BAC left Dooglus a negative rating and Dooglus excluded BAC from his trust list, which puts him close to being out of the DT network. Dooglus excluded me around the time I was questioning him about his reputation loan to tspacepilot, and while I was still on BadBear's and Tomatocage's trust list.
I'm still not seeing a problem. If someone values their position in DT more than exposing a scammer that's really not the right example to bring up here. Not to mention that neither one of you was harmed in any way by the exclusion, the trust system worked as it was supposed to.
You don't think it is a problem when someone excludes someone else when they are questioned or receive negative trust?
No, I don't think it's a problem. For example I'm excluding people who I think are using the trust system to arbitrate their personal squabbles (so I can't rely on their trust ratings) and I don't think there is any problem with that even if they happen to leave me negative feedback or question me. It's an essential feature of the trust system and two DT1 exclusions are needed for a DT2 member so I'm still failing to see how that could prevent anyone from speaking out against a scammer.
If you
only exclude someone from your trust list after they start questioning you (and nearly immediately thereof, and reasonably was aware of such prior squabbles prior to being questioned), then even if such personal squabbles are being arbitrated via the trust system, that is not the reason for the exclusion, the reason for the exclusion is to silence your critics and to warn others against speaking out against you.
One should not value their position in DT more than exposing a scammer. Would you disagree?
I do agree that one
should not value their position in the DT network more then exposing a scammer, but that does not mean that is how others value their own position in the DT network. I was speaking about how I believe other people are thinking, not how I am thinking myself.
You don't think that coding a script for a ponzi is not support for a ponzi? That sounds like the definition of supporting a ponzi to me. Without the help of dooglus, any ponzi that was using the script in question would not have been able to steal money from others.
I think that's the part that's missing from your scam accusation. How much did dooglus steal?
It is very difficult to put a dollar figure on the amount of money that was stolen as a result of dooglus's help (only in relation to his coding of a ponzi script) because it is not public information when someone uses his script.
One known instance of when a ponzi was using the script that dooglus fixed is
here (
archive). The amount stolen via this ponzi is unclear looking at the blockchain, especially considering there was never a deposit address posted. There were a couple of different addresses that people were posting that they had sent to. There were claims that the ponzi in question had run away with .5 BTC (which would mean that it had unmet obligations of 1 BTC since it promised to double the amount deposited), and at one point there was a post claiming there was a queue of ~.69 BTC (which would equal unmet obligations totaling 1.38 BTC).
minifrij-
You don't think that coding a script for a ponzi is not support for a ponzi?
Fixing a bug in a script != coding a script. I've fixed bugs in scripts previously, I cannot then put that on my portfolio and imply that I made it.
Maybe I could have used different terminology, however the effect remains the same. The
fixed better script that dooglus
created edited, made it easier for ponzis to operate, and eventually steal from others.
No, you cannot fix a bug and then imply that you made the entire script, however you can (accurately) say that you contributed to said script.
Without the help of dooglus, any ponzi that was using the script in question would not have been able to steal money from others.
You're over exaggerating again. Do you really think that the 5 lines doog fixed were so detrimental to the script that it would have rendered the script unusable? I can almost guarantee that the script was used prior to dooglus' involvement, and had been used to steal money from others. Trying to argue that he had such a large effect on the script is stupid, as it is plainly obvious he didn't.
I don't know if the script would have been unusable without the help of dooglus, however according to dooglus himself, prior to him editing the script, anyone using the script would have paid out the incorrect players, which would cause the ponzi to quickly fail, and would have prevented ponzi operators from stealing more money from players then they otherwise might be able to.
Any Ponzi actually using the script would have quicky realised they were paying the wrong people. It takes very little effort by anyone with familiarity of coding and Bitcoin to locate and remove the error in the script
You could argue that the bug in question was trivial, however it was non-trivial enough to have remained in the code for >a year. Also The number of people that have the ability to code on here is very limited.
I do not dispute the fact that the script was used to scam people prior to dooglus's involvement, however I believe that dooglus's involvement has allowed ponzi operators (or could potentially allow ponzi operators) to steal larger amounts of others' money. See my explanation below:
As you most likely know, a ponzi will generate trust and the ability to steal large amounts of money as follows:
#A ponzi will agree to return 125% of a player's deposit after 48 hours
hour - description -- amount of money held at ponzi
0 - ponzi thread and website is created -- $0
1 - player "A" deposits $10 and posts as much -- $10
7 - player "B" deposits $15 and posts as much -- $25
40 - player "C" deposits $$5 and posts as much -- $30
49 - ponzi sends player "A" his "winnings" -- $17.50
52 - player "D" sees that "A" has been repaid and deposits $25 -- $42.50
55 - ponzi sends player "B" his "winnings" -- $23.75
60 - players "E" and "F" see that multiple people are receiving their winnings and deposit a total of $40 -- $63.75
--snip--
"n" - ponzi operator decides to run away with every one's money -- a lot of money
in the above scenario, if the old code was used then player "A" would not have received a payout, and would call out the ponzi on being a scam. The operator would simply run away with $17.50 and only a small number of people would have gotten scammed. However in the above example, as of hour "60" the operator would have been able to run away with a lot more money due to the trust earned from paying out players for only a short period.
Even if I were to give dooglus a maximum benefit of the doubt and say that his involvement had very little impact on the ability of ponzi operators to steal from others,
as a result of dooglus's help, people were able to steal a small amount of additional money. The question of
how much dooglus helped other people steal really is a moot point because someone is a scammer if they steal $1, $1,000 or if they steal $1,000,000.
dooglus has a very long history of profiting from when other people have been scammed to the point of tens of thousands of dollars...
I would ask for evidence, though I can already tell you're just going to bring up the dicebitco.in signature campaign again.
1 - People have been labeled as scammers in the past for wearing signatures of scam/ponzi sites.
2 - I don't think that receiving the .4
BTC (or whatever few hundred dollar equivalent amount) in exchange for wearing the signature of a website that eventually turns out to be a scam would make you a scammer
3 - IIRC, dooglus had made roughly 100
BTC in profit between gambling at dicebitco.in and investing in their bankroll. This is when they were cheating their high rollers and stealing from their bankroll investors.
4 - Dooglus was downplaying the possibility of the operators of dicebitco.in being scammers up until very shortly before it was revealed they were scamming
5 - Much more information on this topic will come in Chapter 3
Worried here this is going to one day be like everydice. Does anyone know the admin's identity or know their rep is as significant as Dooglus's was when he created Just-Dice?
EveryDice refunded everyone in full I believe.
Why would you worry about that?
dooglus -
dooglus has a very long history of profiting from when other people have been scammed to the point of tens of thousands of dollars, and the amount of money stolen as a result of these scams is to the tune of millions of dollars.
--snip--
I was lucky not to be scammed myself by those scammers,
Lucky enough so that you were always able to withdraw just before the operators decided to run away with every one's money.
yet you twist the reality to try to make it look as if I was somehow to blame.
Or had advance knowledge of the scam, yet pushed (and advertised) the sites anyway. But this is off topic in this thread, it can be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3
He also has a long history of hacking sites, and other transgressions that I intend on exposing, and preventing others from getting scammed similarly in the future.
More weasel words. You know how the word "hacking" has both ethical and blackhat meanings. I have never "hacked" a site in the way you are implying. I have found vulnerabilities in sites and reported them to the site owners.
There is no distinction between "whitehat" and "blackhat" hacking in the eyes of the law if the owner of the site has not expressly permitted you to attempt to find vulnerabilities.
Given the fact that the clambaker site was closed only after it had fully refunded the remaining waiting payments and no one lost anything on it besides the owner paying out the remaining investments out of pocket your scam accusation and shitposting is absolutely unwarranted and frankly you have no ground to stand on with your accusation.
So do you admit that you were behind this ponzi? Or are you just speculating that no one lost any money via the clambaker ponzi?
This is the Klye that first showed me the Ponzi script he was using, yes. Are there multiple Klye's in this space?
Let me see if I am understanding this correctly.
- You knew that Kyle (the operator of the CLAM based ponzi) had stolen 25BTC from investors of his ICO/IPO
- Your own negative trust rating against Kyle says that he should not be trusted with other people's money/coins
- You knew that Kyle was the person running the CLAM based ponzi
- The CLAM based ponzi would need to be trusted with player's CLAMs in order to operate
- When you became aware that the operator of this CLAM based ponzi was Kyle, you actively chose not to warn others not to trust this person
- Instead of warning others not to trust Kyle, you instead helped him potentially become trusted with more of other people's money via helping edit the code of the ponzi script he was using
- This sounds vaguely familiar to me for some strange reason