Quote from: Quickseller on March 27, 2016, 08:40:43 PM

The scripts sole purpose was to run a ponzi. There are no other potential uses for the script in question. It was forked multiple times and apparently had previously been fairly widely used by ponzis in the past. By editing the code in the script, you were fixing a problem that various ponzis were (potentially) having, allowing them to potentially build a stronger sense of legitimacy and eventually end up stealing a greater amount of other people's money.

I fixed bugs in Ponzi code. It's true. Whether the code is used to steal money or not is up to the person running the script and how they market it. The only reason I was even looking at the script was because Klye was having problems with it. As I understood it, he was marketing his Ponzi truthfully and not attempting to steal anything from anyone. From what I've heard nobody other than Klye himself ended up out of pocket from using that script.

Quote from: Quickseller on March 27, 2016, 08:40:43 PM

What lie have I said in this thread? Please point it out to me.

I wasn't referring to this thread in particular, but since you asked, the very first sentence you wrote is a lie:

Quote from: Quickseller on March 27, 2016, 08:07:14 PM

Scammers Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3420

That is a link to my profile not a scammer's profile. I am not a scammer. I have never scammed anyone or attempted to scam anyone.

Quote from: Quickseller on March 27, 2016, 08:07:14 PM

If you can successfully find a lie written by me in the OP of this thread then I might even payout a ~~bug bounty~~ extortion to you Cheesy

I don't want your money. We've been over your weak "extortion" claim before too. When someone tells you "we will pay you for finding bugs" and then you find a bug and they admit it's a bug but won't pay you what they promised to pay you, and you leave them feedback saying that they broke their word, that isn't extortion. That's them showing that they are not trustworthy, and me leaving feedback so others can see that they are not trustworthy. But maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. Maybe we're saving rehashing that for a separate episode of "dooglus is bad". I can hardly wait.

Quote from: Quickseller on March 27, 2016, 08:43:48 PM

so just because someone has been trusted with a lot of money in the past, they should be given a free pass in being able to do whatever they want in the future....

Absolutely not. I'm not asking for a free pass. But this "fixing bugs makes doog bad" line of argument only makes you look weak.

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on March 27, 2016, 09:19:28 PM

I guess if we are trying to get rid of the philosophy of ponzis, and get straight to the question, does Dooglus owe anyone money?

I do. I owe lots of people a lot of CLAMs. If they want repayment they need to log in to Just-Dice and click the 'withdraw' button.

Quote from: suchmoon on March 27, 2016, 09:26:18 PM

I think I'm missing something essential here. Where did dooglus support the ponzi? Got a link to that? The thread you linked to says quite the contrary:

https://archive.is/GJAt4#selection-5773.0-5773.105

Quote

Please refrain from associating my name with this project in an attempt to give it feelings of legitimacy.

Thanks for taking the time to find that.

This is what QS always does. It's the same with the dice sites I played on and talked about that ended up disappearing with people's money. He says I "supported" them, but in fact went to great lengths to repeatedly state that I didn't know who ran them or whether they were trustworthy.

Quote from: Slowturtleinc on March 27, 2016, 11:26:02 PM

Just watching some of dooglus responses in other threads I would not say he is completely out in the clear on this. Just a personal observation,each his own right.

For instance?

Quote from: CryptoDatabase on March 27, 2016, 11:44:37 PM

Quote from: redsn0w on March 27, 2016, 11:30:17 PM

Dooglus doesn't support ponzis...

As long as he is publicly offering ponzi scripts for download he is. Not sure why people just keep overlooking this.

I am not offering Ponzi scripts for download. I forked a crappy Ponzi project on github to fix a bug in it that was costing Klye some money. Github make the script available for download, as they were making it available for download before I forked it. That's how github works.

And I am not supporting Ponzis simply by correcting an error in a Ponzi script. If I correct a spelling mistake in one of your sentences, am I supporting the point you are trying to make? I don't think so. I am simply correcting an error.

Quote from: CryptoDatabase on March 27, 2016, 11:44:37 PM

It's one thing to fix some code for someone, it's another to host it on their github for everyone to download long after the fact.

The code is open source. I made the fix in public. That's how open source works. The development is distributed and open. You think I could delete my change from the Internet now even if I wanted to?

Quote from: CryptoDatabase on March 27, 2016, 11:44:37 PM

"Hey, here is a ponzi source ready to go for you, use my personal link and share it with all of your friends. Remember to use the tutorial I provide at the link so you know how to properly set it up"

This is a misrepresentation. I forked an existing project, which itself was a fork of an existing project. If there's a tutorial in the fork I made it's because there was a tutorial in the project I forked. All I did was fix a trivial bug in existing code.

Quote from: CryptoDatabase on March 27, 2016, 11:44:37 PM

Come on folks, we all know the definition of support and what it means. Lets not act like we don't.

That should be "Let's not act", you missed an apostrophe. Does that mean I am supporting you? Or am I only fixing an error in what you said?