is not a ponzi" is a typical sign of a ponzi.
The Ponzis that you should be concerned about, if your motivation is to stop highly motivated criminals stealing from our naive young noobs (as opposed to just being a busybody) are shit like the one in my signature, the ones that totally maintain that they are legit, deal in millions and destroy lives.
I wish it would be that easy.
If anyone wanted an example of someone doing the things I have written in OP that is promoting ponzi in their signature here is an example.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/winspiral-492957
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/winspiral-492957
Winspiral isn't a scammer nor his website is a scam website. I know him since he was a member on another forum and he asks to invest cents (not even dollars). We shouldn't assume ALL investment websites as scam websites.
Their "proof of payment" is fake. Please explain to me how its not a scam or at least how they work.
-snip-
If you look at his claims, they seem fishy but not unimaginable. 0.001 BTC is nothing much and one can definitely give it a try. He has said it's not a PONZI and hence I don't think he deserves a negative trust (although now he has got one
). I'm just saying this as he was a trusted member of the other forum.
If you look at his claims, they seem fishy but not unimaginable. 0.001 BTC is nothing much and one can definitely give it a try. He has said it's not a PONZI and hence I don't think he deserves a negative trust (although now he has got one
). I'm just saying this as he was a trusted member of the other forum.Like any scammer is gonna state that they are scamming their users.
September 18, 2015, 10:46:34 AM
Saw his site and got to know its a revenue sharing site, although the promised return seems a bit fishy, but now he seems to be accepting over 0.001 so not at cents. Have a look at his sig if you wanna know what I'm talking about
"You invest minimum 0.001BTC
This system is not a ponzi because you will get back your investment.
If you invest less than 0.001BTC it is a donation."
I used to be a member of his earlier scheme where he had no investment required and he used to offer LOW returns via Liberty Reserve which then shut down and he lost all his shares.
If you look at his claims, they seem fishy but not unimaginable. 0.001 BTC is nothing much and one can definitely give it a try. He has said it's not a PONZI and hence I don't think he deserves a negative trust (although now he has got one
). I'm just saying this as he was a trusted member of the other forum. September 18, 2015, 10:44:33 AM
If you are using a paid signature then you are promoting that business. If you are promoting a scam then yes you are part of the problem and deserve the negative trust.
September 18, 2015, 10:42:30 AM
Ponzis are considered as gambling by this community. (Check the Gambling section: and you can see the ponzi section under it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=56.0 )
And you're wearing a gambling signature. Since gambling is illegal in the most of the world, You should get neg trust too by your logic.
You've chance to win money on ponzis (if you get in early.) You've chance to win money on dice sites etc.
So I've voted no. Also; "Caveat Emptor" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveat_emptor
And you're wearing a gambling signature. Since gambling is illegal in the most of the world, You should get neg trust too by your logic.
You've chance to win money on ponzis (if you get in early.) You've chance to win money on dice sites etc.
So I've voted no. Also; "Caveat Emptor" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveat_emptor
Gambling is not illegal in most of the world tho and the investor based section is there tu gather all ponzi scams in one place, it wasnt made to help ponzi promoters but rather to gather all scams in one place, people that participate in them, almost everyone, knows what a ponzi is and what risks he is assuming.
September 18, 2015, 10:29:43 AM
I have noticed that although promoting a ponzi in the investor based games may be allowed by default trust members as the promotion is limited to people who fairly understand the risks of investing.
But what about accounts that promote it in their signature and essentially promise a fake return to people who may not understand yet how ponzis work?
I have heard about cloudminig's example where dserrano5 was about to be given negative trust for such behavious but was probably forgiven by most people, but should the other people be allowed to promote it?
No.you cant hold members responsible for promoting ponzi or anything which later turned out to be a scam unless there is a solid evidence to prove that the said member was aware that it was a scamBut what about accounts that promote it in their signature and essentially promise a fake return to people who may not understand yet how ponzis work?
I have heard about cloudminig's example where dserrano5 was about to be given negative trust for such behavious but was probably forgiven by most people, but should the other people be allowed to promote it?
Yes I can.
If I think that someone is deliberately turning a blind eye to compelling circumstantial evidence that the business that they endorse by carrying a signature is a scam, simply so that they can collect money from it, then I will consider giving them negative trust on the basis that anyone that prizes money over ethics is a potential scammer.
September 18, 2015, 10:27:53 AM
If anyone wanted an example of someone doing the things I have written in OP that is promoting ponzi in their signature here is an example.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/winspiral-492957
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/winspiral-492957
Winspiral isn't a scammer nor his website is a scam website. I know him since he was a member on another forum and he asks to invest cents (not even dollars). We shouldn't assume ALL investment websites as scam websites.
September 18, 2015, 10:23:32 AM
If anyone wanted an example of someone doing the things I have written in OP that is promoting ponzi in their signature here is an example.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/winspiral-492957
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/winspiral-492957
Winspiral isn't a scammer nor his website is a scam website. I know him since he was a member on another forum and he asks to invest cents (not even dollars). We shouldn't assume ALL investment websites as scam websites.
September 18, 2015, 10:22:43 AM
I have noticed that although promoting a ponzi in the investor based games may be allowed by default trust members as the promotion is limited to people who fairly understand the risks of investing.
But what about accounts that promote it in their signature and essentially promise a fake return to people who may not understand yet how ponzis work?
I have heard about cloudminig's example where dserrano5 was about to be given negative trust for such behavious but was probably forgiven by most people, but should the other people be allowed to promote it?
No.you cant hold members responsible for promoting ponzi or anything which later turned out to be a scam unless there is a solid evidence to prove that the said member was aware that it was a scamBut what about accounts that promote it in their signature and essentially promise a fake return to people who may not understand yet how ponzis work?
I have heard about cloudminig's example where dserrano5 was about to be given negative trust for such behavious but was probably forgiven by most people, but should the other people be allowed to promote it?
September 18, 2015, 10:20:45 AM
I have noticed that although promoting a ponzi in the investor based games may be allowed by default trust members as the promotion is limited to people who fairly understand the risks of investing.
But what about accounts that promote it in their signature and essentially promise a fake return to people who may not understand yet how ponzis work?
I have heard about cloudminig's example where dserrano5 was about to be given negative trust for such behavious but was probably forgiven by most people, but should the other people be allowed to promote it?
No.you cant hold members responsible for promoting ponzi or anything which later turned out to be a scam unless there is a solid evidence to prove that the said member was aware that it was a scam But what about accounts that promote it in their signature and essentially promise a fake return to people who may not understand yet how ponzis work?
I have heard about cloudminig's example where dserrano5 was about to be given negative trust for such behavious but was probably forgiven by most people, but should the other people be allowed to promote it?
September 18, 2015, 10:19:15 AM
Actually the signature campaigns should be banned rather than those who promote it. The people who promote it do so as they get paid but why should these companies be set free and allowed to advertise on the forum? When the websites aren't promoted here and they aren't allowed to have a campaign, there will be no need to worry about. The people who promote it aren't scamming anyone and giving them a negative trust doesn't sound logical IMHO. Those people definitely are doing an unethical thing but aren't scammers.
Although many people who promote it using their signatures are actually the owners of the site.The owners of the site should definitely get a negative rating as they are obvious scammers.
September 18, 2015, 10:16:34 AM
September 18, 2015, 10:06:23 AM
If anyone wanted an example of someone doing the things I have written in OP that is promoting ponzi in their signature here is an example.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/winspiral-492957
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/winspiral-492957
That's a poor example, some twobit semi-game based on "last one in gets nothing". Kids play them they know the rules, they're harmless (as harmless as any gambling).
The Ponzis that you should be concerned about, if your motivation is to stop highly motivated criminals stealing from our naive young noobs (as opposed to just being a busybody) are shit like the one in my signature, the ones that totally maintain that they are legit, deal in millions and destroy lives.
Jump to: