Quote from: AlexGR on April 04, 2016, 04:58:19 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on April 04, 2016, 04:25:13 AM

Please define "ripping people off" unambiguously such that all those on the OP's list FACTUALLY qualify but Evan doesn't.

In most scams you can say

a) What the scam is
b) What is the financial size of the scam
c) Who are the victims of the scam / Who got ripped off
d) How much did the victims lose

Example (Karpeles):

a) "Losing" or stealing the money of investors and pretended to be hacked
b) 700k+ BTC / 700mn USD
c) People who had funds in his exchange
d) 700k+ BTC / 700mn USD collectively / individually 700k+ BTC divided by their respective deposits in cash or BTCs.

You can claim "scam" for any number of reasons but can't tell me (b), (c), (d).

Okay you are focused on quantifying what got ripped off, which you claim is necessary to conclude that people did get ripped off. (which is ludicrous, there are ways of ascertaining that people got ripped off without quantifying it precisely and identifying the victims, analogous to I can see a plane crash and presume there are victims without quantifying or identifying, but let's for the moment follow your twisted mindset...)

So according to your definition, there exists no scam until we are able to subpoena all the exchanges that trade DRK (and presume that all of them are strictly enforcing KYC), so that we can gather the specific calculations of whom was buying from an insider, how much the insiders were able to manipulate the price and volume with their alleged control over the float (due to 32.1% instamine and presumed further concentration of coin supply to insiders due to the dividend paying masternode scheme), and know all the identities of all the people involved.

What AlexGR proposes is that we will need KYC every where because otherwise there is no way to stop scams by putting the scam leaders (and accomplices such as AlexGR!) on Shit lists such as the OP. So AlexGR is for big government and enslavement of everyone. Ostensibly Evan sends his accomplices over here to argue against honest disclosure to n00bs.

However, note there was no such proof about Mt. Gox until that data was obtained by the authorities.

So you can't definitively prove that b), c), and d) don't exist.

And the evidence we have presented overwhelmingly favors the conclusion that b), c), and d) do exist if the authorities ever get around to collecting all the data.

Thus the evidence overwhelmingly favors putting Evan into the OP's list.

I believe there are many people on the OP's list that have not yet been convicted in a court of law. And thus where the numbers you demand have not yet been established as fact by an impartial authority.

Therefor your definition excluded entire classes of people who should be on the list and are on the list. So you failed my challenge and have lost the debate. Now please stop wasting my time. You want to do illegal and unethical scams that rip people off. Go ahead. I want nothing to do with you. Stay far away from me please.

Quote from: Johnny Mnemonic on April 04, 2016, 05:08:20 AM

Except for ponzi/pyramid related schemes, in which case every scammer claims there are no victims.

And nothing can be proven unequivocally until all the data around the scam can be collected and correlated.

This is one reason why ponzi/pyramid scams are so difficult for n00bs to avoid. Because aholes like AlexGR get up here and tell them that everything it okay and that it is just a "free market" when in fact it is manipulated ponzi market.