Topic: WHICH flags are appropriate for each scenario listed here??????????????????????? (Read 1270 times)

Cryptohunter do you actually have any friends IRL? I bet not, no one could really put up with this singleminded narcissistic attitude, fuck I bet even your parents dislike you. Now move on continue wasting internet space with these longwinded pointless repetitive quotes.

Pajeets gonna pajeet

I think you have gathered enough information how to set up your flags in the last 9 days so either set them up or lock the thread, it seems you are moving this topic to different direction (meritcycle, FJ...)

---

May I remind you that I am still waiting for answers to something which you started, if you don't mind to respond in that thread.

Talking about yourself again ?

---

Thanks for clearing this up for me. Now we are all well informed of the conspiracy going around for years. 
Aren't you tired of saying the same stuff again and again ...? I heard it first from this current alt-account of yours a few months ago.

Seriously, I don't feel nor think I am the one to blame here.
Good luck to you in your life. You must be very sad.

Ping me on Telegram if you want to chat. No hate.

No the collusion is clear.


1. merits cycled between THE SAME handful of individuals
2. THE SAME individuals include each other on DT
3. THE SAME individuals exclude almost the same people on DT
4. yogg, lauda, tman, owlcatz, hhampuz, and other shit stains all trust abusing as a group
5. ALL seem to be part of 2 or 3 of THE SAME sig campaigns

To deny there is clear indication of a colluding group here is ludicrous and only someone as low functioning as you or perhaps even a low life form like Tman could be led to believe your garbage.

The rest of your post is as laughable as your claim there is no collusion. I mean it is pure fantasy and the spew of a desperate and retarded fool, you have no clue of what we have been able or unable to achieve, those claims look desperate and foolish.

Hope that cleared that up for you, and any other person that wishes to look into it for themselves mr scammer supporter yogg of bitcointalk, you trust abusing feltching puppet.

Instead of telling administrators what they need to do, why won't you start your own forum ?
You will be able do whatever you want there.

We have been doing business on this forum for years with eachother, and you call that a collusion because we got to know each other, became friends and used to trade ?

There is no collusion, and you really have much imagination.
You seem very unstable, and completely unable to achieve some consistency.

Aren't you jealous ? Unable to access it, then he destroys it ? Is it what "The One Above All" is about ?  

Start taking your meds again and get a life.

Thanks for bumping this thread moron.

You have served multiple purposes here.

1. Demonstrating that merit is often given the observably incorrect and bogus crap and is mostly just a political tool used by "merit sources/ DT members " to entrench each other in power, and use that power to collude and ensure the best sig spots and other financial rev streams go to them.

2. The far superior posts that make solid and valuable points (crushing beyond any doubt bogus and specious weak arguments) are starved of merit if they do not support the system controllers agenda.

3. That merit sources should not be the lowest form of sub human intelligence on the board like TMAN. A miscreant so devoid of any useful qualities even confessed he had never made a post he could present that demonstrated it was worthy of merit other than some swearing or other moronic behavior that his "pals" feel qualify as entertaining at a gutter level.

4. Bumping the thread that clearly shows that you and your pal lauda are clearly dirt bags that should be the ones wearing huge warning banners.


thanks Tman , now please some more "poetry" if you have some time.

What you doing today Tman? getting your pals to auction your stuff whilst you pretend its not yours and bullshitting people trying to pump the price up?  or phoning peoples parents and trying to extort them?

When did this board get so desperate we need people this stupid and this financially high risk to the board to be our merit sources and positions of " TRUST" lol.

Get them all out. Start with fortunejack's entire sig spamming set of low functioning scum.  Come on Theymos they will never exclude each other, their collusion ensures they keep their top paid sig spots, just get that ban/blacklist hammer out and start beating some scammer ass with it. 


To make this relevant so it is not vanished into the void. We will be questioning  if his own highly probable extortion attempt along with his auction stunt qualify him for a lemons flag along with his scamming mate lauda?

Yet again salty destroys the low functioning pajeet worry posting fucks.

Love you dude

You did see it? Its one of those movies that's really good the first time around, but then after you learn the secret plot twist, there's really no reason to see it again.


Ultimately I know this is the correct solution but I am also intrigued as to why he keeps referring to himself as "we."



I... The Royal We... You know, the editorial.

Typical low function dregs replies. Get destroyed and made to look like scam supporting shit stains who will say or claim they believe even the most far fetched irrelevant garbage that they demonstrated they did not really believe in 5 mins ago ... LOL

So now start worrying about other irrelevant things like who "we" are as if that makes any difference to the observable instances presented.

Now STFU unless you have anything relevant to say that can redeem the duplicitous obviously sneaky and pathetic idiot SS, who just posted in the most embarrassing example of an obvious gang sig spammer trying to form some kind of defense for an undeniable lying and scamming shit stain like lauda who it obviously colludes with. To read it over again is a pleasure.  It actually more fun than the snitchmoon self debunking examples. At least she does not try to move the goal posts around as much or redefine words to their opposite meanings LOL.

LOL it is funny notildah turns up to add some stupid comments. I mean perhaps SS thought to study the nutildahs guide to changing ones opinion to suit their agenda at the time.  Account selling is facilitating scamming and they are evil and deserve red trust...then actually I will sell my account for 0.3btc  LOL... then announce it was not sold and it never happened. Should have just said redefined "evil" to "good" and "scam facilitating" to "scam inhibiting" and deserves "red trust" to deserves "to be on DT" then all is good. LOL ask SS works great. Then tell everyone anyone who did not know that is an idiot  haahah

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50719875

Have fun scum bags.

^I hope you don't think there is a movie I didn't saw?

Maybe better when the one-above-sh*t opens a thread, it can be turned into a movie one

Not a bad idea...

Or as SaltySpitoon said, you are always right and just end it

Have you ever seen that movie Identity? I think its more like that.



Though the movie Psycho also explains the situation but has a more apt title.

Who is "we" ? Is this crips v bloods ?

Amazing, we both think each other are idiots. Glad we had this heart to heart.

Sorry I hadn't noticed you had replied again.

We asked because we were curious. You have demonstrated clearly you are a gang supporter with a fragile mind.

Every element of your argument was destroyed, until you had to redefine words to try to cling on to some desperate defense. You look foolish. You demonstrated that your final redefinition of instamine is NOT EVEN YOUR TRUE OPINION (not that anyone else would have thought to redefine instamine to the OPPOSITE of what instamine means ... the left to what is really right).

Not that that is not silly and desperate enough, but YOUR first claim was : that people CAN ESTABLISH if there has been an instamine by looking at the block explorer (clearly you know intention is not part of what defines instamine) Makes you now just look dishonest and desperate. I mean does the block explorer tell if you if it was INTENTIONAL?   LOL i mean each point of your argument was crushed step by step, but now your final desperate attempt to redefine Instamine demostrates you don't even believe what you are claiming, just will bullshit readers to fit the gangs agenda. You are bogus.  I mean intent is IRRELEVENT as you KNOW.

Another good thing about this thread is although your entire specious and ever changing garbage defense of laudas clear lying and scamming is crushed and demonstrates your final "opposite of instamine" redefinition is not something you REALLY believe (even though it is irrelevant). So you outed yourself as a desperate protector of scammers and liars.

That the merit given to your "clinging to your own observably bogus dishonest defense" that you now say instamine CANNOT be determined by block explorer but you NEED TO KNOW THE REAL INTENTION lol  (so you can't have it both ways). Total shit post is given 10 merits by laudas dumb as poets ass feltcher and fellow FORTUNEJACK  sig spammer (like SS AND LAUDA) for presenting the worst defense even made on bitcointalk.

Merit system is bogus, DT members are bogus. Your opinions are highly suspect and observably foolish.

We will not be asking your opinion again since you have clearly demonstrated you are under your paymasters control.

Don't worry pal, scout's honor I won't get involved. I don't dare to offer my opinion, I'm terrified that I'd be wrong and get thrashed again. You are the absolute authority and your judgement is impeccable, why bother asking the opinions of us plebeians?

Not as yet, but I will try to remember to let you know when i do then you can come and oppose it.

The type 1 flag also seems strange some get a yellow some get a red message. The people with red seem to have no scamming behaviors that I can see. Where can I find out what thread is supposed to demonstrate concrete evidence of scamming for each flag. How to even find the flags for the red type 1 flags. I can only see the yellow ones? or perhaps it due to them using a different trust list. I wonder how to view without changing away from default.

Thule i dont think has ever scammed. He is accused of account selling which should be yellow at most right? how to see why he has a red flag? where to click on his account? maybe the flag is no longer active or something. I need to look more into the flags before i start bringing real scammers and those really dangerous to people in financial terms to task.

We need to make sure that we are complying with the rules. We think the new system is a huge step in the right direction so we just need to fully understand it before we put it to work.

You my friend are one handsome stud, I don't feel too bad being bested by someone with as much rich cryptocurrency experience as you. So, anyway have you decided to flag Lauda then?

That red pill is just kicking in. Good, keep taking those when ever you wish to enter into a reasonable debate in future.

If you feel they are losing their effect and you start wishing to redefine words or see those enjoying lemon tea as the same danger financially as those that have proven to scam , have extortion and shady escrow under their belts and blatant trust abuse then just seek our help. We are always here for you.

Even the most ardent dash liars admit it happened because it is undeniable,they just claim it was all one big mistake with subsequent intentional actions that accidentally compounded the first mistake ALWAYS in their favor. Yes that sounds like the sort of thing you would believe within 2 mins of research if it suits your agenda.

Yes deliberately compounding your mistake is not the best way to convince people it was a mistake . That's good you are learning now. Only offering to redress your 2 huge  "mistakes" after months of being pressured and having teams of scammers like lauda telling people it never happened (before deciding not to really redress anything) is again not the best way to convince people. Well, you may convince SS to convince himself via redefining words, if it fits his agenda... but not reasonable people.

I mean asking him to accept that the text book example of an instamine is an instamine is according to SS like asking him to say right is left. I mean he is not just altering the definition of an instamine here he is saying it is the opposite of an instamine LOL
If the devs just claim accident that means it never happened. Simple as that. It is the opposite of an instamine and does not have any of the implications an intentional instamine has. LOL

The more you consider what he is saying the more entertaining it is. Get rid of the spamming fortune jack sig for a start mr ex mod. I find most fortune jack sig wearers to be of the same scamming ilk or supporting them clearly via devious and lemon flavored means.

Good old SS - always game for a laugh.

You have already bested me friend, no need to consider your ruthless onslaught. I read over a good number of the threads, and as you say not a soul shares the same opinion as me. This is a clear and shut case that requires no further discussion, and the tens if not hundreds of threads and thousands of replies are just people all confirming how great it is to be in agreement with one another. You are correct, there is absolutely no one who disagrees causing this to be ambiguous in any way. You are the lord and master of cryptocurrencies as well as the authority on definitions of words created within the last 5 years and defined by a community that doesn't disagree with your assessment in the slightest.

My argument has nary a sympathizer to the fact that hindsight is 20/20 and that attempting to fix a later perceived problem could ever backfire. Your judgement is exactly what every person would do in any situation you see fit.

You are the absolute Authority.

Sorry that makes no more sense. An instamine does NOT NEED TO BE INTENTIONAL I am putting it in bold so that you give it attention. If I make a coin that chucks out half its entire minting in 5 mins by accident, or I do it on purpose it is an instamined coin. If I  fix it so that only I the dev can mine and nobody else can that is still an instamine but it is really a captive instamine. It does not stop being an instamine.

The we need to consider this accident. Most devs who make an ACCIDENT relaunch it to rectify the mistake. Did they relaunch to rectify the mistake? NO they did not. They thought they would MAGNIFY the mistake and slash away 75% of the original minting to MAGNIFY their mistake. Who GAINED BY THIS MISTAKE = THEY DID,  who gained by not restarting it again THEY DID, who gained by slashing the remaining minting THEY DID.... LOL all those accidents whooops...  When they were called on this this over and over and over by a real legend what did they do?? well the developer then said okay I will compensate the miners by giving a 2 000 000 000 dollar (now) air drop. Why well it obvious because no instamine happened. I will just give you 2 000 000 000 usd for no reason.

Now all of that you are willing to suddenly believe in 2 mins of researching LOL  is irrelevant since that huge instamine coin emission took place if it was an accident or NOT.

You are still spewing nonsense. Please see how foolish and desperate you appear now trying to redefine instamine. I guess you can say there is intentional instamine, there is accidental instamine ....the result is still instamine. Get it now?



When people BENEFIT from an accident and they have opportunity to go back and fix the accident but they DO NOT. Then I doubt it was an accident and they are sorry.

When people later change the rules again to benefit MORE from the original accident then I really really really really doubt it was an accident and they are sorry.

When they change the rules again to take another 10% benefits from their loot gained in the accident. Then i would have to be full on crazy to believe it was an accident and they are sorry. You are ready to accept that in 2 mins of research lol ...oh really?

Kind of like me accidentally feeding you lemons after I have taken out life insurance on you. Then to make really sure I accidentally inject lemon juice into your blood stream and increase the life insurance amount further. Then later I bury you in a lemon lined coffin and bury you in the lemon groves on my property and claim the insurance.  Then i just redefine lemons and your name and tell myself none of it ever happened.  When people ask where is SS i tell them it is my opinion you never existed in the form they are trying to force me to accept lol. I don't accept the definition of SS that you are trying to force on me any longer. haha

Seems to me you are always willing to say or believe anything that suits you and the gang of lauda puppets and feltchers.

*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.

Oh, LFC and killyou72's advice was also pretty good. Trolling is clearly your end goal because you steamrolled over their advice (and mine).


OK but only if its a no-collateral loan. According to your trust summary you have a "high risk of losing money" and I'm not sure I'd feel safe giving you my collateral.

No you did not. What is our end goal? Because if you can demonstrate it is anything other than an environment that is based upon a transparent set of fair rules than ensure all members are treated equally. Then you can ask us for a 0.02btc loan in future.

I actually gave you the best advice you're going to get in this thread and you drowned it out with clearly off-topic insults and ranting. Don't know what more you expect. Redemption?

But then others will be able to compete in terms of number of words if not with the reason and logic that allows them to flow so rapidly and with such strength. You will do well to find an instance where our central point has been clearly debunked. Meta board is excellent fun. We though welcome the days where we can discuss more positive things together rather than demonstrating most people frequenting this tiny sub board are power hungry greedy scum bags that don't mind destroying other peoples accounts to ensure they cream off the best financial deals here.

The new flag system is excellent. Even if the Lemons flag is a little weak. We only hope theymos is not pushed back further by the bullies here. Our next plan is to invite a lot of older legends from the alts boards to join here.  We need to raise the bar here. Too many fragile minds ready to snap like twigs and then become angry and bitter like suchmoron or moronbozo or lauda or well it would be easier to name those that are even really a slight challenge to debate with. There are but a handful of members I guess.

Meta we notice guides this forum quite heavily. It would be better to fill meta with more suitable and capable minds. You may start noticing a few new members appearing here that are going to raise the standards of debate to a level that makes them more interested and less of a slagging match centered around false allegations, wild speculation and spew from weak and dull minds. Some have a nice command of the English language but that flowery veneer is soon peeled back to reveal the disappointment beneath. Kind of like those teenagers that fix a big exhaust pipe to their grandmothers old car. You turn to view the exotic sports automobile roaring up the street,  and you see the black smoking, pathetic example of 20 year old ghetto level transportation crawling along. Same thing.

Anyway, back on topic.  So these are all flag level 1 if you are not effected by them personally right? so it ranges from LEMONS to lies and scamming that nearly cost the board a $ 2 000 000 000 dollar compensation offer. Seems a very broad range.

@nutildah

Yes, frustratingly similar are we not. Almost as if I has to be the same person publishing from both accounts. Yet there could be several explanations that would account for it all. Perhaps ALL will be revealed at the right time.

Now stay on topic please. You simply can not contain yourself can you our EVIL scam facilitating broke ass little friend. Do you need another 0.02BTC loan?  What on earth happened to your NEM stake? you blew 300BTC already? or lauda took it when you were bent over in front of him.

Now look we must stay on topic? can you do so?

Quoted for future posterity.

Sorry CH, nothing would prevent people from knowing that you are CH -- your ego won't let you hide yourself. Anybody can tell that its you. You praise yourself far too often and go on raving, long-winded rants about the exact same subjects you did with your last account, with an equal amount of futility. You also use the same colloquial terms not shared by other members of the forum. You stand out from a mile away. Theymos didn't have to look at any IP information to know that you are cryptohunter. Neither do any of us.

The best way to test out a flag is to leave it and see if it gets supported or not. Don't use it as an excuse to again air your tired personal grievances. If you know an injustice was committed, post your flag, and see what kind of a response it gets. Don't pretend to be asking for guidance when you really just want to rehash the same old drama in a new context. Nobody is going to help you out here because everybody knows what your end goal is.

No theymos is NOT a liar. He is simply making a best guess based on the server side information we intended him to have. Theymos though is incorrect. If we wanted him to have at hand the same information as you and nothing more we would have used tor browser and made a few other changes too. It in unusual for theymos to intercede and attempt to out a member as an ALT in public when not called upon to do so, or not involving any scams. However we wanted to present a small test. As we say the result was a little disappointing but then we are not among the very most popular with admins because they do not understand we want the same thing. A transparent set of rules that ensure the fair and equal treatment of all members. So we did not become too upset over it.

That is good. As intended. You should not think too much you are likely to start feeling discomfort and frustration.

No we think at these early stages some precedents that are commonly agreed on should be discussed.
No we think that meta is best and that people should make an effort to stay on topic and relevant to the questions in the OP of their own volition. So please do so. Trying to attack us on every thread does nothing only to reflect poorly and ensure the board is littered with examples of your own scam facilitating for payment behavior, that is there as PROOF, not speculation.

We will not raise a flag for you at this stage but please refrain from these weak sauce off topic attacks lacking proof or any real relevance when you are dealing with observable instances that are verifiable independently  and require no trust of ourselves nor our motives. Just tell yourself we the true legend if that makes you happier. We like to indulge those fantasies.

Quit dodging the question. Is theymos a liar or not?


No, no I had not considered that. I don't think anybody had considered that you are not cryptohunter to be honest.

Back to the topic at hand, you are free to leave your own flags. You don't need to conduct a "community consensus" on everything that you do or think. Just do it. Meta is no longer the correct section to ask such questions. Might as well move your consensus-building topics to Reputation, and then you can self-moderate them.

we are saying theymos does NOT have video evidence nor proof that our account is operated by the same person that operated the cryptohunter account. YES!! you are getting it our EVIL SCAM FACILITATING IMBECILE.

He has access to server side information that it was intended he should have to see what would happen. It was disappointing but still he seems to have more than made up for it of late. You have not heard of tor browser we take it? LOL .. theymos is not magic you do understand that? or perhaps he is here with us right now with his video camera. Perhaps WE ARE THEYMOS? have you considered that?

Either way please stay on topic. We have PROOF. You have NADA. You have what it was intended you have. Like the person trying to hide would come here all calling the same pet names and going after the same people. LOL  

All may be revealed in time. Then you may all look even more foolish.

Get back to begging for 0.02btc loans like you were just a few months ago and stop derailing our thread. Stick to answering the questions directly posed in the OP.

"nobody lurks since" "everyone knows" "theymos said" " I will help scam people for 0.3 btc"  please stop looking silly now and stay on topic.

LOL 2013 - suchnoobs

So basically you are saying theymos is a liar? He wrote that post on May 2nd, and you've only gotten worse since then. Your lies are now more out of control than ever. This forum has its fair share of trolls, which you are one of. So, have fun doing what you do best, I guess...

BTW, nobody "lurks" since 2010. Your claim would be supported by much greater evidence if you actually had an account that dated back a few years. Say to maybe April 2013 or something...

Why ask a question we have answered you before ...just for back ground on this false accuser who has no PROOF there can be many explanations for whatever compilation of intentional goodies we are giving you all to frustrate you further.

How do you know we have not been lurking since 2010? that is right you do NOT. Like you do NOT have video evidence the member that operated the cryptohunter account is operating this account.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50571141
You have no PROOF.

We have proof that you will willingly and knowingly facilitate scamming for 0.3 btc and you actually confess that you are EVIL.

WHY SHOULD ANYONE LISTEN TO SOMEONE EVIL who for 0.3btc will help scammers scam other members??

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50719875

this is a good point i need to put up a flag clarification scenario for someone who says they want to facilitate scamming for 0.3btc and is EVIL. thanks for reminding me.

Now keep on topic please we are discussing the question posed in the initial post.

OK so you're not an alt of anyone (let's just ignore the fact that this is a blatant lie) and your trust history saying you are cryptohunter is just a "poor reflection" of the state of the trust system. Why should anyone care what you have to say about matters that happened well before your time? You're just a Jr Member who has only been on the forum since earlier this year. How did you develop such an ingrained, biased, nuanced opinion of things that happened years before you were a member?

You should let more senior accounts that are far more familiar with the history of forum matters than you deal with new changes to the trust system. Just sit back and... well... do whatever it is that you "do" when you're not bitching about the forum.

Also, I think your thread title needs more question marks.

Even if your first assertion is possibly true. Not that we are an alt of anyone. That is merely a poor reflection on this state of the trust system. Why should one asking such questions be at risk of getting negative trust. So unless you have video evidence of another member posting on this account why bother considering it? what relevance does it have to the initial post. The answers should be the same if any of those questions was asked by ANY other member.

Allowing whistle blowers to be given scam tags is the very reason a sensible person may decide to use a shield here. Stop the abuse and REALLY blacklist abusers and no need for shields.

Please tell theymos to delete the entire trust system them and just put a message on every ones account " this person is possibly going to scam you as soon as they can"

Why not post this from your main account? are you too afraid of the backlash you will receive?


I don't think any flags are necessary for any. Just assume that everyone here is a lair, cheater, and stealer and take the proper pro-cations when trading, and mind your own business

Unless you personally have suffered losses / been scammed yourself by the account in question then the only flag you can add on a profile is the first option -

Due to various concrete red flags, I believe that anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money. (This flag will only be shown to guests/newbies.)

Just to get a rough idea of how to set up my flags. With some examples of scenarios

1.  lauda, owlcatz , tman - extortion attempt which many senior members believe WAS a real attempt to extort another member

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/laudatmanminifrijironmarvel2owlcatz-extortion-attempt-1764757

a/ what flag is suitable for a directly effected member
b/ what flag is suitable for a concerned member that was not directly effected?

2. laudas et als shady looking escrow dealings concerning 3000BTC

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.44083126

a/ what flag is suitable for a directly effected member
b/ what flag is suitable for a concerned member that was not directly effected?

3. laudas PROVEN lie for financial gain (SCAMMING) that he was on the launch of xcoin/dark and there was NO Instamine whilst holding bags of it.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6748208

a/ what flag is suitable for a directly effected member?
b/ what flag is suitable for a concerned member that was not directly effected?

4. lauda et al's flagrant and continued trust abuse and giving out red trust to persons that presented observable instances of his past here.

a/ what flag is suitable for a directly effected member?
b/ what flag is suitable for a concerned member that was not directly effected?


Local rule - you must give a sensible reasoned answer with some grounding based on the new flags rules

5. Nutildah knowingly by his own words trying to or succeeding at  facilitating scams for a payment of 0.3BTC

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50719875

a/ what flag is suitable for a directly effected member?
b/ what flag is suitable for a concerned member that ws not directly effected?