Topic: SUPPORT FLAG FOR SCAMMER LAUDA - explain in meta if you dispute the flag. - page 2. (Read 867 times)

Some altcoin LOL the number 2 coin coin that may have shoved bitcoin off top spot if it were not for the hard work of real scam hunters. ?
The altcoin that offered 2 000 000 000 usd to the forum as compensation but was quickly shot down by scum like lauda

That some alt coin? Play stupid quickseller.

No that is entirely incorrect as you know and not the premise at all. There are no changing opinions. It is changing what he stated he could confirm because he was there. He is changing his story.  There is no more air tight case of a scamming.

Lauda was not giving just " opinion" that he did  not beleive it to be an. Instamined scam.

He was telling people he was on the launch and therefore could confirm an instamine premine did not take place.

It was previously proven there was an instamine by many members months before

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scam-darkcoin-instamine-2-millions-drks-50-of-darkcoin-in-circulation-560138 it was proven beyond doubt

The primary scam hunter ( cryptohunter) who initiated the call to alert investors it was instamined had already demonstrated it was a instamined because as you  can see from the launch page 1 of dark coin he was was on the launch.
Cryptohunter had already used this proof to force the developer to offer and 2 000 000 000 equiv airdrop

People like lauda and if theymos will reveal the poll who voted to not have it I bet lauda will be one of the people that stole that 2000 000 000 usd from the forum.

Lauda continued for months to lie to investors there was no instamine. Saying he was there on the launch and there was no instamine.

He shouted people down and said they were just butthurt and just making it up.

All the time he held bags of that project and was talking it up to other members.

This is undeniable lies and deception and misleading people for financial gain.

Changing his mind publicly once he dumped his bags is just the icing on the cake it is not core or even requirement


Let me copy and paste the analogy and present who ludicrous the defence is here.

Imagine we use the " changed my mind " defense to all scammers and scam pushers who will lie to promote their scams.  


Look how suchmoon the scammer facilitator or scammer in this example.simply changes their mind lol

The changing your mind defense. 

Suchmoon ; hey want to buy my gold coins everyone
Honest member ; they are not gold coins i saw them being made of wood and painted gold
Suchmoon : nope I was there when they were made and there was no wood it was pure gold I can assure you
Honest member: well lots of people saw they were made of wood and sprayed with gold
Suchmoon: stop talking shit these coins are made of pure gold
Honest member : it has been proven they are wood someone got these from same guy as you and his are wood
Suchmoon: they are not wood you are jealous you have no gold coins
Suchmoon: these are great, best gold coins anywhere

Suchmoon sells the wood painted gold coins to someone else

Few weeks later..

Suchmoon telling everyone those goldcoins she had were really wooden painted gold scammy shit?

Honest member: but suchmoon before you sold them you were saying that you were there and witnessed them created from solid gold and that they certainly were sold gold.
Suchmoon : yeah I changed my  mind now
Honest member: do you mean you lied?
Suchmoon : some call it lying I call it changing my mind to suit me financially.

Lol thanks for the laugh suchmoon, If you think I get mileage out of the self debunking I cant wait for this one.

If I am following your premise correctly, you believe lauda is a "high risk" to newbies because, in 2014, he was saying that some altcoin was not an instamine coin, and in 2017, he changed course to say the altcoin is an "instamine scam"

Do you think additional information could have come to lauda's attention in those three years that might have changed his mind? As opposed to malicious intent?

Did additional information/evidence that the altcoin was an instamine in that timeframe?  

Based on the evidence at the time, was it reasonable to believe it was not instamined? Were other reasonable people saying that it was not instamined?

Your defence appears specious and obviously does not demonstrate an understanding of the trust system.

If someone is flagging for personal reasons and does not have solid evidence of scamming then yes that is not grounds for a flag

I mean of course if someone actually scammed you out of 100btc you would have a personal gripe against them lol
Are you claiming it is wrong for them to raise a flag?

There is concrete evidence of scamming on laudas part. This is undeniable.

Please read and understand this fully.

Also you seem go be arguing that being tagged can somehow magically invalidate objective independently verifiable evidence of scamming

Please review your argument which sounds like a deliberate  and willful defense and support of a scammer.
Your sponsor should not be paying you to promulgated such dangerous and damaging nonsense.

Of course I have debunked your attempts to prevent honest members receiving a legitimate warning but I will observe your further words on this matter carefully.

There is nothing erroneous about this flag. It is based upon solid independent verifiable evidence.

There is no defense that will stand up to scrutiny.

This flag will be a honey pot to the most vicious and dangerous scammers  and most willful and deliberate scammer supporters and facilitators. I look forward to identifying them and bringing them to answer for their scammer supporting.

Trying to null undeniably valid and legitimate scammer warnings is just as bad as scamming and I have said before.  They must eventually all have their sponsors removed and be tagged and flagged.

The claim the flag implies is as erroneous as the flag lauda created towards me and whatever other accusation you done cannot be represented thru a flag.


I see a lot of the close circle to lauda to slowly grow in red and for obvious reasons they abusing their power and other things.
Ofcourse she is excluded and ignored but that doesn't mean wrongdoings shouldn't be spoken of.

  TLDR;

Not Being a TWAT here but...

As I keep reading some on your post including the one in META, I strongly believe that this is just on a level in which personal feeling is involve and I don't think there could be others who'll likely to join your activity, (maybe there are some -  the ones that get tagged already by the cat)...
Just think of it, what could be Next after you successfully tagged Lauda? Do you simply think that tagging could ruin her? She's already on DT2 and will be no longer be in DT1. Even if Lauda will be lost in DT position, there will still be others.


Feel free to exclude her to your trust list
and Ignore her.

Note: Do it to all the others you don't go along well. I've been seeing your posts like CH, trolling in the 2Sections...

Time for a legitimate and well deserved flag on the scammer lauda. If I could find and investor that was duped by laudas lies and scamming I would surely love to upgrade this to a level 2 or 3 flag.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1876

Go there to support the flag.



The evidence is clear. I will be bring all those that dispute this flag to meta to explain why they are disputing hard evidence of scamming  aka lying or deceiving for financial gain. Telling investors he was on the launch and there was no instamine is disgusting.
It would have been bad enough on it's own an well worthy of a tag and flag but lauda has also given red tags to people that whistleblowers on him. This is totally perverting the intended purpose of the trust system..

If you have not red tagged and supported the flag for lauda then you surely should.
Lauda believes punishing other " scammers" or just anyone he doesnt like means he is free to scam himself

He is wrong.


People need to read and understand this first  because lauda who was pushing this and claiming he was present on the launch and therefore could confirm there was no instamine.






If you read the above evidence of scamming and still vote to dispute the flag you should explain yourself. Abusing flags and directly supporting scammers by actively attempting to prevent a legitimate warning to honest members then you should really have a flag or tag or kicked off of DT.  Refusing to review evidence of scamming as many have is one thing ( disgusting anyway) but reviewing evidence of undeniable scamming and then seeking to protect scammers and prevent honest members being warned is really despicable. This needs action.

This makes you a scam enabler and scammer supporter = posing a threat and danger to the honest members of this forum.
I will also be making several threads for specific DT members so they can explain their behaviors or lack there of with regard this flag.

What is the point of having people on DT that refuse to create or support warnings for proven scammers.??

That is again dangerous they are occupying positions that other honest members could have that are willing to punish scammers and protect whistleblowers. Not the other way around lol