Topic: WHICH flags are appropriate for each scenario listed here??????????????????????? - page 2. (Read 1283 times)

*removes hat and places over heart*

You are absolutely correct, I concede good sir, I admit that you, a random stranger has bested me at a war of rambling words. There is nothing wrong with your logic and you need not even consider anyone else's opinion because you have a dictionary without common sense which guides you through the uncertainty of human interaction. I have been utterly trounced by your mastery of bias, capital letters, and the inability to recognize the fallibility of man.

Congratulations, you have taught me that no one is worthy of mistakes, nor can an opinion regarding a situation differ. Man is an evil creature and all things they do are an elaborate ruse to trick the unsuspecting. It is not possible that someone made a mistake regarding a new technology that they were implementing, and as a result they aimed to fix that mistake, further damning them with evidence to commit conspiracy.


Why did you even bother asking for people's opinions if you are the defining truth oh wise one?

hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha your post is full on false bullshit and deranged stupidity. Your 2 mins of research you cobbled together to hold together your destroyed argument is desperation.  Take your time and your medication and then accept you can not just redefine right as left to suit you and your pals.

1. even if it they were fair game and were all mined in 5 mins THAT IS AN INSTAMINE
2. THEY WERE NOT FAIR GAME - READ THE LINK

can you not read or just pretending you can not read?  here let me quote it here for you.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4593601
Edufield said the github version was not updated, nobody could compile and only Edufield was able to mine until that time. It is 5.09 am and Edufield instamined alone 1153 block at 500 DRK + 60 block at reward 277 = 593120 DRK for him alone in about 1 hour.

Lol - I just noticed i was getting 500 coins per micro second but everyone else was mining too LOL
Lol _ I just noticed nobody else could mine and i have huge amounts of coins ....should i restart the launch because people are screaming they can not mine at me ... FUCK NO I will slash away 75% OF THE REST OF THE MINTING hahah no we did not reduce the minting by 75%, reduce no longer means that you take it away... we added 75% extra to the minting because adding means taking it away now. Hope that is clear. SS says it is totally reasonable and he came to the same conclusion.


WHY WOULD THEY OFFER A 2 000 000 000  dollar compensation air drop bozo??? after such pressure about the instamine?

It is undeniable. Stop looking like a person that will say anything however far fetched and retarded to support liars and scammers.

I am SS. When i get destroyed in debate and my points debunked i then wish to redefine the meaning of words so that I can still keep posting foolish nonsense.

I think it is safe to confirm you are a gang member. Nobody else would try and deny it was a lie. I mean I had previously put down your stupidity to being unhinged or slightly weird. But you would have to be a full retard to try and now attempt to change the definition of an instamine after the other parts of your argument fell apart one by one.

Yeah let's pretend it happened by accident when it could have been restarted and pretend it was an accident they decided to reduce the rest of the minting by 75%. Then just pretend it never happened.

Scammers can just say I did not scam. Then just change the definition of scamming to one that suits them better so they really did not scam in their opinion. Then if it is just an opinion then you can not be held financially responsible for it anyway. Ask SS he will confirm.

Seems you are willing to accept anything however unlikely it seems when it suits your agenda or that of your pay master lauda, but one needs 100% iron clad proof before you will need to change the definition of WORDS to debunk their argument. I see.

Looks suspicious to me. Perhaps everything you say needs to be treated with extreme caution. I mean if you are this crazy and believe you can redefine WORDS to suit your purpose then that is almost terrifying. hahaha

I don't say you're a scammer but wow you must be really deranged to believe even a small proportion of what you type here.

Quick scam gang, poor merit on salty for redefining words after his other points were gradually eroded away with reason and logic.

I don't care to argue with you over the definition. The source was released well ahead of time and announced. There was a problem that resulted in more coins than expected being mined, but they were fair game to everyone. The developers decided it wouldn't be good for the health of the blockchain or to incentive users or whatever else, so they gave away coins.

Not an instamine in my opinion. Ask 100 users and you'll get some that say it was and wasn't an instamine. Therefore, it is not an absolute fact and within reason that Lauda would share a similar conclusion that I came to.

I don't care about Lauda, and have nothing to do with their reputation. You ask me if left is right, and I said no, and for that I'm defending someone's character? No, I just think its reasonable to say that Lauda was not lying in this very particular case.

Read again
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7535561

so now you see your prior argument got debunked Entirely. You try a new angle.  

You are trying to redefine what instamine means?  

Because you say you drove over the person you had just taken life insurance out on by ACCIDENT, then that means it didn't really happen? you didn't drive over them?

Instamine is instamine  SS.  Sorry if you choose now all of a sudden to believe it was all an accident and then they just decided to MAGNIFY that accident by slashing 75% of the remaining minting away LOL and then develop a scheme for taking another 10% from new miners. RATHER THAN restart the launch like other projects who had an ACCIDENT.

Yeah they just offered a 2 000 000 000 USD compensation offer because there was NO instamine.  Instamine has nothing to do with intent you could not mean to have it happen, so you restart it again like other devs. You could instamine without scamming just say I have developed an coin where all coins will be mined within 1 minute of launch.

With this level of twisting you just look more of a secret gang supporter with each message. Just don't pretend to be neutral SS. Just say I will say anything to prevent lauda looking bad.

Willing to believe anything or grasp at anything at face value within moments of reading it just to try and deny the undeniable. You want to believe it was all a big MISTAKE that they MAGNIFIED on PURPOSE hahahahah or you want to believe it was intentional ... it does not change it was instamined at all.

Best guy was this one https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4594096

for years after was denying any instamine premine just because he got his hands on some. People will say anything for money.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/anndash-dash-dashorg-first-self-funding-self-governing-crypto-currency-421615

This seems to corroborate, I just read the first 10 pages and it seems to be genuine.

I believe that saying it was not an instamine is a fair opinion.

Yes everyone is familiar with the excuses and bullshit there it was all an accident. WHICH IS IRRELEVENT

That does not deny there was a captive instamine it simply states it was all an accident. So instead of restarting it again like the other projects they decided instead to REDUCE the remaining minting by 75% and add masternodes to ensure new miners had to give MORE to the masternode holders. LOL nobody believes it was an accident anyway not that it alters the fact it happened

This is irrelevant. There was a captive instamine it is undeniable but they claim all and accident and just thought we would slash the rest of the minting away.  Hence why our friend the true legend and others who joined pressured the core dev to offer HUGE AIRDROP because it was proven without doubt it took place.

Can you stick to the points of yours I am debunking rather than throwing in red herrings that actually mean nothing in terms of lauda lying and scamming.

Please answer my previous points.

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/the-birth-of-darkcoin.162/

Do not run away this time let's thrash it out.

Which part is just my opinion and not an observable instance? the EXACT EXAMPLE

It is not merely an opinion. Else anything can just be  called and opinion and not an observable lie. THEY SAID THEY WERE ON THE LAUNCH AND THERE WAS NO INSTAMINE. That is a lie, are lies just opinions? That undeniable.

I read the packet mix and knew there were lemons in there. It was not my opinion there were no lemons I was lying to you by saying I read it and that it said no lemons... to scam you into buying by cake slices.

I told you I read the packet mix and there was no lemons for sure. That is not an merely an opinion.

 there is no denying it is a lie for financial gain. It is scamming.

You are looking more and more like you will say anything to try and twist out of it.

You are jumping from one false claim to another.  If this financially motivated lying is not one for a flag, then nobody can have a flag.

We don't understand each other, we've already established that. You use a lot of words like, deliberate, observable, fact, and scam, but in the end your usage of these words seems to be majorly your opinion. Feedback is for your opinions.

I see you as attempting to force everyone to be financially responsible for their opinions.

Are you pretending to not understand because it seems impossible for any semi intelligent person NOT to understand to this degree.

Instamine is NOT a scam. Although it leaves the project open to market making and collusion which is dangerous. (although they the devs lied and said it would be a fair launch with no premine/instamine so the project scammed miners who rented rigs anyway but we are not focusing on the projects part of the scam, they later offered a 2 000 000 000 compensation.)

Putting lemon extract in the cake mix is not a scam on the part of the factory that produced it. (this is irrelevant since we are dealing with ONLY our part of the scamming in the cake scenario)

Me LYING TO YOU saying I have read the packet mix and I can tell you for sure there is no lemon extract  ,so that I can sell you my cake slices IS A SCAM. Just because I say tough shit SS, you should have picked up the packet and read it yourself, do not mean I DID NOT SCAM YOU?

How is this difficult to understand?

The second thing you said is even more strange.

Both scenarios you pose are related to financially dangerous behaviors . Someone enjoying a slice of lemon in their drink is not a sensible comparison.  It is not REASONABLE to believe they pose anyone a direct threat financially. There is no direct financially motivated wrongdoing in anyway to enjoying a drink of lemon tea.

I view your attempted argument as suspicious.

You have never supported any action against these people whatever they have done. You are willing to just "forget and discount" the many strong cases people have brought against them for extorting and shady escrowing. This latest example of you saying lauda is not responsible for his lies for direct financial gain and that is NO danger at all to members ....because it is you say they "could" have investigated for themselves is again bogus and totally insane. You are part of that the "same" sig campaign that we not a high concentration of scammers or their supporters are wearing. You vanish previously when your points are clearly debunked and say you are not interested in adopting a different opinion. Now when red trust finally means nothing you say his actions are now worthy of red trust but no flags.

If you deliberately lie to people in order to financially benefit from them being mislead - you scammed them. It is impossible to deny. 
It is impossible to twist out of it.

Instamine isn't a scam, its just in my opinion a bad business practice. Again, could you not verify that an instamine occurred easily enough? If we are going to blame Lauda for that, I'd also like you to hold people that say, "X is going to the moon" responsible when it doesn't.


I'm not sure how you are judging a danger level. How does someone who stole from an exchange compare to someone who created a pyramid scheme? Just deal with whoever you are comfortable dealing with. All of the drama is unnecessary.

Another Sh*t thread with other sh*t accusations over nutildah? Serious?

Damn just wasted some time with being here... move on!

If you wanna flag someone then do so... If its grounded then it will get support if not it will be opposed, go on and go for some...

So anything you believe to be true can go on the feedback form. We have that sorted. If they like lemons they can have red trust on the feedback form and you are okay with that. That is fine because the feedback form is now rightly viewed as a lemons form and the score is meaningless. It just needs to be read and the person makes up their own mind. Fair enough.

With regard point 3.

You are incorrect. In this instance. We are discussing an instamine (that turned out to be a captive instamine with only the dev team having opportunity to mine, it is all explained in the links we supplied) Please investigate more thoroughly. Keep in mind not all new investors reading that thread would know they can check the block explorer. Even then they would not know only the dev team were able to mine.

You are saying you can lie to people for direct financial gain as long as there was the "Possible" means to investigate for yourself and verify what they told you (in this case it was not) it is okay to deliberately lie to people for your own financial gain?

That's like me watching you writhe around on the floor dying after eating a delicious slice of my cake that  I sold you earlier, I told  you the packet mix said NO LEMONS because I have read it and checked it out. The packet was laying there on the table you could have checked it for yourself?   I told you that because I was aware I was in a room of other people allergic to lemons, who may not have purchased my slices of cake had I told the truth that it said lots of lemons inside. I wanted to unload my cake slices on you all, sorry about that.. I just did not expect you to be so greedy and start tucking into it before you went home. Thank god I had sold my cake slices before the effects kicked in and most people had left the building.


No scam because although I deliberately lied for financial gain you should have looked at the packet and read the ingredients yourself. No harm no foul. No danger to others future cake slice purchasers?

That is not even a perfect analogy it would require much more effort and knowledge of investors to see not only was there an instamine it was also a captive instamine. So that is kind of being generous.

There is no way to deny it was not a deliberate lie for direct financial gain. aka scamming people.

I think you must come to terms with if lauda does not deserve a flag for that and the other dirty deeds that surround him combined then you will find if that is the benchmark then NOBODY will get any flags.

Can you present a stronger case for a flag? with more concrete verifiable evidence on this board?

Those may one day be highly prized collectors items.

Let us not forget this is not even considering points 1 and 2 that seem to have enough compelling weight to merit a "mild warning to noobs" on their own. Seems strange you are willing to cast off out of hand with NO concern for noobs at all. Fair enough. Remember this is all being written down historically for future generations to read over.  So we need to be sure of what it is we are saying and doing here and how it appears to other readers.

You are casting all of these points in as the "SAME" level of danger in terms of scamming as someone liking lemons? seems strange that is all.

My facetiousness may have gone too far. No, I would not actually refuse to trade with someone due to their preference of citrus, but the point still stands. Any information that can be used by another user should be on someone's feedback page. I don't care personally care about account selling, others take it very seriously. I have a major problem with people that disclose PMs and, others do not. My whole point with the lemon example that I've carried on for.... 5 years now is that as long as information that you leave on someone's trust page is accurate, its fine. If my lemon thing doesn't seem reasonable to you, perhaps something you feel strongly about doesn't seem reasonable to me. As long as feedback that you leave is accurate, individuals can choose what is and isn't reasonable and whether it is worthy of consideration when trading.

I glanced at your link, and have no idea what your claim is. I maintain that the only "scam" ICO or Alt coin is one that contains malware. Anything else is just a bad investment. How does one possibly lie about a premine? You can view the source code, check the blockheight, use a block explorer if one exists, etc.

By the way, I still have some Solidcoins and Tenebrix leftover if you are looking for a sure investment.

@ SS

Nobody is making fun of your lemon dislike  based on choking on lemons. To associate that though with another person being untrustworthy just because they may enjoy eating lemons seems a very strange way of viewing the world. If that is what you are saying. I mean surely if somone was offering bitcoins for half market rate and they would send first you not refuse to deal with them because they had previously mentioned they enjoy eating lemons or like the smell of lemons? it seems to be something that is hard to believe. Although we do not say you are lying it seems impossible to imagine that would be the case really. Perhaps you just do reason differently on lemons due to the extreme experience you had with them. However to another person that does not seem at all reasonable behavior.
I am not saying this because it is the kind of mental gymnastics employed by trust abusers. They would say if you are this unreasonable (by normal standards) regarding lemons then you might be open to scamming someone just because they said they like lemons or they find it funny people are so allergic to lemons. This is why this kind of trust abusing multiple jumps of weak sauce links must be nipped in the bud.

Let's focus MORE though on this detail where there is PROOF of scamming. Item 3.

The other cases present a STRONG case (in our opinion of financially motivated wrongdoing) however ITEM 3 with even minimal research

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50628003

Demonstrates this to be clearly scamming IE lying for direct financial gain.

Lauda was holding bags of this at the time he was running around the forum LYING he was ON THE LAUNCH and that could verify there was NO premine. This is a possibly the strongest form of evidence you will ever here that some was lying to scam people into investing on the basis of UNTRUE and deliberately incorrect information. You will find no clearer evidence on this forum of a person lying for financial gain.

You could find it hard to deny that every member that invested under the premise was scammed or that every person that did not receive the compensation offer were the intended victims of that lying and scamming.

It would seem impossible to arrive at any other opinion that it was a deliberate lie directly motivated by financial gain.

If this person does NOT deserve the lemons flag at the least then it would seem that nobody can have a flag.

I am not saying he should have a higher level flag by anyone that did not personally get scammed or lose out due to his scamming. Although surely a initial launch miner (who was scammed) lied to being told it would be a fair launch like the other coins launched at that time via pow with NO premine.  Were scammed, if they hired rigs etc to mine and were then held out whilst the devs mined it a 10x size blocks at super speeds whilst nobody else could do so (later slashing the full minting by 75% to magnify their instamine) or those that believed lauda there was no instamine and invested based on the fake information there was no instamine only to have the market crash by 90% one day when ED offered the 2 000 000 000 usd value air drop because there was an instamine.

It seems impossible that anyone can have a lemons flag if he does not, that's not even taking into consideration the other financially motivated dirt that seems to keep attaching itself to him time and time again.

So you say he should NOT have a flag? but should just have red trust now that red trust is relegated to just being pure subjective nonsense that nobody will likely consider as evidence of scamming because they will presume the person should have some form of flag?

Or are we misrepresenting what you are saying?

I find you making light of my lemon prejudices unfair. If people can refuse to do business with someone because of their political affiliation, religious views, race, or sexual preference, why can't I refuse to do business with someone because of their opinion on a fruit that I may or may not have mental trauma about as a result of numerous choking scares.

Flag one should be worded slightly differently in my opinion, but if you read the original announcement regarding flags


It spells out that flags aren't for general warning signs. Each person can describe shady or potentially dangerous behavior on a person's feedback, for example dishonesty, aggressive behavior, vindictiveness, fondness for lemons. Those things fall under #1 on Theymos' list about getting a general idea of someone's trade history and trustworthiness. I like to simplify it by thinking of what type of behavior would keep me from patronizing someone's restaurant. Flags are more directly related to business. If someone is selling illegal product keys in the digital section, you may put a newbie warning stating, "This person is selling illegal keys" you may not have personally been damaged, but I think its fair to say that the keys could become invalidated or other repercussions could occur. In that case you can't flag using flag option #2 or #3, but #1 applies.

As for your hypotheticals, I'm very aware of some of the situations. Some of them I'm not so I can't comment. I don't agree with your assessments on some of the situations, so overall, I'd say more that Lauda may deserve red feedback, but not flags.

It appears to us that the same mental gymnastics can be applied for flag level one as for the old trust system. Still since the damage is limited it is not such a power tool to abuse.

There seems NO REQUIREMENT AT ALL FOR FLAG LEVEL 1 - to demonstrate any CLEAR link between being scammed out of money and getting a type 1 flag. NO requirement for it to relate to scamming people out of money AT ALL.  No requirement even for it to relate to a member placing another member in a position where they could be financial at risk of losing money. CONCRETE RED FLAGS ??This seems a little bit weak considering the upper threshold which is observable and verifiable scamming, probable extortion, plausible shady escrowing, even when all 3 are combined. All 3 linked to direct financial risk and loss.


Our own flag is type 1. There can be no such LINK ANY KIND OF FINANCIAL WRONGDOING AT ALL as that would be impossible. So it appears it is simply the lemons flag. Sadly if what you say it true it seems to span from lemons love to lying for direct financial gain which nearly also PREVENTED the board being offered a $ 2 000 000 000 USD compensation offer for the instamine he claimed never happened because he was on the launch and said never happened.'

Still, never mind the new flag system is still a lot more transparent and lot more fair than the old system. So once we fully understand the limits of each flag will just work in with it THE SAME as EVERYONE else.

We will not appear ungrateful for the work theymos has put in here to push for a transparent fair environment. Although some enforcement will still be required for those that keep pushing the limits of the new flag system to a point where it is obvious they are still using it for their own political means.

Anyway since the consensus seems flag1 is the limit for ALL of those proven or highly plausible direct financially motivated wrongdoing then we will just have to accept we have been grouped in with the same category as a filthy piece of proven scamming shit like lauda (who does not yet AMAZINGLY have even a type 1 flag) LOL  - - oh well.


ALSO as a direct question to SS - would you support type 1 flags in those instances in the initial post? or not and if not why not?

You don't get a flag for lemons, you get negative feedback. To your original question, the answer is flag #1.




The "with me" and "damages" part is pretty important for flags #2 and #3. If you didn't personally lose money, then only flag #1 is appropriate.

Any other feedback before I start preparing the flags for proven scammers?

Only a lemons flag for this proven liar for direct financial gain (scammer) lauda?

+

LOL nobody would waste time with your collateral. I mean those begging for 0.02btc loans don't have much to lose   anyway since you will not be able to demonstrate we have any other agenda than pushing for A TRANSPARENT SET OF FAIR RULES THAT ENSURE EACH MEMBER IS TREATED EQUALLY ... you need not worry yourself about it. haha

Nem stake holder lol - come on man what happened? I allow this off topic indulgence to hear how you reduced a possible 300btc to dust.