Topic: Unfair Scammer Judgements - page 3. (Read 3418 times)

Proof the address is mine:

http://imagepaste.nullnetwork.net/viewimage.php?id=5761

I can prove that he stole 13.14 BTC from me.

I have a automated e-mail that his site sent me:


Note that if you check this address on block explorer:

http://blockchain.info/address/1DwhUDPuhnjqnrjthcyVxvpTVGV4RgtrsQ

a 13.14 BTC deposit NEVER happened.


Now the relevant thread about this subject (me complaining of he stealing 13.14 BTC):

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1174948

Other thread about the subject:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/warning-bitjack21com-will-steal-your-btc-143585

There are other threads (But I won't search now).


Now, the only counter-argument to my e-mail paste here, is that the e-mail is a elaborate forgery just to be dishonest with Andrew Bitcoiner, but the e-mail is sitting on my mailbox (I can even printscreen it... or if needed, setup a very trusted person to access my account, and see the e-mail there to be clear that I did not edited the printscreen), it says 13.14 BTC will be paid to a address, and no payment ever happened to that address.

Andrew Bitcoiner defense was that he had run out of money, and that we should just keep trying to withdraw, except his system don't return the money it took from you (ie: if you attempt to withdraw his site will take the money out of your account, but if it fails to actually send the money to you, it do not put the money back, the thread where I complained of this has other people explaining this).

So, seeing that he still is not with a scammer tag, make me very, very, very sad and frustated, specially seeing that his money-stealing site is still up.

Theymos, no offense, this thread (and the previous one) has been up for weeks.  I (and a few other people, see my old thread) have emailed him multiple times.  He is ignoring this thread. 

Also, there ARE NO RULES!  If you look at the rules, it just tells you what the site does!  There are NO RULES TO BREAK!

Second, that brings me back to my original argument.  Do people who do Bitcoin trades explicitly say that the counterparty can't run away with the money?  In the majority of cases, no, this is implied.  It's pretty reasonable to believe that a site owner can't run away with a users money.

Third, I had emails with Andrew (posted in my other thread, iirc, I'll get those here soon) that prove that I bought BTC for an amazon GC on his site!  Then, once I won some BTC and I tried to withdraw, it didn't work.  I emailed his support and got ignored several times!  What more proof do you want?

And you kinda did sign up to be the arbitrator by being the ONLY person that can give scammer tags.  If you don't want this responsibility, sign it off to someone els!

Keep in mind that I never signed up to be the Universal Arbiter of Bitcoin Truth and Justice. I give people scammer tags when it's extremely clear to me that they've broken agreements or otherwise behaved very unethically. I don't have time to (and I don't want to) investigate these things thoroughly, which is why high-profile scam cases are rarely handled quickly. I wait until things settle down and the truth becomes obvious.

This case is different than others because:
- There seems to currently be no agreement between Andrew Bitcoiner and users of his site. Andrew Bitcoiner's other site definitely said at one point that he could do whatever he wanted with deposited BTC. I assumed that bitjack21 had the same terms, but maybe not. In any case, there is no agreement that prohibits him from doing anything. This doesn't mean that he can do whatever he wants, but it helps his case.
- The affected users haven't proven that their BTC was stolen. (And this would be difficult to prove.)
- There is no clear example of Andrew Bitcoiner breaking explicit promises.
- Only a few users are affected. Things would be clear if every user was affected. But since only a few users are affected, and there was no agreement prohibiting Andrew Bitcoiner from doing anything, I feel like not much justification is necessary for Andrew Bitcoiner to close accounts with some legitimacy. Maybe the accounts were closed after the users broke site rules.

This all adds up to make things not extremely clear to me. So I'm going to err on the side of caution for now. Andrew Bitcoiner should be defending himself -- I will reconsider this if he doesn't start doing so.

If the evicence stated above exists, then this will most certainly put a permanent dent to my opinnion about Theymos, these forums and boths credibility. I will be reading the whole thread linked tomorrow and drawing my own conclutions.

So, I know how easily this thread could possibly turn into a conspiracy thread where people accuse the mods/admins of all sorts of BS.  I would like to ask that nobody turn this thread into this.

Essentially, I feel like some mods/admins (in this example, theymos) are being very unfair in scammer tag judgements.
In the Andrew Bitcoiner thread (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--143980), there are many accredited people in the Bitcoin community who have come forward and said that Andrew has scammed them.  Theymos even implicitly agreed that the funds were stolen, yet he claims that since he didn't explicitly say that he couldn't steal out Bitcoins, that he's in the green.

By this logic, I could scam EVERYONE in this forum and not get a scammer tag.  Simply because I didn't say that I couldn't in the contract!

By this logic, every scammer is not actually a scammer.  Pirate is all cool, since he didn't ACTUALLY steal our Bitcoins... We didn't say he couldn't! 

There has never been a Terms of Service on his website (bitjack21).  I don't understand where he came up with this.  On the rules page, it says that the ToS is located at https://bitjack21.com/tos.php, but it's a 404!

And then, my main point:
He's essentially saying here that JUST BECAUSE he didn't agree that he wouldn't steal our BTC, he's allowed to.  One would think this was implied!


I am not asking that theymos be kicked out of the forum or anything (because he owns it, iirc), but I would like to have a civilized (read: NO THROWING AROUND ACCUSATIONS) discussion about how the forum is to hand out scammer tags.

I fully accept that this forum is essentially a monarchy, and therefore theymos's decision is final, but I would think that the forum would want to make more fair judgements than this.