Quote from: dkbit98 on August 30, 2023, 05:53:41 PM

Quote from: LoyceV on August 30, 2023, 04:52:33 PM

I made another part bold: there are no damages anymore.

No more damages that we know.

We can't really Flag someone for things we don't know. The moment someone creates a new type 3 Flag with new evidence, I'll gladly Support it again.

Quote from: examplens on August 30, 2023, 06:48:01 PM

However, I remain of the opinion that one should not strictly adhere to every letter or rule if they indicate the same thing. At least while the ww service is active with deposit enabled and withdrawal disabled. Every kind of warning is needed in such cases.

This might be worth getting a clarification from theymos on the intended use of the Flag system in this case. As far as I know the Flag system is the only part of the Trust system which is supposed to stick to strict rules.

Quote from: decodx on August 30, 2023, 09:12:40 PM

Technically speaking, I think my Flag is still valid. Here's why:

I made a deposit of 0.004 BTC with the aim of coin mixing, and I expected the same amount of BTC (minus fees) as stated in the contract (Whirlwind official ANN and Whirlwind.money FAQ). On August 14, 2023, the value of 1 BTC was around $29,500. This makes the equivalent of my deposit about $117.50.

What eventually happened is that on August 18th and 20th, I received a total of 104 DAI from the escrow, which is equivalent to $104.00. So, as I see it, Whirlwind still violated a written contract, resulting in damages, specifically because:

My BTC was exchanged for an altcoin without my consent and at a less favorable rate.
My coins weren't mixed as expected using their service.
My anonymity was compromised because I was forced to share private information with third parties.
I had to put in extra effort and time (sending multiple inquiries to their customer support, PMs, making my case public, contacting the escrow custodian, gathering evidence, etc.) to claim my compensation rights.

I'd argue all this falls under the "make the victims of this act roughly whole" part. When you received the amount from escrow, you could have used it to buy the same amount of Bitcoin again. It's not perfect, but your loss was (more or less) covered.

There's another reason: Flags should encourage people to do the right thing, and when that happens, the Flag becomes invalid. The unique thing here is that WWM didn't do anything but it happened anyway. The only thing stopping me from going for the "hit by a bus"-scenario is the message WWM sent to Hhampuz.
None of this makes sense.

Quote from: mikeywith on August 30, 2023, 09:43:41 PM

I disagree with LoyceV interpretation of that text

That's okay

Quote

I won't remove my vote on the old one unless I am convinced otherwise.

That's how it should be

The Flag system is like a democracy. I like it

Quote from: decodx on August 30, 2023, 09:50:32 PM

Quote from: notblox1 on August 30, 2023, 09:28:13 PM

I am tagging everyone who is still supporting old decodx flag.

Um.. What? Why? Did you read my previous comment?

Maybe you just didn't pick the right words, but that kinda sounded like a threat.

The word he was looking for is "mentioning", not "tagging". On Bitcointalk, the word "tagging" is used for (red) feedback.

Quote from: 1miau on August 30, 2023, 10:05:26 PM

Finally, the flag clearly says AND, meaning that both points need to be covered even if some thinks one point of it isn't valid anymore.

Quote from: flag

whirlwindmoney did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act.

You're reading this wrong. The AND is for Supporting the Flag. So if there's damage, AND it wasn't forgiven, the Flag can be Supported. But if there's no damage AND it wasn't forgiven, the Flag becomes invalid. Or, if there is damage AND it was forgiven, the Flag also becomes invalid.
Think of it as a logical operator.

Quote from: mikeywith on August 30, 2023, 10:25:51 PM

While I trust Loyce judgment I think he got it wrong this time, removing vote may be "ok", but going as far as opposing the flag is surely wrong IMO, it is like saying the whole story was a lie and WW did nothing bad

That's not what Opposing a Flag means. Opposing a Flag only means that that specific Flag is incorrect at that moment. There are more scammers on Bitcointalk who have many inactive Flags, until they received a correct one which was Supported. Inactive Flags mean nothing, neither good nor bad.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see a big red warning valid for everyone above their topics. But it should be based on a Flag I can agree on, based on the rules that the Flag system was created on.

Quote from: TryNinja on August 30, 2023, 10:27:43 PM

Quote from: flag

whirlwindmoney did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act.

Btw, I still got around $12 left on my whirlwind note but didn’t want to waste anyone’s time for such low amount, so the victims weren’t all made whole. Tongue

[/quote]
Lol. I don't think that's a valid loophole Tongue