Topic: YOBIT SCAM: x10 Banner Promoters Will Be Tagged For Promoting a Ponzi Scheme - page 3. (Read 2413 times)

I don't get the point of discussing all this when you were warned at first and allowed a day to stop promoting X10 banner. It is obvious that people who went there seeing your signature would definitely not be the ones who were aware about Yobit's investbox scam. And about X10, did you see that it just exhausted completely and there are no buyers for it even at 1 sat now? I have also seen fake volumes and not just that, there were some players in their dice area who make bets of BTC0.5, BTC0.7 and such big bets without proof that the bets were provably fair, you can't even see your bets available anywhere on the site and I've never seen my old bets' logs. The usernames remain similar each day and they look to be their own members or bots no matter what, but I don't know how Yobit is managing to have its exchange up and running even after having no proof of coins popping up through their ICO/IEO but there are still people who trust them and I don't know the base that's making them believe that Yobit is not scamming/will not scam.

You are wrong.

These are not merely differences of opinion, you are factually wrong. You are responsible for whether you promote a scam or not via displaying banner and them paying you to do it. Your lack of investigating what you are promoting is a failure on your part therefore you are complicit.

If there was any benefit of any doubt then it would have been diminished the moment you decided to write back stating you will look in to the PM request after the deadline/request. I suspect you removed the x10 banner purely because the Yobit campaign was coming to an end. Simple.

How many times do I have to correct misconstrued statements?
It is for scams! But the facts are important.
After all, trade and scams go hand in hand.

Wearing a paid signature from a website some users later on deemed a scam is not scammy behaviour.
If you wear a signature, you didn't scam anyone nor did you have intention to scam.
Most have probably never encountered threads about this website at all. Nor did they know how YoBit operates or what an InvestBox was.

To be a scammer - you have to scam someone.


It wasn't deleted. The post is there. For some reason I tend the make a post even though it displays "New replies" and then I continue to edit my reply to respond to new posts and embellish what I previously wrote.

I am baffled as to the motive. All I can gather is iluvbitcoins says that the trust system is for trade only and not for scams even though its has been pointed out that is not the case entirely. It seems clear to me this goes beyond that because iluvbitcoins was offended by the way all this has unfolded, I cannot put it down to anything else.



That is precisely the point.

The view held by iluvbitcoins has been stated in the now deleted post but I had replied beforehand. In it iluvbitcoins stated: "Participating in signature campaigns, even if they are ponzis can never be equivalent to scamming.":

You're again missconstruing what was said here.


I'm of the opinion that at least 70% of the signature campaign didn't even know what an InvestBox was.
I sure as hell didn't. Tagging YoBit would be sufficient without tagging innocent users.


My argument is that they most likely didn't even know an InvestBox existed.


Sure. I can agree that is a morally valid opinion. However, I would not agree it's worth a negative trust.
As I said, I believe most of the people who participated in these campaigns had no idea what an InvestBox was or that it even existed.
How can we tag them as untrustworthy if they didn't even know?

I mean there are people on this forum that just participate in campaigns, giveaways, faucets, etc. etc.
There are certainly some that don't even know what a ponzi is.
How can we label them as untrustworthy?

That's what it says in the trust page:

I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly here. Your argument is that people who promote a scam can't be held accountable as there is no proof their promotion was responsible for users falling victim to said scam?

Sure, I accept that was a loaded statement on my part, but I think if you are going to promote something and lend your name and reputation to it, then the onus is on you to learn about what you are promoting, and not wait for others to call you out on it.

If you receive monetary compensation for this and are still willing, then this makes you an accomplice, i.e. a scammer per definition too. Regardless of which view you take on it, this should remain true in every.

If you check my sent feedback, you'll see I've tagged several Scammers without being scammed. If something is an obvious scam, I prefer not to get scammed first, and tag them as a warning to other users without trading with them first.

This is a more more interesting discussion. I'd say it says a lot about someone if they're willing to promote a known scam.

Exactly. That's the purpose of discussion. We certainly have different viewpoints at this moment but I see no reason why we would despise one another.
I'm open to have my mind changed.


Banning users is the business of the administration, not of the Trust system.
I would definitely object if there's no proof the website is linked to the poster, it would be an unjust ban since he could easily be posting a link without knowing about the malware.
But the equivalent is a bit different. There is much more harm in infecting someones computer (removal of free will) than it is in accessing a website (absolute free will).


YoBit was never an acknowledged or undisputed scam. I have never encountered any scam accusations from their users at all.
It was not and is not widely known. Red tagging people who knew nothing about you claiming they're a scam is wrong in my head, yes.
Most of these people are probably honest people.



We're talking about the judicial system where terms of written contracts are determined by lawyers according to the current laws and the constitution.

0 of that exists here. There are no laws, there are no lawyers, there is no constitution, there is no one to appeal to.
There is only mob rule.


Thinking the Earth is flat doesn't change it being round.
Thinking wearing YoBits signature is promoting scams doesn't change that those people didn't knowinglly damage anyone.

So, you are of the opinion that the trust system should not be used to express distrust of the advertisement of acknowledged, undisputed scams!?

The remainder of this post is thus almost superfluous.  As I wrote already before I saw your later post, not all opinions are equally valid.  Next.

---

Trade disputes are often just that:  Disputes.  Whether in good faith or in bad faith, parties interpret their terms of contract differently, differently interpret the facts upon which their contract must be applied (even when they agree to the facts), argue over the law that applies to the contract and to the facts, etc.

In actual courtrooms, such a dispute can and oft does result in a judge writing a paper that is called an opinion to explain his judgment in legal terms.

In substantial effect, what you are arguing for is the abrogation of all standards, period.  For ultimately, reductio ad absurdum, everything in real-life human interactions is just a matter of opinion.

Not all opinions are equally valid.

---

I noticed.  And sane people do not waste time arguing with them (although they can be an interesting subject of sociological study).

---

Thanks.  I have also been intending to gather links to some of your older posts about the Yobit scam.  Anybody arguing for Yobit should be required to first address the maths as a threshold question.  That is not a matter of “opinion”, unless someone is of the opinion that the definition of the word “opinion” is arbitrary in the correct sense of the word “arbitrary”, not the arbitrary sense of TECSHARE’s opinion about the meaning of the word “arbitrary”. :-)

Well, my faux argument wasn't whether the wallet contained malware or not, it was whether that fact rendered the poster of the link a scammer. Do we have to wait until the account was proven to have profited from introducing malware onto the computers of others before we can justly tag them as a scammer? Because I'll tell you right now: theymos bans them right away.

Regardless, I do appreciate your appreciation.


JollyGood is also pursuing that interest.


By stating a rational argument I suppose, similar to your own.

You're missing the argument again.
No one here is arguing YoBit isn't a scam.

Dis/Agreement and facts are not the same.

ISS pictures, lunar eclipses, sunsets, time zones are proving the round Earth a fact.
Agreeing or disagreeing changes nothing. Just like trades.

The same is with the nutildahs posted malware. If the file is ran through virustotal and comes up as a virus on 10/10 AVs, it's no longer an opinion that it's malware.

If someone denies a 1000BTC withdrawal, and it can be verified, it becomes fact that they damaged their users.

If a user wears a signature in order to earn some mBTC he didn't scam anyone.
There is no proof in him damaging any users at all.

It is purely your opinion that him participating in a signature campaign can be potentially harmful.


Keyword is knowingly.

As I said, I would not have worn the signature had I read more about it.
But you can see why I see this as potentially harmful.

Holy shit. No.

You might be right, maybe the 24 hours was not enough notice but since no collective stance and common ground from DTs was established I took unilateral action all in good faith. Regardless of whether my action was right or wrong please look at the reaction to my action:

- there were 12 users showing x10 banners that has made posts within the previous 7 days
- at the time of the 24 hour notice expiring there were just 4 users showing the x10 banner whereas 8 had removed them
- of those 4 users iluvbitcoins was the only one that send a PM explicitly stating they would take action after the expiring of the notice - hence the tag. (First it was red but at the advice/intervention of nutildah  I reluctantly revised it to neutral)
- of the remaining 3 users who displayed the x10 banner, one sent a PM saying they just saw the PM and removed the thread therefore I removed the tag (no red, no neutral)
- in the end, 1 user received neutral trust and 2 users received a red tag because they chose to dismiss the request.

As a result of that unilateral action for whatever it was morally correct or not, thankfully 9 users removed the x10 banner after pointing out it was a scam and maybe if it saved even 1 newbie from falling victim to their scam after reading a signature then I for one am very happy.

It was iluvbitcoins that deliberately waited for the notice period to expire before replacing the x10 banner with a Chipmixer banner, then sending a PM to complain about what is listed in their posts - and now iluvbitcoins has removed the Chipmixer banner too.

I am not saying that I contributed to Yobit taking a decision to stop campaigning here after it as pointed out all x10 banner promoters will be tagged but they have ended their campaign here for now at least and that is a win-win situation for most of the users with a clean conscience here.

This. I see a lot of posts saying that the clear facts I presented in my previous posts (here, here, and here) are just like, my opinion, man, but no one has refuted a single one of them.

Some people disagree that the Earth is round. That doesn't make it any less of a fact.

---

Is anyone actually arguing that X10 isn't a scam? Or are we just arguing whether knowingly promoting a proven scam is untrustworthy behavior?

You're again missing the argument.
It's not about the signature itself.
Some of us obviously agree to disagree about the signature being worthy of a tag.
That proves it's an opinion and not a fact.
It's about the trust system becoming opinion-based versus the only credible trustworthy unbiased metric of trades.
We can agree to disagree, and I will not engage the discussion further, but stop misinterpreting words that are posted here.


Now, this is a legit argument.
I thank you for this nutildah.
This is how people decide things and not by twisting words and changing narratives.

Outcomes differentiate a fact from an opinion.
How can you tell the wallet is malware-laced? If you ran it through virustotal.com, it's no longer an opinion.
It's a fact.


I'm obviously not pursuing my self-interest here, the only thing I can earn here is probably a red tag.
But I'm pursuing the interest of the community as a whole.
As I said if I consider myself a moral person what can I think other than this action being wrong and harmful?
If I was tagged, how can possibly someone with no proof behind him to prove his credibility defend against this allegations?

FYI, non sequitur is a fancy Latin phrase meaning, “it does not follow”.  And it still doesn’t.  Not even if you pull out a cutesy pop-movie GIF to insult my intelligence from your position of stupidity.


This is the analogy being clearly insinuated by Erdogan‘s (+0 / =0 / -5) post, which you, TECSHARE, are defending in a manner that proves stupidity and malice are indistinguishable:

   Mixer : Criminals :: Scam Site : Scam

Therefore, advertising of a mixer is implied to be wrongful advertising somehow analogous to advertising a scam.  The analogy fails because relies on non sequitur which may be more obvious if I reformulate it per o_e_l_e_o’s suggestion:

   The Internet : Criminals :: Scam Site : Scam

...or:

   Money : Criminals :: Scam Site : Scam

Please be advised that if you desire further tutorials in analogies, fancy Latin phrases, and/or basic English reading comprehension and critical thinking, I will start billing you.  I accept payments in Bitcoin only.

---

With Erdogan?  You are the one who chose to step up and defend the transparent shill arguments of a bought/hacked account with a scam history.  A man is known by the company he keeps.  N.b., guilt by association is not a formal fallacy; and it is not at all fallacious here, just as ad hominem is not fallacious when asking “cui bono?” about a known bought/hacked scam account suddenly showing up to smear ChipMixer, an innocent party who is not involved in this thread.


In OP, JollyGood set forth very narrow (in my opinion, far too narrow) objective criteria for his tagging of users who are indisputably advertising a Ponzi scam.  You call that “arbitrary”?


Please request my English language tutoring rates if you want any counterargument or explanation, but for the following observation:

Your long-running crusade to lower the community’s standards of honesty is well-known to Reputation regulars, albeit perhaps not to many readers of these Yobit-related threads.  It shows generally poor judgment on your part; and your defence of a hacked/bought account’s attempt to drag ChipMixer into this is a new low even for you.

---

Your meaning is unclear:  Are you saying that the cold, hard maths that make Yobit’s advertised rates of return impossible are an “opinion”, or that it is only an “opinion” that the promise of impossible returns is a textbook, definitional scam?

That's hardly a point when all we have are our opinions. Who's to say that an account posting links to a malware-laced wallet client for their shitcoin is a scammer? Isn't that just an opinion as well? In a non-scientific based nor rigorously tested environment like this one, what differentiates a fact from an opinion other than opinions?

We all work together to find some sort of common sense resolution to issues and establish a protocol for handling them. The opinions of those who aren't willing to make concessions of any sort are eventually cast aside. As far as I know there have not been any exceptions to this rule.

Frankly I don't understand what your beef is. Your negative was removed, and the YoBit signature campaign has come to an end. Why are you still arguing with people in this thread?

There's plenty of facts showing that investbox is a scam but you choose one troll to defend because he said "opinion". Just do some research before you put shit in your signature, how hard can it be.