Topic: TradeFortress VERY untrustworthy, owes me 10.15 BTC, possibly others. (Read 11363 times)

Bingo, looks like that timing is the smoking gun of the scammer who definitely should NOT be in the default trust list for perpetrating this scam alone.

Forensic analysis to back up the timing evidence. I'm convinced and so should most reasonable people.
Link in my sig with more TF scam activities plus you get to see how many puppets TF used to vote he doesn't scam.

The address TradeFortress used to issue this bad debt was funded by... rMyHUbgreHFvvxoD5pGmg1fKRdSBHisy39 - the TradeFortress address is by the way the ONLY address that this "aadje93 address" was funding (Funding means the first initial transaction of XRP in Ripple that are partially held as account reserve).

aadje93 seems to be a guy named Adrian from the Nederlands or Belgium (if you take the 93 as birth year, he's likely 19-20 years old). I'm not too sure that he is actually TradeFortress (different writing style amongst other things) but I really wonder then why he sent some XRP to this address that was used to scam people AND managed to scam them for real as well afterwards. There must be some connection between TF and aadje93, after all their addresses are far to closely linked in the Ripple graph for this to be accidential or by chance.

It'd have to be a translation, it's a 5yo Romanian insider joke.

If MP keeps this up, I can see "There's a relevant Trilema for everything" forming, much like xkcd.

Get in the WoT already will you.


Welcome to the problem of infinite hitpoints.

I guess we're kinda similar... We both don't double space after a period.

Other than that, he's way more professional, and tends to write less.

When I first got here I called out BitEnsure as a ponzi scheme, and I looked at BitLenders thinking I was going to find the same thing, but there wasn't anything I could fault him with.

There have been quite a few scam accusations but his accusers tend to be vindictive melodramatic adolescents that never prove their point, or never have a point to begin with. So I bought a CD at CoinLenders.

Hopefully I judged correctly, but at any rate it has nothing to do with my thoughts about Ripple. You said that you're suppose to only trust people you trust IRL, but not even that can be trusted.

Well, I kept TradeFortress, dumped Theymos, and added MPOE-PR and Kakobrekla to my trust list.

Lets see who has the last laughs shall we?

The OP who got "ripped off":

I agree, and I don't, but what else are brand new users meant to do?
They have to assume that the default they have been given are sensible.

This was before the trust rating on the forum though.

I'd say the lesson is don't trust the default trust list. Dumbfruit is a TF sockpuppet btw, I recognize his style.

This very board tells 'noobs' that TradeFortress is someone who can be trusted not to rip them off, because the default trust settings assigned to every new user give him something like a +17 trust rating.
So the lesson to 'noobs' is not to trust the trust system.

No they said don't trust people in the system you don't trust in reality.

TFs scheme only worked because noobs were stupid enough to think they can "sell" trust.

Oh I read it, believe me. As soon as they remove "liquidity provider" from the system entirely they will fix it.

People seem to forget that Ripple was around long before OpenCoin got their hands on it. Ripple doesn't require cryptocurrencies to do it's thing, but it didn't work. Why? Because The core concept of Ripple is entirely unworkable.

They pretend like Ripple just automates the way people treat each-other in the real world, and nothing could be farther from the truth.

Look at the assumptions Ripple makes;

1.) If I trust my brother, it must mean I trust my brother's debtors.

2.) Debt is time invariant. It assumes that money today is just as valuable as money at any given future date.

(As a combination of one and two, it assumes that all debt with the same principal are interchangeable.)

3.) The principal of the maximum loan I would give accurately reflects trust. Without interest, terms, or collateral.

4.) There is no moral hazard involved when a "liquidity provider" can always renege on it's debts and allow another "liquidity provider" fulfill it's obligations.

5.) Having more debt than currency is a good idea.


Then consider all the things they try to do to fix this problem;
-Beginning of list-
-They recommend that no one trust anyone but the gateways.
-End of list-

If that isn't a laughable admission of defeat, I don't know what is. There is no way to make Ripple work without automating the subjective valuation of debt between people, which just can't be done with today's technology (And maybe never.).

Webr3 was pompous and refused to believe that TradeFortress was showing everyone a real problem in Ripple. He lost bitcoins, and then TradeFortress returned what he lost, at which point he promptly did exactly the same thing and lost his bitcoins again. He gets a few laughs, but very little sympathy from me.

He trusted TradeFortress, nobody else. Read the messages, DumbFruit. You apparently don't know much about what happened here and therefore I am asking you to actually read this thread and search info about this.


Well can't you just do that with Ripple network? You choose who you trust. Please read more about how Ripple works and how the trust in Ripple works (how it's safely used).

It's really exciting to see theory tested. I've stayed well clear of Ripple for this exact reason. As TradeFortress puts it; trust isn't binary.

This concept in Ripple is central to it's usefulness and it just doesn't hold water. These objections have been brought up since it's inception and it's only been met with constant hand-waving by the Ripple developers.

Even debt at Banks like Chase or Bank of America aren't interchangeable. The whole idea of Ripple is that if Chase promises to redeem 100$, then Bank of America will redeem 100$ and hold the IOU from Chase. That's completely outrageous.

Imagine that we somehow got to a point where Ripple was the dominant exchange platform in the world, and regularly handles transactions on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars. You mean to tell me that we're just suppose to trust notoriously untrustworthy banks to never have less than 100% reserves? That a gigantic bank is never going to default and renege on it's IOU's? If we trusted banks this much, then why did we ever bother with Bitcoin?

The constant inclination in the system would be to move debt of untrustworthy institutions, to trustworthy institutions. Putting the bad debt on the balance sheets of the good banks.

The developers of course continue creating their mountain of rules and caveats to inexorably chip away at the problem, but what they don't realize is that they're chipping away at their central premise; That of interchangeable debt. Once they totally abandon that idea, they'll have something that works, but when they get there, what will be the point?

A peer to peer trust-free medium of exchange?                                                            _(BTC)

Edit:
ROFLMAOPIMP
Webr3
This is where this started??:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=210634.20

Where you were WARNED REPEATEDLY in a thread totally about TradeFortress "scamming" people and then you lost 10btc anyway? He gets your bitcoins back to you, you are warned again, and you lose them in exactly the same way! Holy cow! LMAO!!!

TradeFortress should have kept your bitcoins, and you shouldn't parading around in your dumbassity*  trying to attack TradeFortress' reputation.

Wow. I have to step back and cool off from this. This too hilarious/dumb/incredible.

*That's a word now.

Edit2:
"Okay, why should I remove the trust line? Have you extend trust to people who are untrustworthy?" -Webr3
Ahahahahahaha. Wow.

Edit3:
Ahem... Now that I've had a few deep breathes. Sorry for your loss, but it's a problem with Ripple, not TradeFortress.

Edit4: Realized they never really made any serious effort to address the problems.

Here it is:

Wiggle all you want, you knowingly caused harm.
It may not be scammy, but it is pretty scummy.

And it is nothing like annoucing a security leak in SSL. The equivalent would be that you didn't just announce the leak, you created a page to trash end-users' computers, and tricked them into visiting your site.

I didn't directly do harm to people, and no it is not scamming.