Topic: Tagging both operators and participants of Ponzi schemes is extremely effective (Read 2676 times)

Which in the end will be the issue.

Say it over and over because it seems to be falling on blind eyes( ..sounds funny) that friendly fire is unexceptable when you are trying to fix a problem. Rounding up a posse also worries me because it makes it look like everyone else is in agreement or guilty.

It has taken how long for a group of members to extend the group of people they want gone from scammers,altaccounts and now we are eventually going to go after gamblers as well because they could eventually scam because they are sinners! I stretch but is it that far off?


See little voting going on either,just a group of like minds that agree with one another and that always works out for the better.

Effective not doubt it is, but to stop the plague you got to kill them all if you know what i mean. In the end of the day, it's gonna be a never ending endeavour.

It is extremely effective so far. Asides from the scammers and their socks laying out plenty of smack-talk, which you just ignore, it is already making people think twice about continuing to support these schemes.

Its effective i got a first hand experience of getting negative trust from posting a HYIP sites. i choose to stay on the clean side of this forum. and never post hyips ever again

Snow approves.

As the khaleesi would have said :

Burn them all



On that note, i think those who actually back-up the ponzi should be tagged. There are regular investors and then there are cult followers. Now those followers should be burnt as they spam their affiliates everywhere like the black plague. The regular investors on the other hand treat it as a gamble as they dont care if they win some or lose some. Just my 0.99cents.

An example of those who should be tagged would be : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14048068

Two users in the forum are already into it, if i remember it right Luptin and mexxer give red to those who joined a ponzi signature campaign including the OP. This way the ponzi scheme will be stopped thus preventing users for being scammed.

Of course you can check if they are mining, by simply looking up the pool they are pointing their hash power at.


They aren't being tagged for being on-topic, they are being tagged for being provably untrustworthy people who do not care where their profit comes from or that they are supporting a fraudulent scam.

>Tag everyone who promotes or participates in a ponzi.
Fine by me, but you do know that "investor-based games" is a euphemism for Ponzis, correct?

>There are, for instance, group solo-mining threads
Surprised mods haven't moved them  -- clearly wrong section. Ofc, they're probably 100% bull, with no proof of actual mining. Link?

Anyhow, good luck, but Ponzis are pretty popular here & given legitimacy by having their own section. Would be sort of funny to tag people for being on-topic in a forum sub, no?

Tag everyone who promotes or participates in a ponzi.

Unless an operation makes profit from actually producing something then money cannot come from nowhere, it is being stolen from the later users.

There are, for instance, group solo-mining threads in that section which are perfectly legitimate. I don't think they should be in that section but they are. They would not be considered as being ponzi-based scams so participation and promotion of them is fine.

OP, So... Bitcoin Forum > Economy > Marketplace > Gambling > Investor-based games -> tag everyone?

whywefight is not on DT2 and thus doesn't influence the trust rating of anyone on default settings, OP on the contrary is on DT2.
I'm just saying, in the big picture whywefight doesn't make that much a difference, OP is abled to make one.

Comment was in response to Whywefight! Am I going about responding wrong? Quoted him as reference and yet I keep having this issue with the names you mention. For you and the group I will go the extra mile in the future. Fair?

This is in response to Luptin. Warning*****

OP comes out of dooglus’ downlist and is unrelated to the Blazed -> mexxer-2/Lutpin -> whywefight tree.

Presuming to know how someone will think and act is the exact issue I have with these cowboy antics.
You act as if I support scamming, its the tact. When you go looking for problems eventually you see them everywhere. Looking at this from a bigger bubble you may see how being gungho may turn people off.
Blaze says everyone supports you, so go ahead!
But he also is the one that brought you into the fold, so I guess that doesnt murk the waters much either.

Carry on

Maybe we are tired of seeing people get scammed and complaining about it even it was obvious and screamed SCAM all over the place? Think about it... oh wait, your thinking will change once they scammed YOU

The flag means less and less when you have most of the forum flagged. But you guys got the green light, so enjoy.

I'm doing this over a long time. Apart from tagging them with -ve trust, one of the good way to jeopardize their business is posting PSA in the first page of their threads. For example...

i. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12694965 (HashFlare.io)

ii. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11414373 (CCminer.cf)

iii. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12460958 (bitcause.org)

The idea sounds good, though I fear that people will continue to "play", just will not post about that.
This would be also good, since such threads would drop in popularity.

Maybe somehow the access of VERY new accounts to such threads should be also restricted (I don't know how), else the scammers will just make thousands of new account to promote their crap and then this is still with no effect.

But what if the PSA is lost in the many pages of the ponzi thread?

Idiots are used to be quite resourceful when they want to be parted from their money. You can't keep them away from scams by force . Only education can help in the long run, but raising awareness about a scam might help for at least a few people to avoid some losses, so I like your idea as a short/medium term solution. 

i like the idea. its time to move forward to push that shit out. i am tagging ponzi/hyips anyways, mostly when i am bored. Joined efforts would be great.

No, that is censorship, I am proposing consequence. Two very different things.

Ponzis seem to be everywhere - even in the feral banking system. Somehow we need to educate people into checking and avoiding such schemes. I've often thought about trying to create an educational website to try to cut down on these scams. When you look at some of the apparently intelligent people who have fallen for the Nigerian (asnd similar) scams. then one tends to give up hope. Even creating an anti-ponzi board would probably be counter-productive, and most people don't seem to recognise a ponzi when they see it.

Maybe the best answer is just to delete all posts encouraging any of the ponzi schemes.

I personally would consider a user's continued participation in the thread concerned, after the PSA has been posted as being evidence of their wish to support the scam.

Would you consider a payment confirmation as 'supporting' the ponzi site? I remember a legendary member, Blazed once doing so .

Along with that question do you consider answering for 'scam or legit' in ponzi, say someone says 'It is paying out for now' or such in a discussion thread?

I'm sure most of you decent human beings are sick of the plethora of HYIP/Ponzi scams being churned out on a regular basis in this forum.

I would like to propose a concerted effort by forum members who are on DT to tag with negative trust, not just the OP of these threads, but also anybody who participates in them and posts positive comments in their threads.

This may sound a little harsh, after all it can be argued that people who knowingly wish to 'play' in a ponzi 'game' should be able to do so. But while the, "We're all smart enough to take responsibility for our decisions" argument sounds like a powerful defence, it actually isn't. Firstly, no, not everybody understands what they are joining in with and how it works when it comes to ponzi schemes. This results in stolen coins and more pissed off newbie cryptocurrency users who will simply end up joining the mainstream chorus condemning cryptocurrency as being a criminal industry.

Secondly, and more importantly, while you might shrug your shoulders and think that naive users just have to suck it up and take their whuppin' so that those who do know how a ponzi works can continue to 'play' them, their desire to seek profit through fair means or foul results in these scams being able to function and encourages more scammers to join in with their own ponzis. Without participants, there can be no ponzi.

Imagine that. No more ponzi schemes in cryptocurrency. Well, those promoted through Bitcointalk, anyway.

Negative trust tagging doesn't actually stop anybody from participating, it merely discourages them from shilling for the ponzi they are involved in. Particularly bought accounts which, by way of being senior members of this forum, are very likely to make newbies believe that a particular scheme is worth joining. So their whining about being prevented from doing what they want is false, they are still free to participated, there will simply be the consequence that other users will be able to see what type of person they are, that is all.

If we tag these senior accounts it will also destroy the potential future resale value of them, thereby greatly reducing the demand for these accounts by the scammers as part of their sock-puppet shilling process. If they can't con newbies with 'experienced' members posting their support then they won't be buying them. Two birds, one stone.

It wouldn't have to be limited to just ponzis, either. 'Cloud Mining' is predominantly ponzi-by-another-name and it has its own socks and shills supporting it who encourage newbies to believe it isn't the scam most of us know it to be. Ruining the credibility of these accounts will dissuade naive users from believing their lies and will hopefully drive these toxic operations out of this space.


I propose a two-stage process to enforcement (after the initial tagging of the OP):

1. A red-letter PSA is posted in the scam thread advising users that it is a ponzi scam and their participation in it makes them guilty of being an accomplice to fraud and theft. That by making positive posts supporting a known scam they are demonstrably proving they wish to encourage others to send money in so that they might be rewarded by the scammers for having done so, by receiving a share in the stolen funds. Such behaviour being inconsistent with trustworthy characteristics, they will receive negative trust. That there exists plenty of legitimate gambling, gaming and investment services they can avail themselves of, so there is no excuse to be supporting scams.

2. Posts continuing to show participation, excuse or support for a scam should see that user's account being tagged with negative trust for the above reasons.

Thoughts?

[edit] Example cut-and-paste warning for people to insert into scam threads.
P.S. Any participation counts as support, including asking in thread for a giveaway


I suggest allowing users to request a negative tag be removed if they delete the post in question shortly after being negatively rated. This should avoid tears and tantrums from those who claim they didn't understand what was going on. But not if they do so days later as, by then, their tacit support will already potentially have encouraged other users to participate.