Quote from: SaltySpitoon on March 28, 2016, 03:04:03 PM

Your claim: Dooglus fixed bugs in a ponzi scheme script, therefore he is liable to some extent, as the ponzi scheme operators used his script.

your statement:

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

It seems that some people feel that "supporting" a ponzi in any way is considered to be scamming, and editing code for a ponzi certainly would fall under the category of "supporting" a ponzi.

Even more people are strongly against the sale of ponzi scripts and the advertising of a ponzi in their signature, which is very similar to the benefits that dooglus has provided.

Is what really gives it the ole reputation feel. A scam report is absolute. You make a claim, Party A is responsible for scamming Party B for this amount in this manner. This snipet of your OP to me reads. Some people don't like ponzis, and find them scammy or unethical, Dooglus is involved with supporting a ponzi to an extent, do the rest of you find this unethical as well? This part really feels like you are trying to alert people of Dooglus' questionable actions, and asking people to evaluate his character due to involvement in a ponzi, rather than claiming that Dooglus' involvement has directly caused this many Bitcoins to be stolen.

I was hoping that others would come to the conclusion on their own, and have been somewhat pushing the bolded theory based on my statements in the thread saying that the ponzi script in question would outright not work if it was not for dooglus's help in coding the script. I will edit my OP tomorrow afternoon/evening to give more clarity in this claim, although the exact amount of money stolen is difficult to determine due to the open source nature of the script in question -- a minimum figure should probably be possible though, as well as a solicitation for people to report amounts lost on various ponzis that used the script in question.

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on March 28, 2016, 03:04:03 PM

Of course, there are a lot of other details, but I don't really care about anything other than your claim, as thats all that is needed for classifying the thread. That is why I believe that the thread belonged in Reputation rather than Scam Accusations, however, I also understand that it's not a moderators privilege to substantiate or judge your claims, which is why I told you outright that you are welcome to move it back if you personally intended on persuing the thread as a scam accusation rather than a reputation thread. At this moment, I'd say with about a 95% degree of certainty, it is a reputation thread, however, that doesn't account for additional information you intend to post, nor your intentions on the direction you plan to take the thread. I found it very possible that you could change the direction you are taking things, and decide to pursue it as a scam accusation, which is why I said you are welcome to move it back to scam accusations.

This is very much appreciated.