Topic: [WARNING] Whirlwind.money - withdrawals are not being processed ⚠️ - page 2. (Read 2330 times)

Do you think we are stupid?

Since OP (and the others) got refund not from whirlwind directly but thanks to the fact that they left some escrowed money, I am not removing support for the flag.



I almost left similar amount there as well, thinking that it's not worth the other people's time but then I thought fuck it, $10 in BTC now might be much more in the future so I got it out. Afterall, every satoshi counts.  

I have not seen anyone who so willingly wants to part with money, even if it's just $20, to a service that is not functioning anymore. How do you possibly think he will get a refund for that amount in any situation where he wanted to reclaim it? Just go to minerjones and ask for more DAI? No, that would display incompetence.

There's no need in additional evidence of that the mixer is not working properly anymore. We all know that. So as LoyceMobile said, it's just "throwing money away". And deliberate provocation of a crime won't add anything. All we need for our conclusions is on the table already. Whirlwind scammed, it's a fact. The only doubts are about which types of flags are the most appropriate in this case. And making additional act of losing money in a scam project just to have one type of a flag instead another is IMO ethically dubious.

That's not a loophole, it's throwing money away.

It looks like both sides have good points. Decodx says that whirlwind didn't hold up their end of the deal, while LoyceV argues that he was mostly compensated (money-wise). So, whether to support the Type-3 Flag or not really comes down to how each of us sees the situation and our own viewpoints on the matter. It's a decision that's influenced by our individual assessments and perspectives. And, there shouldn't be any "tagging" involved, from any side, as that would go against the intended use of the trust system.

---

Here's a valid loophole: given that whirlwind's Tor site is still operational in some way, decodex could deposit another 0.001 BTC (the minimum required for mixing) and share the evidence here. This way, the Type-3 Flag becomes valid again, aligning with all the relevant points.

Yeap, that's it. LoyceV convinced me that in ambiguous situation the support of a flag can be unnecessary, but at the same time as the situation is still ambiguous I see no reason for opposing it. As usual there's a third way, not doing any of these.

And keeping in mind that this situation is still ambiguous, I think that everyone has a right to see this situation in a different light and keep their votes.

Until consensus is found (what will hardly happen, as to me) IMO both voting for and not voting for this flag is okay. I'm not sure that opposing is right as it is not a clear case and we are not a jury.

Apart from the fact that removing support for flag type 3 and support for type 1 would supposedly be the right thing to do, what difference does it make in terms of warning of the risk? I see that there are a lot of us who have not withdrawn support for type 3 and I am sure that more than half of us have heard about it.

Seeing that there are disparate opinions on the matter, I'm going to stand still for the moment.

We can't really Flag someone for things we don't know. The moment someone creates a new type 3 Flag with new evidence, I'll gladly Support it again.

This might be worth getting a clarification from theymos on the intended use of the Flag system in this case. As far as I know the Flag system is the only part of the Trust system which is supposed to stick to strict rules.

I'd argue all this falls under the "make the victims of this act roughly whole" part. When you received the amount from escrow, you could have used it to buy the same amount of Bitcoin again. It's not perfect, but your loss was (more or less) covered.

There's another reason: Flags should encourage people to do the right thing, and when that happens, the Flag becomes invalid. The unique thing here is that WWM didn't do anything but it happened anyway. The only thing stopping me from going for the "hit by a bus"-scenario is the message WWM sent to Hhampuz.
None of this makes sense.

That's okay

The word he was looking for is "mentioning", not "tagging". On Bitcointalk, the word "tagging" is used for (red) feedback.

You're reading this wrong. The AND is required for Supporting the Flag, which means you can't Support it if only one of the parts is true. So if there's damage, AND it wasn't forgiven, the Flag can be Supported. But if there's no damage AND it wasn't forgiven, the Flag becomes invalid. Or, if there is damage AND it was forgiven, the Flag also becomes invalid.
Think of it as a logical operator.

That's not what Opposing a Flag means. Opposing a Flag only means that that specific Flag is incorrect at that moment. There are more scammers on Bitcointalk who have many inactive Flags, until they received a correct one which was Supported. Inactive Flags mean nothing, neither good nor bad.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see a big red warning shown to everyone above their topics. But it should be based on a Flag I can agree on, based on the rules that the Flag system was created on.

Lol. I don't think that's a valid loophole

What do you suggest I read? I do believe I understand how the Flag system works, and that's why I explained why I think my Flag is still valid. That doesn't mean we can't discuss the points I've made.


Alright, there was a misunderstanding there. When you mentioned "tagging," I assumed you meant the tags like neutral or negative in trust feedback. My bad for that confusion.


No, that's not what I said. I'll drop the flag if I figure out that most people are in favor of it, or if someone manages to convince me that my flag isn't valid.

Btw, I still got around $12 left on my whirlwind note but didn’t want to waste anyone’s time for such low amount, so the victims weren’t all made whole.

I just skimmed over everyone’s arguments so I’m not changing anything for now (i.e opposing the flag). Will do a better read tomorrow and take a decision.

(I don’t mind the tagging)

Ya it seems like your comment is invisible.

While I trust Loyce judgment I think he got it wrong this time, removing vote may be "ok", but going as far as opposing the flag is surely wrong IMO, it is like saying the whole story was a lie and WW did nothing bad, I think you should keep the flag and I think people should support it.


Not everybody would agree on the same thing, do as you please, this is free forum، if you think WW did you wrong and you are not satisfied with the outcome why even think of removing the flag even if everyone else opposed it?


But hey this is a case we have not seen before, it is fun to see DT members disagree, get some popcorn.

Threat?!  
Better read and understand better how flags work.
I tagged them to bring their attention and they can make their own decision what to do.
I am not tagging anyone for virtual assassination, and you said that you agree for removing flag support:


So you want to remove support for your own flag, but you dont like if I and other members do the same.

I tend to agree here and in addition to your very valid points, I would like to add that Whirlwind.money did not made anyone roughly whole - only the luckily available funds in minerjone's escrow address did. Whirlwind.money wasn't actively refunding anyone, it's just luck that the fund still has been there - possibly even on purpose to calm Bitcointalk members down and scam the remaining funds (which are certainly bigger than the 40k DAI).

In addition, it's hard to judge if all of the victims forgave the act. After all, Whirlwind.money didn't deliver any explanation, didn't even come back here after their scam attempt and that's a very important point in my opinion, how to achieve that all victims can forgive an act.

Finally, the flag clearly says AND, meaning that both points need to be covered even if some thinks one point of it isn't valid anymore.


I can't imagine that anyone who's in his clear mind would forgive Whirlwind.money, if Whirlwind.money doesn't even bother to log in and write a few lines here. Even then, it's difficult to imagine which excuse is eligible to get forgivenness of all victims. Whirlwind.money has screwed up big time and needs to convince us, to forgive them. Since it's not happened, the flag is valid in my opinion.

Um.. What? Why? Did you read my previous comment?

Maybe you just didn't pick the right words, but that kinda sounded like a threat.

1- The act DID result in damages
2- WW did NOT make the victims roughly whole, it just so happened they left some funds in escrow.

I believe the flag still stands perfectly valid, untill WW show up and make the victims roughly whole.

We can even argue that BTC price was higher on the day they stopped working compared to when we got our money from escrow, so there is at least a small damage that has not been fixed.

My understanding of this type of flags is the accused party MUST fix the issue themselves, in other words, if there was no fund in escrow and someone managed to hack WW's server and paid the victims, does that also mean this flag is not valid? i do not think this is what theymos means.


Why do you think everyone would remove the support? This is still a topic of discussion, I disagree with LoyceV interpretation of that text, I supported the new flag, but I won't remove my vote on the old one unless I am convinced otherwise.

I am tagging everyone who is still supporting old decodx flag.
Very good to see OP got his refund, and for more details please read previous posts to understand better what happened and please check new flag that is created:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3207


Support or Oppose, it is your choice.
Thank you all.

Hmm... I think this is an interesting precedent. Has there ever been situations like this?

Technically speaking, I think my Flag is still valid. Here's why:

I made a deposit of 0.004 BTC with the aim of coin mixing, and I expected the same amount of BTC (minus fees) as stated in the contract (Whirlwind official ANN and Whirlwind.money FAQ). On August 14, 2023, the value of 1 BTC was around $29,500. This makes the equivalent of my deposit about $117.50.

What eventually happened is that on August 18th and 20th, I received a total of 104 DAI from the escrow, which is equivalent to $104.00. So, as I see it, Whirlwind still violated a written contract, resulting in damages, specifically because:

• My BTC was exchanged for an altcoin without my consent and at a less favorable rate.
• My coins weren't mixed as expected using their service.
• My anonymity was compromised because I was forced to share private information with third parties.
• I had to put in extra effort and time (sending multiple inquiries to their customer support, PMs, making my case public, contacting the escrow custodian, gathering evidence, etc.) to claim my compensation rights.

Now, I did mention before that I received the full amount of my deposit (although technically not accurate), but that wasn't thanks to Whirlwind but rather due to individuals outside of my initial contract with Whirlwind. Specifically, minerjones and Hhampuz, who facilitated the release of escrow funds, and Ratimov, who converted DAI to BTC without a fee.

In any case, I agree to remove my Flag if you guys say it's the right thing to do. I just wanted to note that I personally believe the Flag is still valid. However, I'm not a lawyer, so I admit that my opinion isn't worth much!

I think overall casinos probably are worse. As both exit scams and just the slow selective scamming of people.
Not to mention when a mixer has gods bad, as a rule they have done it either instantly or over a period of days.
Casinos have done it over weeks and months and even some that are KNOWN scammers are still here.


-Dave

We can't be sure. For example, if the information from the onion site is correct, after the last known case (this one from decodx) there were at least two more deposits.


Escrow was set up for a completely different reason, in the end, it turned out to be a happy solution because all potential losses are covered for now.


I support your flag, of course.
However, I remain of the opinion that one should not strictly adhere to every letter or rule if they indicate the same thing. At least while the ww service is active with deposit enabled and withdrawal disabled. Every kind of warning is needed in such cases.