Topic: The Bromance of FruitsBasket and CryptoSparks (Read 919 times)

I saw this video today and couldn't help but think of the current people ruling over the default trust

"double binds | narcissistic ‘no-win’ mind games"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnSiJOOdo30

Facts:

1) CryptoSparks asked for 5 bitcoins, offering no collateral.
2) CryptoSparks claimed he would create an API for the 5 bitcoins through his service.
3) CryptoSparks claimed this API would give the lender as much control over the 5 bitcoins as a private key.
4) CryptoSparks repeated this lie numerous times.

Tecshare, you are really starting to sound like cryptohunter here.  You're either unable or unwilling to see the difference between real facts and CryptoSpark's "truth."  

No matter how hard you'd like to paint this issue as an example of "lynch mob" justice, it ain't working.  The facts don't support your argument.

As I've gained influence on the trust system I've been very aware of my behavior and how it may be perceived.   I've taken great pains to be thorough and fair.  I pride myself in not jumping to conclusions, not only here as a DT member, but in my life as a whole.  In general I require irrefutable, concrete facts and indisputable evidence before I take action.

Am I perfect?  Far from it.  Did I allow this cunt posing as a quant to get under my skin?  Shamefully I concede, yes.  Did I tag him because he's an incessantly annoying twerp?  Emphatically; fuck no.  I would never do that.

I tagged him because he's a ignorant fuck, posing a superior genius, phishing for an opportunity to scam.  The facts I listed above are evidence of his deceitful claims, which can only stem from malicious intentions.  They are out in the open, observable by anyone who takes the time to research them.  If those facts aren't enough for you, then I'm sorry.  You must be far less scrutinous and suspicious than I.

What a shocking development, TECSHARE is making shit up again.

My argument is that CryptoSparks lied and continues to lie about a 5 BTC no-collateral loan being "risk free" and an API key acting as a Bitcoin private key. I don't see how that leads to any of the made up nonsense that you come up with in your every post but I'm sure you will post another rant on that, instead of attempting to prove that CryptoSparks' statements are factual.

Your entire argument is a tone complaint. You made a bunch of accusations, they turned out to go too far, now all you have left to rely on is your interpretation of what you say is a lie. No victims, No damage, Just a busybody gatekeeper burning people's reputations and making notches in your rifle congratulating yourself on ranking up while you and your BitCop buddies stand around and jerk each other off over how just you think you are. Who needs to be right when you can just be popular? That way there is no one left to challenge you.

Here's another bro to add to the mix:


This was that accounts first non-bounty related post. Its last post before this one was Dec 2018. If its not a purchased account used to promote the bot then its probably a taker from this thread.

Got it. The best defence strategy after getting caught lying is a tone complaint.

I just hope CryptoSparks doesn't sue us for PTSD after all that horrible immodest questioning he had to endure tied to a chair in the digital cop HQ basement.

 But you didn't just modestly ask did you? You started off with accusations and demands from the start. Shocking that he didn't respond to that, I don't know why anyone would react that way to demands and accusations from a busybody digital cop wannabe with very little knowledge of his business model.

If you hadn't been so busy playing a freedom fighter you'd have seen many attempts to get CryptoSparks to tone down some of his lies but he prefers to double down and claim that his business is doing fine anyway. It seems that the only thing you're having a problem with is your own army of straw people.

No loans are risk free. This standard you are applying here could literally be applied to any loan, period. If you or anyone else doesn't know that you are retarded and are absolutely going to be robbed eventually no matter how many users you burn at the stake. You decided Cryptosparks was guilty first and then went on a hunt to justify your position parallel construction style. He saw it as a risk free loan, you don't. That doesn't make him a liar or justify all of this bullshit you have falsified around his trading platform to try to shore up your extremely flimsy accusation. This discrepancy could have all been solved with a simple suggestion to him that you feel he shouldn't be calling it a risk free loan, but what fun is that? You want people to burn to get your fix feeling like you are ranking up in a game ad gotta buff those stats.

You are right about one thing though, I absolutely am a cunt. A cunt who isn't going anywhere and is going to continue calling out the destructive overzealous BitCop wannabe gatekeeping behavior until it changes. That's just my character, just as it is your character is to find people you can punch down at with impunity.

I'm sorry, I'll fix that right away. No, I don't think that lying about a no-collateral loan being "risk free" is an acceptable way of doing business regardless of how many of your imaginary "valid points" you decorate it with. No wall of text is gonna change that.


That would imply that you possess a character of some sort but all I can think of is a different c-word when I see your whiny snotty rants.

Take a break, you're gonna stroke out.


http://loyce.club/active/

Why respond to the litany of other very valid points when you can simply resort to your usual gatekeeper status and point your finger back at me. After all, all you have to do is keep supporting each other in your pattern of abuse and you will never have any accountability of your own, and you can happily repeatedly vomit up this same stale narrative that I am motivated only by being on the default trust and not your abuse of it.

If all I wanted was to be on the default trust, I would just get down on my knees and take my turn sucking the DT cartel off like the rest of you do to keep your positions instead of calling out the systemic abusive behavior of those who happen to be keeping myself and others who call you out, off of it. Funny how the narrative you want to sell is that all I want is to be on default trust, yet I make it my mission to consistently bring attention to the abusive community corroding behavior of the exact people coordinating to keep me off of it by calling out your punitive and arbitrary gatekeeping behavior.

Of course it wouldn't matter if I did just go away quietly and mind my own business, there is no path to redemption with you people. As a result I have zero motivation to give you all even a modicum of respect or cooperation, and certainly no motivation to tread lightly. I most certainly do deserve to be on the default trust, far more than most of you do for steamrolling over a bunch of random users, scammers and innocent users alike to maintain and elevate your own personal positions. Funny how the default trust never seems to have any criticism of the other default trust members unless they have enough of a group to push them out completely... almost as if all you care about is being on the default trust.

I never should have been removed from it the first time, but I would rather have the freedom to call out the malignant behavior of those on it than keeping silent by filling my mouth with the dicks of your fellow cartel members. You all have repeatedly demonstrated you collectively use your positions on the default trust as a tool to silence your critics, and anyone who dares to support them over and over again ensuring you send a message to any other would be complainants that they better keep their mouths shut or you'll end up like Tecshare, who we will forever coordinate to keep off of the default trust because... reasons. Do you care to actually respond to any of the completely valid points I made or are you just going to try to turn this into the usual personal snipe fest circus as is SOP? Right, you can't argue the points, because your position is indefensible, so you must resort to character attacks as always. Keep on slurping, you missed a drop.

Jeez, buy a fucking mirror already.

You're pissed after getting kicked out of DT (again), I get it. But you'll get in eventually due to the way the system rewards narcissistic windbags like you. No need to melt down CH-style here.

I don't have to trust him to know this is a counterproductive use of the trust system. Just as I would defend a Nazi's right to free speech, not because I agree with them, but because I understand protecting the institutional standard of free speech is more important than silencing a few loons who will discredit themselves by speaking anyway, I don't have to endorse users I am defending from trust system abuse. Guilty until proven innocent is not an acceptable standard.

As I just got done saying which you promptly ignored...


Well you and Bob123 are skeptical, I am very proud of you. Unfortunately that literally means nothing. See you say there are all kinds of lies and misinformation, but it simply is once again just your subjective interpretation at best, and disingenuous exaggeration to justify your overreach at worst. I simply haven't seen these claims substantiated regardless of how much skepticism you collectively have and how many times you insist he was lying. I am sorry, but your beliefs are not an appropriate standard to trash some ones reputation here. Neither is you not liking the way he talked to you. After all, why would anyone react negatively to a whole team of busybodies getting all up in their shit and demanding they prove their legitimacy simply just because you demand it and have the authority to punish them if they don't? It is not like Bitcoin attracts libertarian types who would object to such an arbitrary invasive standard now is it?

You aren't put on the default trust to be a gatekeeper and judge who is fit to have that chance. The trust system is there to warn users about users with SOLID OBJECTIVE FACTS indicating fraud, not your hunch. I know you all want to think of yourselves as super BitCops protecting the forum from evil doers with your cute little capes blowing in the wind as you rank up your reputation and notch down scams busted as you rank up like it is a video game, but literally all you are doing is driving out good users. You aren't stopping shit, at best you are delaying it, and at significant externalized cost to the community. I don't care how skeptical you are, you will NEVER, EVER prevent all instances of fraud, and even if you do some times, they will simply return seconds later with a new account and a revised attack plan while the legitimate users you burn with no repercussions to yourself will leave to never return at best, or say fuck this community for robbing me of my hard earned reputation and start robbing people because the system is only imposed upon them and not used to protect them at worst.

Your feelings of guilt over such a situation is a you problem. Stop offloading your own complexes on the general user base, because all you are telling me is you would rather burn random legitimate users mistakenly as it results in no personal costs over maybe possibly temporarily stopping scammers some times based on your skepticism alone. No, you didn't just express your opinion, you invoked your exceptional authority under the default trust to preemptively punish this user for your skepticism using flags and trust ratings. If this was just a thread discussing the issue I certainly wouldn't give a flying fuck, but that's not what this is. This is a mob chanting burn the witch and setting the pyre. In the end yes it does matter, just not to you, because you pay zero costs when your little inquisition mobs burn legitimate users, and who would even call you out on it even if you did right? No one wants to risk being next on the inquisition list risking their own hard earned reputations to challenge these cases with zero benefit to themselves now do they? Clearly what is important is you don't have to take a chance of feeling bad for other peoples lack of due diligence, even if doing so is a constant source of conflict, spite, and confusion that drives out good users right?

You and your new BitCop friends need to start observing a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of local laws before evoking the trust system. Unfortunately you think mere subjective suspicion is a good enough standard in the absence of this, and not even solid observable facts. Of course you guys never get it wrong, right? Even if you do who cares? You pay no cost and have no responsibility for your mistakes by being overzealous now do you? Even if you do you have your new popular kids club to all stand around and reassure each other of how great you all are for stopping scams regardless if they were scams or not right? Everyone knows what is popular is never wrong, and you are all ready to stand around to give each other handies and make sure no one is punished for their overzealous mistakes as well as coordinate to ostracize and keep off of the default trust anyone who does call out these mistakes right? 9 out of 10 doctors agree Marlborough is great for your health after all...

After all the blatant lies, misinformation, refusal to address legitimate technical questions, and a demonstrable lack of his own technical understanding, would you send him your money?



His reputation was destroyed by his own doing and his own words, not our skepticism.  I was skeptical from the moment he posted in the lending board, bob123 was skeptical from the moment he offered to pay for promotions.   But it was days later that I tagged him, and bob123 flagged him.

I understand your concern about abuse of the flag system and the trust system in general, but cryptosparks is really a poor example of the cause for which you fight.  The guy is a shitposting twerp, without any technical knowledge, who's fishing for an opportunity.  I'll do my part to prevent him from obtaining one.

Knowing what I know about this shitbird, I'd feel like a real shitbird myself if I waited until he actually scammed someone before expressing my skepticism.  And in the end, does it really matter?  All I did was express an opinion, anyone who disagrees with it is free to ignore it.  In fact, cryptosparks has repeatedly claimed that this attention he's gotten has been beneficial, and people have flocked into his spider army as a result.

I just wanted you to answer my questions honestly and directly, and you seem to be doing so, so thank you for that. I am specifically taking this step by step approach because I am establishing the fact that these accusations are based merely on suspicion alone, and nothing Cryptosparks has stated is either unrealistic or fraudulent as testified by a respected independent 3rd party with knowledge of the specific field in question. I am just trying to demonstrate the point that the accusations raised against him are completely arbitrary and could literally be applied to anyone offering a similar service, including Gunbot if the default trust cartel was so inclined to burn its creators reputation. I am not trying to impugn your character, in fact I think you have been very forthright and honest and I appreciate that. I would appreciate it if you chimed in on the flag thread because I think the people supporting the flag there need to hear this from you. Thanks for your time.



An honest TL;DR of this whole flag situation.

Being skeptical should not be the standard for using the trust system to destroy people's reputations. People are literally skeptical that the Earth is round, that doesn't make N.A.S.A. a scammer because people are skeptical of their model. This is my point, this entire accusation is completely subjective and largely based on ignorance of the industry in question.

Bear in mind, this is under the assumption that CryptoSparks has something that would eventually be profitable. If people are willing to scam for a few hundred dollars, there is no reason to assume they would not do the same for a few thousand. Do realize, however, that if the bot algorithm is static among the users, then you will have a lower profit margin when it comes to each individual user, so stating something as trite as guaranteeing an N% profit is not so guaranteed.

A few percentage points at high leverage is quite significant.

---

What I will say, however, is that the API secret only has an opt-in withdrawal feature, meaning that if CryptoSparks wanted to use it maliciously, he could not directly take the funds out of users' accounts.

I'm skeptical but I can't call it an outright scam.

---

P.S. Not affiliated with Gunbot.

It all starts that way, the idea. The idea is concrete when it's all theoretical but promising something wouldn't be good for anyone. So in theory, it's going to work, yes, but in reality, it could be different. Being exaggerated on an idea would be either good or bad in a marketing standpoint. Hence that statement could be viewed differently by anyone.

I'm a user of Gunbot and a Reseller. The way that they are going about is being used by other business models, I look at it as a subscription model-based with "profits" as the main source of the income. As for the suspiciousness on the offerings, it's suspicious in a way but it could change if someone tried it. The risk there is that "trying" the service, you could lose money in that stage. As for their strategy, Market Maker is a great asset and could make you money with those rebates.

I don't really know what you want me to say here. I've laid out everything that I think could be useful.

Thank you. Now would you estimate that this is an active attempt at deception, or simply a technically hyperbolic statement? As you mentioned before, there are no guarantees in trading by its nature, however is it not possible to design an algorithm that only makes trades when they are profitable, technically making that a "guaranteed" profitable trading strategy? For clarification of your expertise in this field, what is your relationship to the Gunbot project?  My intent is not to scrutinize you but to clarify with some one with knowledge of these systems in order to make it evident that there is nothing more suspicious about this users offerings that couldn't also be applied to any other similar business model. I very much appreciate you taking the time to give straight forward and direct answers without a bunch of meaningless bickering.

Uhm, I know. It's a pair. What I've said is that I don't want anyone having my API Secret. Only me. . For personal security as well.

---

Sorry for being explaining too much. The only unrealistic that CryptoSparks statements are the guaranteed profit. . The business type where it gets monthly profit percentage is somewhat used all around.

If you would, please directly answer my question.