Topic: [WARNING] Whirlwind.money - withdrawals are not being processed ⚠️ - page 3. (Read 2393 times)

I also removed my supported for the old flag and I supported the new one, as this seems to be the appropriate approach now, according to Flag system.
Very good observation, LoyceV! Indeed, the old flag was no longer describing properly the issue, while the new one is suited for now.

No more damages that we know.
Anyone else who used whirlwind mixer and had no connection with bitcointalk forum can't get any refund for potential loses.
I also think that refunds happened only because manager initiative that had enough extra coins to cover all the loses decodx had.

Anyway I removed my support for previous flag, and I supported new Flag Type 1.

Yes, thanks. I already supported it. 👍

I created one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3207

Well... okay. Pretty clear is not in case of ambiguous. You convinced me. I'll remove my vote. Will wait for a flag of 1 type, to vote again.

I made another part bold: there are no damages anymore.

---

---

I created a type 1 Newbie warning Flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3207

Why isn't it correct anymore? Did whirlwindmoney make any efforts to solve the situation? Did he ever say that deposited funds should be used to solve this situation? What did he do to solve the situation? I see nothing. What you highlighted with bold looks like he should make active efforts to solve this exact situation. So at least he should come and confirm that all was done right.

So I don't think that it is something obvious even if escrow guy made efforts to solve the problem. I see no clear action from whirlwindmoney.

I'd say that it is an ambiguous situation.

@decodx: you should withdraw your Flag:
I've removed my Support and Opposed for your Flag. Anyone who Supported the Flag should consider doing the same.

This is why:

The current Type 3 Flag claims this:
As far as I can see, the bold part is no longer correct, which means the Flag should no longer be Supported.

---

---

This doesn't mean I'd trust whirlwindmoney now, it only means the Type 3 Flag can no longer be used.
The site still takes deposits while withdrawals aren't working, so a Newbie warning flag would be good.

I don't think I've ever seen such a situation on Bitcointalk before.

If I may give my two cents, I personally think the trust system of this forum is not preventive in sense of a posteriori. Some things and some users are indeed tagged after an incident happens, but it's not necessarily means every case are handled and the DTs taking action only after something occured.

As repetitively pointed out by many members, this forum [or if I may narrow it down, this board] runs on evidences, i.e.: give strong evidences to back up your claim and/or accusation, and DTs will take action. We don't need to wait for the incident to occur as long as someone has substantial proof about it, or as stated by PP [so he's partially correct about this], evidences to prove something beyond reasonable doubt. But DT will not works on hearsay. Just because someone said [for example] I scammed them, should DT run and tag me?

Instances that action are taken before the scam happens are plenty. You raised a nice one. The others are projects with questionable traits; plagiarized whitepaper, fake team members, fake testimonials, phising platforms. Do DTs wait for these projects to scam people before tagging them? No. DTs took action and paint them red the instance evidences are brought that they indeed are very likely to scam. Thus, a priori.

I think you misinterpreted my comment, I didn't trust them at all.  In fact, I've grown to distrust all mixers, and especially the ones new on the scene.  The obvious exception was CM, but they had been around long enough to prove their trustworthiness before I even joined the forum.

The operative word in my comment which you quoted is "seemed."  And they did seem legit at first; they developed a unique structure for their mixer, they appeared really committed to their technology, and they seemed excited about their project.  The whirlwind account was engaged, approachable, and articulate.  It doesn't mean I trusted them, but I did get the impression that, given time, they were the most likely to gain the community's trust the way CM had.  


I couldn't agree more.  This thread is full of deflections and obfuscations from otherwise intuitive people.  It seems like there's an effort by many reputable members here to disconnect their own actions from any culpability.  On the one hand I don't think there's any need to do so, no one is blaming the sig-campaigners for whirlwind's exit scam so it seems more like a manifestation of their own guilt or shame for being involved.  But on the other hand, we're all in new and uncharted territory.  A forum with it's own internal economy is somewhat unique, and most of us have probably never participated in one before joining Bitcointalk.  Couple that with new and developing markets and services within the cryptosphere, and it's enough to confuse the most sophisticated among us.  We should be looking at this event as a learning experience and take a more measured approach next time we're faced with a similar situation.

There was a time when buying and selling forum accounts was acceptable, but when it became obvious that many were using purchased accounts to scam other members it also become obvious a change was needed.  When some start abusing the policies and traditions of the forum, we evolve.  There may come a time when we as a community decide that advertising for startup mixers is too high a risk for the community, and the practice becomes unacceptable.

Which brings me back to the comment in my first post in this thread; mixers are notorious for turning into exit scams.  I haven't ran the numbers, but I surmise that more mixers have exit-scammed than any other service that is promoted through sig campaigns on this forum.  Now, I don't want anyone to misinterpret me again; I have nothing against mixers, and I'm a firm believer in privacy.  I stepped down from a higher paying sig-campaign to advertise for CM because I believed in them and the service they provided.  But mixers are centralized services that can only claim to provide privacy, and we have to trust that they'll do what they claim.  That alone goes against the first things we learn when entering the world of cryptocurrencies; don't trust, verify.  And don't get me started on the often claimed but ridiculous promise of anonymity.  No one can assure your anonymity when you're using an unknown centralized service.

I actually go the other way on this.
Personally, the we are not your mom it's the internet theory works well for me a lot of the time.

Along with that, is the other part of it.

If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. There is no rule here saying we have to put up with or even not knock down things we don't like / don't support / don't trust. That's the way it is. Could something or someone legit be tagged. Yes. Then work a little harder and prove you are legit. Or go someplace else and prove you are legit and come back here. That's the way it is. This is not the 'better 100 guilty people walk free then 1 innocent person goes to jail' this is @theymos's house more or less and potential scams are not moderated. Nowhere that I can see is the rule that 'potential scams can't have their feelings hurt' or a rule that says we have to tolerate and not respond to things we don't agree with or like.

You're a newbie, use an escrow.
Account scales do cause issues.
If it's too good to be true it probably is.
And so on.

If you don't like the way things are done, feel free to leave. Nobody has to be here.

Same way that since WasabiWallet.io went full spyware, they now have 1 person supporting them. Everyone else keeps pointing out how bad it is and how wrong he is. But he keeps coming back with BS on how Wasabi is better and such. And he keeps getting slapped down. Don't have to like / believe / trust him or the product he supports but nobody kicked him out or removed all the Wasabi threads or anything like that. That's the way it is.

-Dave

If you promote some trash VPN telling people it makes them more secure, while not actually believing in that product nor using it yourself, you're an ingenuine scumbag. And you're abusing your followers' trust (in your knowledge, experience, integrity, reputation) for a few quick easy bucks.

Only because other people are doing it, does not make it right.

How did they suddenly become 'the most legit mixer' in just a few weeks or months of operation? In my opinion, trust needs time to build.

I do fully agree with that. However, you must confess that the reason signature campaigns have requirements such as 'Hero / Legendary member' is because they know higher ranked members pull in more users due to their perceived higher trustworthiness. Or Bitcoin members in general, over e.g. a web banner ad.

It's surely cheaper to just go for 'mass coverage' either through campaigns that accept every applicant and pay a few pennies per post, or through buying banner ads online, if you don't believe that the trustworthiness and reputation of Bitcointalk forum members influences people's business decisions.

The very nature of Bitcointalk signature campaigns means that our reputation and trustworthiness is worth something (the difference between our payouts and a generic web banner ad).
Therefore, I find it incorrect to claim that we have 0 influence over people's decisions by wearing advertising signatures.

I agree with that. We shouldn't tag everyone, that's why I said "with valid suspicion." I think it's important to strike a balance between warning others about potential scams and avoiding hasty judgments. Negative feedback indeed loses its impact if it becomes too widespread and indiscriminate. But, things are hardly ever just black and white, and there are a whole range of shades of gray in between.

Let me break it down with an example: Just the other day, me and some other DT members gave a negative tag to the account OldCat over this topic. As far as I know, the scam hasn't actually happened. But based on what we can see, there's a legit reason to be suspicious about a possible scam. So, in this case, is my judgment flawed, and is the negative tag unwarranted? I don't believe so. Waiting for an actual scam would basically make the whole reputation system useless as an early warning signal.

I suspect that anyone can scam at some point, just like anyone can commit a murder. But we shouldn't tag everyone, just like we don't jail everyone "to prevent crimes".
We can warn people, but that's where it stops. Negative feedback loses it's "power" if everyone has it.

Why would that be so bad? I don't get it... (I did read eddie13's post, and I agree with some of his points, but not all of them). Why shouldn't seniors act more preventively and warn the less experienced members? Isn't the whole point of such a forum platform to share one's knowledge and experiences with others? And I'm not talking about "bullying newbies in the name of protecting idiots," as eddie13 phrased it. Instead, I'm talking about a valid suspicion (to the best of my knowledge) that someone might scam, even before the actual act of scam occurs.

Vetting - requirements before campaign can be created, requirements before projects can be promoted, restrictions/levels of promotion as time goes by to ensure trust is established first...instead of just letting anyone make a campaign.


Then the community is also blame to a (much lesser) extent if that is truly the mentality - and if there is suspicion but it is ignored.

That would be very bad. See eddie13's post, he wrote it much better than I can.

I don't know how is it expected to be done. I remember such scam projects as Miracle Tele and Tartaria, they had officially registered companies, with all entries in the registers, their CEOs appeared everywhere in person and made videos. And anyway they were made to scam.

As for mixers, such projects are made for anonymity and anonymity of devs could be expected as additional level of anonymity. So how can we know?

Anonymity mining was suspicios, but if a project wanted to get more users to become bigger and more competitive it could be done the same way, so it was not a 100% guarantee of scam.

Sometimes things are obvious: stolen WP, fake team, etc. And we see that these cases are usually found really soon. But as for others... I don't know how we can be sure.

I don't know what work you expect to be done when the very majority opinion of DTs is that only when you have hard evidence beyond reasonable doubt is when you should red paint a profile. The scam is only red painted a posteriori, when it is already evident that it has occurred. If you add to that the fact that the scammer spends his money in promoting his project here, nobody will bite the hand that feeds him.

There is not going to be anything that can be done from the forum beforehand to prevent if someone plans to scam with a bit of brains. It is only to be verified a posteriori, when it has already taken place.

I also don't think it would achieve much if people would agree to act more preventively with the trust system, especially if the scammer invests money promoting the project on the forum and also with a bit of brains.  

I knew something was fishy the moment that I saw the "anonymity mining" campaign...and the lack of information about who exactly was controlling the multi signature keys.

As for the signature campaign and level of responsibility...DireWolf and Fillipone, you are both right. The problem is that the forum has not chosen what way we want to go as a community. We have had bounty campaigns advertise multi million dollar scams, services promoted by users who scam similar amounts, etc. The fact is that there is no ruling or guideline that one must follow to ensure that they are not promoting a service with red flags.

There definitely needs to be more work in ensuring that both campaign operators and participants aren't promoting a current or future scam. A constant oversight/oversight group between the campaign manager, project admin and group won't stop the problem but it might catch it sooner, while ensuring the campaign manager's innocence IF something goes wrong later.

I'm sure with more brainstorming a solution could be created...but, just like the cyber security and privacy board, I doubt that the need will be fulfilled.