Topic: WARNING DeepOnion is a SCAM, proof inside! (Read 70388 times)

I do not know exactly what is going on here. Any project, reputed, can be a scam. But it is not appropriate to accuse any project without any proof. We can see here that most of the people are not agreed with you. So accusation is a big thing and to establish accusation, substantial evidences are required. I hope you will not be discouraged by this. And you continue expose really scam projects. 

Where is a single proof Mr.Troll ?

Cross-referencing the following for relevance sake: mosprognoz "voted out" of DefaultTrust group for poor judgement, attempted blackmail and extortion.

---

References: mosprognoz - Needs To Learn | Blackmail | Extortion
Related: Lauda DT1/trust statistics | Is Lauda still on DT?
Archived | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
IsMosprognozStillOnDT.tk

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53232333

Just as I thought: you're continuing to be unreliable and inconsistent with feedback. To correct you, your action proved my point about your inconsistent nature.


Ever feel like your digging yourself a hole?

I removed my tag, because some of his post are useful. But he used my action for continuous defending of that obvious scam. Tagged again and there is no way I will remove it. Any scam supporter must be tagged.

Cross-quoting this from archives board for reference sake, as it's relevant to the recent accuser's judgement:

Why @mosprognoz @Lauda don't want people to discuss here: 1. They have no evidence at all, 2. They are worried that being seen by others is a person who has no credit, and those who have no basis to speak are the garbage of the forum.

This time, I won't entertain your deflection tactics. I've already done so before to try and help you with your problem with referencing, after confronting you about this twice already.

Therefore, as I previously explained, I would be leaving you negative feedback for your lack of willingness to be accountable for your claims:


1. First Request


2. Second Request


3. Third Request


[Page Archived]

Dude.

Let me explain something very shortly. Deeponion was and is a scam. Here is the trust page of the developer and OP.

 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=321080

You supported the development of that scam



I tagged you for that before, but removed the tag and asked you to stop shilling for it. Despite that, you are doing that continuously and also calling me a troll and threatening to tag me. If you check my untrusted feedbacks, you can find dozens of tags and flags from scammers like you. That's why I don't give a shit about your tag. I am sorry, but you left me no more option, but to tag you again. The conversation is OWER. I wan't post here again.

I knew deep down you were capable of providing references, I've seen it before, I'm proud of you. It goes to show what you can achieve when you put your mind to it   Now you've got 24 hours to put references to your wild accusations [archived] before I give you negative trust for unfounded accusations as a slanderous troll (with a reference).

That's a generous 72 hours in total to retract your accusations or provide references for your sources. In future, I'd recommend you don't make accusations before having the references, to avoid obvious slander (even if it is a big "hunch" you've got about a project).

This stuff is really simple for most people you know: Make an accusation, provide evidence. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
Here's a reminder of the basic requirement for scam accusations, in case you forgot:


You've made some serious accusations, now you have to provide evidence, or be labeled a slanderous troll.

Given it seems you still need some help identifying accurate sources, I'll entertain your deflection tactics, but only in order to try and help you with referencing.
Did you read the referencing beginners guide I linked you before? I think you should, I can see the basic issues you are having at the moment.
In order to not just patronise your incompetence, I thought I'd try and be helpful so I've included "Top Tips" regarding referencing & accusations.

---

Example 1


*Slander removed

The reference clearly shows my contributions from March-May 2018 (specifically for successful Tails integration on Linux if you're interested, but I guess not), so not from the beginning, around 8 months since it's beginning in July 2017. My account wasn't registered here til September 2017, so that also seems somewhat unlikely. The reason I missed out on contributing to this project from the start is cos of ridiculous threads such as this one that made wild speculation about exit scams that as I've already proved, never happened

Top Tip: When using references, always check that the reference in detail to what evidence it is providing. Don't exaggerate the claim in the reference. If you're not sure what the reference specifies, then avoid using it, it can otherwise be used against you to disprove your claim, and therefore make you look less credible. In this case, the reference has been used against you to disprove your claim. Oops.

---

Example 2


Hang on, why didn't you just quote what I said instead of link what I said, that's a bit odd isn't it? Oh wait, you were trying to exaggerate your claims again, makes sense now.
Let's read what I actually said:


Looks like I questioned Lauda to what the screenshot meant and claimed it was in alpha testing, ironically with a reference to back up such claims. See what I did there again, with the referencing?? And when did I say deepsend was coming? I said it was in alpha testing, not coming. I'd only say it's coming when it's in beta testing and I can see it working with my own eyes, not before. I deal in facts, not theories.

Top Tip: Don't assume that if someone is disproving a claim, they are promoting something, or claiming the public release of something. While hiding a quote behind a link can be sneaky at first, it'll only bite you in the ass when someone brings back the linked quote you are referencing to prove you wrong again. Same tip really, avoid exaggerating the truth.

---

Example 3



So Github are part of the conspiracy too as this project is dead and the development activity is a lie? You are hilarious!
Don't worry, I'm keeping a tally of the conspiring parties that so far includes; blockstats, blockexperts and now github. Anyone others you want to add to your claim?
For example, I believe that Bitcoin SV is still an active project, as do many others for that matter, so you think this is also promotion

Top Tip: Seek medical attention for the possible psychosis you appear to be suffering from. I now believe you are delusional, not much else.

---

So you think a tag from some who (you are implying) engages in crystal-clear abuse of the flag system is enough? Wow, great standards you've got there!
For the record I'd appreciate you tagging me, given Lauda's lack of trust as well as relevance these days. Do you know where Lauda went anyway? I miss them and their one liners  

---

Maybe you should consider spending more time here due to lack of evidence then? Just a suggestion  

Because you supported that scam from very beginning.


Now you are denying that it was a scam and promoting it by saying that deepsend is coming.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52745148

You are also claiming that deeponion is active project and never died. (Is that some kind of promotion ? The answer is YES)



No I am not going to support that flag, because I do not think it is a correct one. Regarding tagging, the tag from Lauda is more than enough.

(*) Assumed correction to quote: corrected "now" to "no".  Please be mindful of typos when having a temper tantrum in future.

Thanks for confirming what I and probably many others thought: no sources, no references, no evidence. Just wild accusations, as I expected.

You've just proved it's a small cap altcoin, ranked 652, with low volume, worth approximately $0.14. Your medal is in the post I promise.
You didn't need the RED BOLD CAPTIALS to do this, it comes across a bit deseperate tbh, but never-mind I do like the arrows though.
I'll remind you that small cap altcoins aren't inherently scams, even if in your head it "totes makes sense" and it "totes a scam because of it".

Why do you assume I'm trying to resurrect this project though? It's strange as it doesn't need resurrecting as it never died
Take care, I wish you all the best in your scam accusations in the future! Only because you'll clearly need it.

If you could now please support the flag against me and put your (lack of) words where your mouth is:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=884

Thanks in advance!

Once again !!!

STOP SHILLING FOR AN OBVIOUS SCAM !!! THERE IS NO WAY TO RESURRECT IT !!!

[Archived]

Apologies mosprognoz, I'm not trying to bump the thread, just asking for clarity of your un-referenced accusations. I'm a stickler for references! Otherwise it reads as an accusation without evidence, to me as well as any other newbies reading this. The only people who will believe you are those that trust you unfortunately. References help people to support your argument.

Sometimes we forget that threads that are years old, which haven't been updated for at least 20 months, won't contain up-to-references. In this case, we are best providing them to avoid any doubt. For example the OP hasn't been active since January 26th 2018, whereas the airdrop scam "supposedly" ended on April 20th 2018. We should really fill in that 3 month gap for a stronger case. A lot has happened in that time, the project have since then published claims of accountability regarding coin distribution, as referenced below.

Please be aware, I am not arguing against ancient claims and theories made by the OP, but your accusation only, in order to avoid any doubt or misunderstanding. Similar to how I confronted Lauda over her inaccurate statement, which they(*) later semi-acknowledged, begrudgingly I imagine, with the usual flags and tags.

To start with, I'm formally requesting your sources for the following accusations. It doesn't have to be yours, any post will do, just a reference at minimum.


Ideally, if you could answer the following questions with your sources (this would also be useful as an up-to-date reference for future shills):
1. Could you explain why this address is listed as development fund and still has 2.9 million onions? Or the bounty fund with 1.8 million?
2. Do you think the referenced block explorer block experts is colluding with the project too and should be flagged? In total it references 30% of the circuling supply accounted for.
3. Was the 10 million onion airdropped also made up numbers? It's possible blockstats are colluding too, I can't prove otherwise, but if so should also be flagged if there's an account.
4. I see the CMC references 25 million as max supply, this would imply 40% of max supply was airdropped (47% of total supply / 62% of current circulating supply). Is this also wrong?
Note: I personally wouldn't call 40-62% a tiny amount, they are quite relevant percentage, on average half, but that's obviously subjective.


Wow, that must of been some work! Again, is there any evidence of this, or just another accusation based on a few participants who were kicked from sig campaign?
If blockstats are not colluding in this conspiracy, then that's 917 alt acounts to receive that final airdrop. A whopping 1914 alt accounts in total! If you are right then you would be 100% correct, this by far would be the largest airdrop scam in history. I'd assume it'd be one of the biggest case of account farming too, which makes it even more surprinsgly there is no thread documenting this alleged fraud. Instead we take your word for it??

I would very much appreciate references (evidence) with your response, given the situation with the out-of-date scam accusation. I'll understand if like Lauda you are not able to do this. I'm actually quite understanding believe it or not, hence I didn't leave you negative feedback in retaliation when you applied it to me (before deleting it).
And/or feel free to leave me negative feedback / support the flag against me for my questioning, you wouldn't be the first  


That's odd, I thought it was a Russian scammer?


That's what you said 2 years ago, do you see my point about out-of-date accusations yet?

Agreed, these guys like him should be banned for fake accusations and shit posts everywhere.

What you said is racist, don't blame me for not giving you a good face.

I should add that you are using a woke up account for shilling.

It’s better to say this than a pig.

I warned you.