Topic: YOBIT SCAM: x10 Banner Promoters Will Be Tagged For Promoting a Ponzi Scheme (Read 2403 times)

Finally am locking this thread as nothing constructive is being added by those that support either Yobit itself or just their x10 ponzi scheme.

This is contradictory to all the statements I made.
Even the one you quoted.


My take was that people who participated in the campaign are not hish-risk and tagging them is abuse of the trust system.

That man is really mentally sick. Tagged  me the second time for the same discussions  on Minexcoin thread , refering to https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.47743232 He has removed his first tag after I send him merit for his saying that Minexcoin is dead https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52742371.  Now he tagged me again referring to the same Minexcoin issue.  I wonder does he want a merit from me again. or what?

Not trustworthy and seems to be a trust abuser.

I saw that yesterday, but it's not over yet.
There is still the DOGE/X10 pair that is running.
Of course, it went down from 0.05 to 0.015 but there are still people who buy this crap.

And meanwhile, they have moved to the next scam, Yoda.


Who could forget the Big Ben Takedown 

^ apparently it is OK to advertise "bitconnect" for people who can be trusted with funds
Actually, this statement is not correct. Do better research next time.

In my opinion this is sophisticated scam scheme. Hypothetically, they release 1,000,0000 fake tokens for investment purposes and set price 50 sat each and promise 10% more tokens on investment. As token is fake and it doesn't really have supply (they can "print" as many tokens they want), 10% more fake tokens each day is possible and not so unrealistic in this scenario, they are basically adding more numbers (of course, after some time, that number will certainly become 10^xxx)

So, they sell all their million "numbers" for 50btc, raise each investment by 10% more "numbers" and then let users dump on each others those "numbers" until whole scheme collapse, then they start new scheme with new name. Every scheme they make will collapse:




It is interesting to point that they claim to be cryptocurrency stock exchange:

...while x10 is what exactly?



Except it is fake, we can discuss is it ponzi, pump and dump or whatever it is, but final line is - it is scam.

Exactly. Who remembers Arbitao arbitrage scam and someone saying something within lines "yahoo is managing campaign, yahoo is very trusted user therefore Arbitao is not scam"?

One instance?

A simple look at my trust rating will find a continous trading history with people risking a lot of money with me.
Some of the larger ones would be carsen who entrusted me with 4BTC and Torcoin with 1BTC.
There are so many  reversable PayPal deals over 500$ a piece which stack up at least a BTC if you want to scam under the 180 day chargeback period.

Even that instance isn't "there is one instance where I held a lot of money" isn't correct. Since it wasn't one time. It is continual management.
I managed the depository for 4 years continually. The value of it changed with XMR value from 70k-1m. I think it was never worth less than 50k.
Also consider some of these I listed overlapped in the same periods, and add smaller deals done in the same time.

Any of the listed things had no other escrow, lockbox, collateral or anyone else involved. Every coin was in my complete control, and I was the only one who had the private keys.

That changes things. Whilst I do not fully agree that not-doing-bad-when-you-could is fundamentally good in itself, I can see how you could see that it is and accept your view.

Right, but you also need to factor in a differentiation between passive and active actions. Not-stealing-when-you-could = passive action, i.e. don't do anything and the default outcome is good. Furthermore the following two things are also very often forgotten:
1) The amounts - Would you trust someone who had 10 successive proper $10 trades with $1000 over somebody who had one trade of $2k? I personally find all these singular instances of trading, or multiple instances trading where the amounts are negligible (and this depends on the person, but I'd consider anything sub - what others would consider a very high amount - not worthy of positive trust). I also act accordingly to this belief as you've seen in a  strong contrast between my number of given positives vs. number of given negatives (and yes, this is completely unrelated to the number of actual deals that I've done).
2) The proportionality effect of the given positive trust rating (amount risked vs. credibility given) - A very important point that many seem to miss and will continue to disregard. How much credibility does your rating for a $10 trade give in the eyes of the super-majority, not in your eyes (as a ranking DT member the eyes of many are supposed to be more important than your own eyes, i.e. bias)? It gives much more than that, and couple that with successive, what I call pajeet-level, trades of this kind and you create unnecessary risk for a lot of members for very little gain on the (subsequent!) receivers of that positive trust.

---

We are going way too deep into this and sidetracking from the topic, but I believe it was fruitful (based on your elaboration, which completely changes what I was arguing against). Furthermore, I'm quite appalled by anyone who wants to use "there was this one instance where I held a lot of money and didn't steal it, so how dare you accuse me of ever possibly scamming or being untrustworthy after". I believe this is a display of fundamentally compromised or flawed judgement. Many other members could do so (including me), but there's a very good reason why it isn't being done!

---

I think this rests this part of the discussion, at least from my end. Hope it helped.

just to clarify, i didn't say/mean that one trustworthy act makes someone fundamentally good. the act itself is fundamentally good. this was to meet your "proof of good" condition:

i just feel that acting honorably in all business dealings and squaring all obligations ought to mean something. can we agree on that? if not, what are the proper metrics, in your opinion?

it's like, you're a bank and someone with a perfect history of repaying every debt asks for a loan. is their perfect history a basis for their financial trustworthiness? or should they be looked at exactly the same as any bum on the street?

No, sorry. No matter how much you want to try to derail with your existentialist debate, the trust system was designed to do exactly this. The only one interpreting things here, in a very self serving punitive way I might add, is you.

Right, and based off of this a lot of scammers were former kings of good, i.e. fundamentally good? Fundamental good almost never ever changes, and thus you need to question your own metrics first. It's not like it's easy to explicitly phrase it, but you get the logical argument of the previous 2 sentences.

but (presumably) he was entrusted with those funds, and he proceeded to act honorably. that seems fundamentally good, right? why would it matter what externalities led to the situation?

if not stealing from others despite the opportunity =/= trustworthy, what would you consider to be the basis of trustworthiness? what metrics do you use?

No, that's your interpretation and it's irrelevant to the system.

No one said anything about proof of good except you. The point was this is the entire meaning of the function of the trust system no matter how much you attempt to distract from this fact. it is meant to serve as a log of times people COULD have stolen but didn't, proving they have a history of being able to be trusted with funds.

Wrong. Nobody in their right mind would actively entrust him with a million dollars, he just happened to end up in that situation due to many externalities. Doing good can be proof of good, not doing bad is not proof of good.

It's my "opinion", not a threat. See how this works nicely when you selectively enforce it, like you are (or he is)?

That is LITERALLY the point of the trust system. Some one is entrusted with funds, they have the opportunity to steal, they don't and then fulfill their obligation, thus proving them trustworthy.



Threatening negative ratings because people disagree with you. That is a good look Lauda.

Is that really so?
(I'm naturally suspicious of people that claim to know what "people know".)
Or is that what you want to be so for "ideological" reasons?

Because theymos believes in freedom of speech.
I would never personally promote such a scheme.
There's not a chance in the world.

--

I'm going to conclude with this and I'm out of this thread.

The thing about signature campaigns is that people know they're advertisement space and they're not personal promotion you're trying to make it out to be. People having signatures in their profile doesn't make anyone think they personally promote them.

I'm going to repeat this and leave

"No crime", no problem. The folk where he comes from are still a couple generations behind in (brain) development, you've ought to be a bit more lenient. They are just somewhat better than vispilio et. al.

Tell me something.
You're a friend of mine, you are known to a scheme that promises you an X amount in return every single day, well either you are earning through it or not that's another case but they are paying you to bring them their potential customers (here: VICTIMS) and without testing them yourself, you bring that scheme to me as a friend and ask me to go to them and show interest in that scheme. Obviously I'd do it like a blind ass if I'm not aware of the intentions they have in their mind. There's no fault of yours maybe because you were ^thinking good for both of us^ (for you as you are going to make some bucks on me arriving there and for me as I may be getting some fucking returns), but my friend, when you haven't tested it for yourself, why did you tell me about it and send me to them? What if I get scammed after they run away with my and many other innocent people's money? Whom should I contact with, then? You, right? I'm not saying that I'm in any support for tagging you or anybody who advertised them but if you were warned, it means that it is not in the interest of both the forum as well as the users of the forum in general. I don't get it why theymos didn't step in when that X10 shit was circulating all over the forum for some days.

Now I'm 98% inclined to give you a negative rating.

You're an accomplice, end of story. How about we ask a judge in your country whether you have committed a "crime" or not? At this point I'm considering an uniform action against everyone who gives zero disregard for victims or potential victims in any case (not just Yobit) as that behavior is inherently untrustworthy or can only be  acted out by inherently untrustworthy people.