Quote from: dooglus on March 28, 2016, 12:53:53 AM

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.

I have not seen any examples of when a bitcoin related ponzi has ever operated honestly in perpetually, nor that has shut down in accordance of terms posted prior to anyone sending money to said ponzi. To say that you didn't know how your script was going to be used is a big stretch IMO.

Quote from: dooglus on March 28, 2016, 12:53:53 AM

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.

This is interesting. So the name of the operator of the ponzi that you helped code is Kyle? This doesn't happen to be MRKYLE does it? If so, did you know that this person previously scammed 25BTC worth of others money? Of course you did considering that you left him negative trust.

Quote from: dooglus on March 28, 2016, 12:53:53 AM

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.

Wait, you didn't know who ran the ponzi in question? I am confused, I thought you said his name was Kyle in this very same post. Cheesy

Quote from: dooglus on March 28, 2016, 12:53:53 AM

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.

So you do not own the github account /dooglus? Again in this very same post you said that you did in fact fork the ponzi script. If the script in question is available for download by accessing your github account, that sounds an awful lot like you are offering it for download.

Quote from: dooglus on March 28, 2016, 12:53:53 AM

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.

If an ISIS terrorist was trying to get a bomb to explode, but couldn't and you fixed their mistake by telling them to "switch the green and the red wires" which would get the bomb to work properly then you would most likely be arrested for supporting a terrorist organization (or something similar thereof), and I don't think very many people would be against your arrest if you did that. I am not saying that what you did is comparable to supporting ISIS, however the principle remains the same.

suchmoon -

Quote from: suchmoon on March 28, 2016, 01:12:35 AM

Of course you don't need a PSA or any kind of other formal process to post a neg. The PSA is just a choice of some members to warn about their intent and is not a forum rule. Which is why I still don't understand why some posters even in this thread are not negging dooglus but for some reason are expecting others to do that. If anyone distrusts dooglus for the reasons presented in the OP or any other reasons - just go ahead and do it, how hard can it possibly be.

dooglus has excluded anyone who has seriously questioned him and anyone who has left him negative trust who were previously anywhere near the Default Trust network (both myself and BAC). Maybe they are afraid of receiving an exclusion from dooglus if they leave him a negative rating, which could potentially undue a lot of their prior work.

Quote from: suchmoon on March 28, 2016, 01:12:35 AM

I also think it's disingenuous to be opposed to the way cryptodevil and whywefight and others are negging ponzis, but at the same time expect a significantly more wide-ranging criteria to be applied to someone you dislike personally. Now that would be the wrong use for the trust system but thank ~~God~~ theymos for the tilde.

I am opposed to those who are leaving negative trust for anyone who talks about participating in a ponzi as I disagree with the conclusion that anyone posting about such participation is supporting a ponzi, and in turn is a scammer. In fact, I have noticed that many people who have received negative trust have posted something along the lines that the ponzi is not sustainable in the very post they write of their participation, so if anything they are warning others of the risks involved in participating in a ponzi. If you look at my sent trust, you will see many negative ratings for operators of ponzis.

I don't think that it is a bigger stretch to say that dooglus was/is supporting a ponzi, then those who post of their participation in ponzis. Dooglus created software (a script) that would allow a potential ponzi operator to run a ponzi, when they would not otherwise be able to run said ponzi. If participants did not post about their participation in a ponzi, then the operator could still post information about funds being received on the blockchain and other various stats, and the lack of said posts would not prevent a ponzi operator from being able from running.

My having negative personal feelings towards someone does not preclude me from calling them out on a scam. Similarly, just because I am close to someone does not preclude me from calling them out on a scam or saying that I think they are wrong publicly. I am sure that many people in this thread will not believe me, however all of my trust ratings are based on fact, and my personal opinions do not influence any of them, and this thread was not made because of any personal opinions or feelings (although I may have spent a little extra time looking into this issue after receiving this tip due to personal feelings).

whywefight -

Quote from: whywefight on March 28, 2016, 02:08:24 AM

I agree. What i am trying to say or what i am trying to find out is: What do you expect to happen now? Just doog being removed or being tagged by "people like me"?

The purpose of this thread is to warn others about a small portion of dooglus's prior transgressions. I do believe that dooglus should be removed from DT, although not for reasons listed in the OP (this will come later in my series). If you believe that someone who engaged in this kind of activity should be given negative trust and/or excluded from your trust list then I would suggest doing so. I would note that you did leave a negative rating for BSM for selling a ponzi script, and dooglus has one listed for free on his github account, so I think it would probably only be logical for you to leave him a negative trust rating.