Topic: yahoo62278 and Yobit - page 3. (Read 2600 times)

What is the difference in advertising yobit as a whole and advertise the X10 signature of yobit?

My understanding, no difference because both is pointing to the same platform. No?

---

Advertising cryptotalk was different than advertising yobit. Although technically cryptotalk turned out to be a forum from yobit to promote yobit itself but one could argue that it was just another forum who advertised here in bitcoinTalk.

Yahoo was given the job to manage campaign for cryptotalk which was okay for this community but this community did not suggest him to advertise yobit.

---

Going against Yahoo means you are losing your chance to get accepted in any of the campaign that is managed by yahoo. So another financial motivation working behind this subject not to see many response from forum users.

---

Just curious to know, how much yahoo exactly got paid a week to drag this into him?

I bet a lot that he could not help his greed. No?

---

Someone is pointing theymos, why?

Are we so stupid not to see that theymos as an admin is giving the control to us than manipulating the community by his thoughts? He could easily take the whole control of the forum in his hand if he wanted however in this case a lot of us would left this place long ago of course.

---

Yahoo gets a pass for promoting Ponzi actively. Even he was a kind of shield for this campaign participants to protect this Ponzi.

How it was different for aTraz, mdayonliner, cryptohunter, Thule and others who made some mistakes but hardly got any pass?

---

Saving forum from spamming is an excuse here. In fact yahoo hardly done much job here. Most of the bans were called by the forum users who actively reported the spammers and yahoo just forwarded the names to the yobit management to ban them from the campaign. As a reward some of them got some tiny stash from yahoo which obviously in total was not even much compering the amount yahoo got a week from yobit and it seemed everyone was really happy about it.

We all are hypocrite here. Don't just blame yahoo.

---

Everything in this forum is about financial gain for yahoo. Without campaign management yahoo has very less interested about this forum. Wrong?

So when we talk about yahoo's judgement towards the forum users or forum affairs, we need to understand who we are listing.

Yahoo is just a businessman here and he will try everything to keep his business safe. In most cases he use the influence of some well established DT members to keep his ground smooth.

---

Easy guess of me posting from an alt. I don't want to be blacklisted by yahoo of course. Call me coward, I have nothing to lose from this alt.

@Lauda and @eddie13,
Thank you for your civil and thoughtful responses.


I don't think that's accurate.  IIRC there were more than one accusation, but one particular user was persistent in his claim.



I think this is a misrepresentation.  Yahoo didn't start the campaign, and it wasn't exactly "taken over" by Yahoo.  He had no control over who joined the campaign, and his participation was largely encouraged by many who wanted someone (anyone) to curb the spam that was bound to result from Yobit's off-site sign-up feature.

Lets not forget that very important fact; many of us, including me encouraged him to take on the roll he filled.  How hypocritical would be for me to tag him for something I encouraged him to do?



I won't argue with this; I was taken aback when I first saw Yahoo wearing the cyrptotalk signature, even more so when I saw saw him wearing the most recent Yobit signature.  I won't try to defend what I believe was a lapse in judgement.  

But I will defend my own consistency on the matter.  I didn't tag anyone for wearing either signature.  I also didn't tag anyone for wearing the X10 signature. I very likely would have, if that whole debacle hadn't happened around Christmas time when I was busy with family and didn't really have much time to spend on the forum.  But I would have given everyone notice first, and given them the opportunity to remove the signature before I tagged them.  By the time I had more time to look into it, the signature had been replaced with the most recent one.



I must admit you're making a compelling argument here.  I will also admit that when I first saw him donning the cyrptotalk sig I was tempted to remove him from my trust inclusion because I felt that was a lapse in judgement.  I will give it some more thought before I come to a decision.

---

Yahoo isn't my buddy.  In the post you partially quoted in your reply I mentioned that he and I have had very little interaction, and I don't apply the label of "friend" to yahoo.



Again, you are misunderstanding me or misrepresenting my comments.  I don't think any of them should be tagged for wearing the signature, just like I didn't think it was right to tag those who wore the LiveCoin signature.  It has nothing to do with who was wearing the sig.  If it did don't you think I would have tagged wolwoo and Vispilio, two people with whom I've had disagreements, and don't consider to be my friends?



I understand your line of thinking that some should be held to higher standards, and I agree.  A seasoned member like Yahoo probably should have known better than to wear any of Yobit's signatures.  But my argument is and always has been that it's inappropriate to tag anyone for doing so (except the ponzi sig.)

But why do you assume my question is malicious? Now with this clarification, it makes me realize that the writing itself is flawed.. The question is accepting a job which directly/indirectly helps actively advance the efforts of a known-scam, which if I'm not incorrectly writing my thoughts here again is exactly what a campaign manager does. A campaign manager actively advances the efforts of some entity in different ways. I did not mean to say that the job itself was to advance the scam.

None of those questions were meant to look "loaded" or anything, sorry..

Example: the first question starts with "Accepting a job to actively advance the efforts a known-scam..."

I don't think that was the intent of accepting that job. Including an unjustified presumption like that makes it a loaded question.

What do you mean by "loaded"[2]? Those are just some precedences[1] that I considered that our collective behavior up until today can or will set. Alternatively, we can treat this as a very isolated case but this supports all arguments of selective enforcement/hypocrisy which I don't like either. You can't argue that it won't set any precedence or hypocrisy, so I'm just trying to understand what the conclusion of this is (not what the resolution is which as per your post, for you, is to not tag anybody).

---

[1] Half of those I didn't even consider until I started responding to your post.
[2] Please note that without proper discussion of implications, all kinds of groups will interpret and set their own precedences which will create even further chaos, more divide which will be abused by bad actors like Yobit. This is why I am asking you for input on my own concerns, not "loading questions"..


I know Yahoo better than 99% of you, and the answer is absolutely yes (and this comes from somebody who at our last interaction still considered him a friend - note: nothing changed since other than no direct conversing/split paths). You should also point out that I as a DT2 member can't even tag Yahoo as within a very short period of time I would no longer be a DT2 member even though tagging him is very appropriate for this should one choose to.

---

My relationship before nor after tagging would remain unchanged, but it seems people around here can't separate these things and thus we are where we are: Politics. I think theymos unintendedly created a something which nowadays quite resembles a democracy, and we all know how well those function...  

You're confused my dear friend Lauda.
Once again, let me reiterate my words here that I'm not trying to point my fingers on theymos and he's just being used as an example ONLY. The main motive was the fact that nobody knows what is right and what will be wrong in the future as we can't predict future but can only experience when the time comes. In Yahoo's case, however I admit that he knew the position of yobit on the forum, but let me summarize it all for you:

- Yobit came here after their 6 months ban was over
- They tried to lure users with their "20 posts per day policy" and let them start spamming this forum again
- DTs came ahead (including Yahoo) and warned users not to spam wearing their signature or they will be tagged
- After seeing a strict stance of everyone here boycotting against Yobit, Yobit officials decided to go for a campaign manager after getting several suggestions for the same
- After that, they chose Yahoo and made him their campaign manager
- Yahoo started showing his banhammer power by banning a lot of spammers, while also getting Yobit down to their knees and made them reduce the max paid posts per day from 20 to 10 (at first) and then 5, which saved a lot of spam from happening
- Yobit, without any message to Yahoo about changing their signature, straight away came here and asked users to change it to the new X10 signature
- Yahoo was not online during that day and I noticed many users were asking (fighting hard) to either change the content in the signature or they'd leave and a few "honest" users left too
- Yahoo, on the other side, was trying hard and convinced them to change it as quickly as possible or he'd stop managing their campaign, once again a defeat to Yobit's scammy intentions and our forum's victory
- Even when their wallet remained empty for around 2 weeks, Yahoo managed to communicate and get it refilled for the users
- After that, the happy ending of that campaign

So, during all these instances, see what Yahoo has done and if you still think that it was all just done having financial motives alone in his mind, you can go ahead and tag all those who participated including Yahoo.

I think I explained myself quite clearly so I'm not answering any of your loaded questions, sorry. I consider X10/Investbox a blatantly obvious scam and I warned users promoting it the best I could at the time. I consider Yobit a scam too but a less obvious one so I'm willing to give signature wearers the benefit of the doubt on that one. Had this gone on longer I might have lost my patience at some point so I'm relieved that this campaign has ended and I hope it won't come back.

I would probably advocate against anyone helping manage it if it does come back. Unfortunately there is no consistent forum policy about shitty campaigns (e.g. Yobit campaign was banned in April 2019 but a similarly shitty Stake campaign around the same time wasn't) so it's a tough choice between letting them flood the forum with spam or having someone manage it. It shouldn't be our decision and it shouldn't be about the trust system to begin with, so I disagree with burning yahoo at the stake (pun definitely intended) because muh libertarian anarchist something-or-other.

Theymos banned Yobit from advertising and generally runs decent checks on the to-be-advertised entity. I don't think he'd accept a bid from a known-scam, thus your argument vs. theymos (and suchmoon's) fails. It's fine, some people just aren't aware of all the things that have happened here over the years and developed misguided views of justice.

Ok, keeping it irrelevant as it is. I've got a question for you again.
This forum doesn't run on charity not donations, but advertisements (read the whole statement carefully before mixing it up with signatures), those banner advertisements we see in between our posts. So based on your statement, theymos would "also just allow Yobit to advertise here by bidding for one or more slot(s)" for the ^financial motivation^ and it is good, why? Because theymos did it in the interest of forum. But wait, Yobit is a scam exchange. So what, he needs money to run this forum 24/7/365 uptime and it doesn't matter if any slot taken by any websites are scammers or turn out to be scammers, it's neither theymos' liability nor the forum's liability if you lose anything by visiting and investing anything over those websites "which were advertised here". Is it so?

So what can I draw out as a conclusion based off of this post:

• Accepting a job to actively advance the efforts a known-scam is okay (one that to this day, continues to selectively scam its users)? Yes we failed to stop this much earlier, but the discussion is valid.
• Keeping a ponzi scheme advertisement in your signature (knowingly or not) is not untrustworthy behavior nor worthy of a negative?
• Defending the above (ponzi schemes, and in particular their advertising) is not compromised judgement/untrustworthy behavior?
• Advertising a scam in your signature (or any other profile fields?) is not untrustworthy behavior nor worthy of a negative? I could just claim to be an "unmitigated lemming" and it would prevent me from having my reputation wrecked?

---

Please clarify as I personally can't see how I could answer any of those questions with a yes myself. However, I am trying to understand the implications and the precedence that this situation sets for the future.

Do: tilde the shit out of them and make a strong case for others to follow.
Don't: red-trust for disagreements.

Come on, it's not rocket surgery. There are 100 users in DT1 but in most cases you need only like 5 or 10 to make a difference. Yahoo is +14 so 8 flips would do it. I haven't heard anything to convince me to flip yet so don't count on me. From what I've seen he put a lot of effort to clean that campaign up, including removal of the X10 signature, so I still trust his judgement.

Nor would I red-trust anyone for carrying the Yobit signature. It's safe to assume that most campaign participants are just being unmitigated lemmings, like iluvbitcoins helpfully showed us.

You're confusing theymoses position as an admit with his DT1 position. For this particular case, as a DT1 (or well currently DT2 in this rotation) member he's just as guilty as the rest are (not more). As an admin, he's not guilty as he's been uniformly applying the policy of allowing scammers to scam and creating a trust system for this. Albeit, he could do a lot more than he isn't doing in this regard but it's irrelevant to this case. Again, false equivalency where Yahoo actively avoided to act when he should have due to financial motivation and nothing else. Theymos did not and does not act for completely different reasons, reasons which do not make him untrustworthy.

Can it be done what's said by suchmoon, Lauda?


Could this be the best practice according to you? Because theymos is the first person who can be called as the "Father" of this forum and nothing here is being done under his nose, everything is transparent. Why didn't he react? Why didn't he stop Yobit this time? Or even when they started spreading their X10 shit over here? I'm not trying to point my fingers on theymos but when it's all about justice, he also needs to be scrutinized for allowing such ponzis here, no?

I'll review the situation pertaining my future actions on the next update on Loyce's website. Another problem are people who do not act (e.g. remove inclusions), further giving credibility to these shady/scammy practices and creating a platform of support. In the same time, you can't tag these people or do anything because it isn't "proper use of the system" according to some. When all your systems fail you despite your potential actions being objectively just (by any conceivable metric of any honest and rational person), what do you do?

I'm used to it..
I get a share of merits here and there but I have found that posting dangerous opinions is definitely not the way to get merits from the usual sources, who don't want to be seen supporting or agreeing with said dangerous positions, no matter how high quality or high effort the posts are..

Widely agreeable posts get the merits.. Not minority opinions usually..


EXACTLY my point this entire time..

I'm now clear with this thread that if Justice needs to be done, either it should be done in full or nothing.

That either DTs tag Yahoo if they are intended towards tagging the users who advertised Yobit in their signatures or none should be tagged. But what about those who were either banned by Yahoo or left the campaign themselves either before or after that X10 advertisement arrived? As they were also a part of Yobit's campaign some time before, should they also be tagged for advertising Yobit or they are set free? If so, how will they be found now?

Doing the right thing against the flow of your peers is admirable..


The argument I think you are referring to is not wither or not to tag yahoo.

The argument that you cannot tag Yobit participants, even though you probably think you should, but can't because then you would also have to tag your buddie yahoo, is the point..

The "They deserve to be tagged but not yahoo because I like him" line of though is hypocritical because it is basically protecting your own buddies while you would otherwise have tagged them to hell..

If any Yobit advertisers should be tagged for advertising Yobit, yahoo should be the FIRST to be tagged, not the last or not tagged because of whatever excuses..
The same should be applied to all, and if anything, the most "reputable" users should be held to the highest standards, not excused from them..

My point is/was that if anyone should have been tagged for advertising Yobit (other than the X10ers), they should all be tagged equally including yahoo..

No preferential treatment.. You shouldn't tag someone you don't like while excusing your friend of the same actions..

LiveCoin did not start out as a scam. After it turned out that LiveCoin was acting in an untrustworthy/scam manner, and once LiveCoin had the opportunity to defend itself, pressure was given to those who were advertising for LiveCoin and after a discussion, Hhampuz ended the campaign.

In the case of yahoo/Yobit, yahoo acknowledged that Yobit was a scam and decided to continue advertising for them. The difference is that those who were advertising for LiveCoin had not taken the position that it was a scam when they were advertising.

You say this like it is a joke, but this is the exact logic being used to tag anyone who wears specific signature banners people decide they don't like for whatever reason. It is just as retarded in that case. The solution? Stop justifying people being punished by guilt via association across the board.




I am very much sticking to the subject. You are either a hypocrite with malleable constantly shifting standards to fit whatever suits you, or you are a useful dupe for others doing the same. It has nothing to do with being "upset" with you. I don't trust your ability for reason or judgement, and you are being treated as such.

Here are some:

• False equivalency. LiveCoin pressure was due to a singular instance of scamming and/or maybe some other previous situations. Yobit had many many more instances before the campaign was even taken over by Yahoo. Therefore:
  He accepted a much worse scamming entity[1].
• False equivalency #2. Both exchanges are shady, but Yobit is the one that was actively promoting their Ponzi scam. Even without advertising it here, he's knowingly diverting people to an entity one of whose products is the ponzi. You can't argue that a lot of people didn't get burned this way, not even with utopian wishful thinking.
• Why didn't he act between January 14th (although this issue being widely known started much earlier) and the point at which Yobit announced campaign termination? He actively avoided doing so, and avoided posting in this thread too.
• [1] See his own post in the LiveCoin situation (he wasn't managing that one, maybe that's why), i.e. it proves hypocrisy as well.

See the following two points:

For the above, please don't waste my time with nonsense such as "active avoidance doesn't mean he's guilty". Of course it does not, but there has to be a strong reason to do so.

Update, see the following too (thanks Quicksie  ):

---

You can't seriously argue that this not only doesn't warrant negative ratings, but doesn't warrant exclusions either.

---

Also side note (not related directly to topic so I apologize): Please note the extreme lack of merits on very substantive posts from everyone against Yahoo (eddie, et. al. and me). There's no bias here, and all DT1 members are properly assessing the situation, right?