False. Look at the feedbacks that cryptodevil is leaving. They coincide with investing in ponzi schemes and posting about investing and posting a message that it is unknown how long the ponzi scheme will last.

Now that it is revealed that Douglus is involved in ponzi schemes, maybe he is keeping cryptodevil in his trust list to week out all the ponzi competition and then open a massive ponzi scheme of his own 

mexxer-2

You should look up what ad-hominem means before posting

---

dogie

You think I should risk the retribution that will result of my speaking out against cryptodevil? This guy is literally giving negative trust for asking questions in threads that compete with Just-Dice. There is a reason why 1^st world countries have whistle-blower laws that allow people to report ethics violations without revealing their identity, publicly or not.

The question of if alts should be allow is off topic here. If you wish to discuss this topic then I propose you discuss it here

---

cryptodevil

It is not necessary for dooglus to collaborate with you regarding this issue for it to be unethical to allow you to remain on his trust list. For as long as dooglus will benefit from your actions it will be unethical for him to allow you to remain on his trust list. If your trust ratings are really a benefit to the community then surely someone else will add you to their trust list

Douglus knows how to hide evidence of collaboration anyway, this is very clear from his history, so I do not anticipate any admin being able to find evidence of collaboration.

So you do admit that your behavior does benefit Just-Dice then?

---

Coinonomous

I believe that double posting is against the forum rules. Please refrain from posting twice in a row

---

Mist

I agree. In addition to the clear conflict of interest here, Cryptodevil acts very immaturely, lacks communication skills and is unable to respond to any kind of criticism without launching personal attacks against the person criticizing him. None of these attributes are descriptive of someone whose trust ratings should show up by default. How is someone who wishes to dispute a negative rating issued by Cryptodevil suppose to have a conversation with him when Cryptodevil acts the way he does?

---

whywefight

You are naive to think that asking questions equates to scamming people. You are naive to think that including a statement that says that a ponzi will eventually scam equates to scamming people. You are naive to think that posting about a gambling experience equates to scamming people.

I think it is fairly clear that you are attempting to make a name for yourself.

P.S. are you an alt of TrillMyWatch? The naming convention of your username and his username matches, and TrillMyWatch has exchanged what is clearly fake trust with alts of ManyProofs.

---

xetsr

Not long ago master-P stole over $10,000 from various people. Several people threatened to have him doxed if he did not repay what he stole from them. master-P ended up returning all of the money he stole from a few people (while keeping all of the money he stole from other people). Do you think when people posted that they received a refund from master-P that they were supporting him, or maybe do you think they were merely posting their experience with him, and the status of their debt?

You are also correct in saying that Cryptodevil is leaving negative trust for people who ask questions in a ponzi thread. This is clearly not showing support for said ponzi, however it does discourage them, or anyone else from participating in said ponzi, while encouraging them to gamble their money in other crypto gambling sites, such as Just-Dice.

---

leowonderful

Cryptodevil is not giving negative trust to the scammers who run ponzi schemes. Cryptodevil is not giving negative trust to those who run ponzi schemes disguised as a legitimate investment. Cryptodevil leaves negative trust to anyone who knowingly sends money to a ponzi hoping to receive some kind of return before the ponzi ends up scamming. Cryptodevil is leaving negative trust for people who choose to gamble at sites that are not Just-Dice

---

everyone else

If you agree that Cryptodevil should be removed from dooglus's trust list, and from the Default Trust Network, then I would suggest that you send a PM to dooglus

Zeke2345

Who is making an argument should not influence if you agree with various points or not. You should agree and/or disagree with me based on the merits of my argument, not based on who I am.

You also don't think that cryptodevil will leave negative trust to those who call for his removal from DT?
Cryptodevil is in dooglus's "tree" aka trust list. You can remove dooglus from your trust list by going to profile --> trust --> trust settings --> adding "~dooglus" to your trust list and clicking save

---

Your Point Is Invalid


It does not matter which currency Just-Dice uses, it is still gambling in the crypto-currency world. Just-Dice uses CLAM which has been on a negative trajectory recently. If more people use Just-Dice then more people will have to buy CLAM.

There are a number of exchanges that people can easily buy and sell CLAM on, so it would not be difficult to exchange BTC for CLAM and vice versa.

I am not saying that the people cryptodevil have left negative trust for are not scammers, nor have I said that they are scammers.

My point is that dooglus is receiving undue benefit from the negative trust that cryptodevil is leaving people in the gambling section.

As many of you know, cryptodevil has been leaving negative trust for people that post in the ponzi section under the guise that these people are promoting a ponzi when they post in a thread about a ponzi.

What you may not have noticed is that the only reason why cryptodevil is in Default Trust is because he was added by dooglus. Douglus is the operator and sole owner of Just-Dice which competes directly with ponzis. The reason why Just-Dice competes with ponzies is because players of ponzis are gambling that the ponzi will continue to receive enough additional money to continue to pay and that the OP of the ponzi will not run away before paying out the player's stake. Players of Just-Dice are gambling that a roll will be under or over a certain number based on a complex mathematical formula.

There is a clear and concise conflict of interest here because dooglus is directly benefiting from cryptodevil leaving negative trust for anyone who plays in a ponzi. This drives people away from this form of gambling and some of these players will migrate to gambling at Just-Dice.

Furthermore cryptodevil is leaving negative trust for people who are attempting to start new types of gambling games not frequently seen in the bitcoin scene. To make matters worse, he is leaving negative trust to anyone who says that such new gambling game would be fun.

The refrence for the person attempting to start new types of gambling games not frequently seen in the bitcoin scene is a lottery game, and the refrence for the person "encouraging" people to play at this "scam" is a post of someone saying this kind of game would be fun, and even said that the game will be risky and implied it might not be "legit". This is something that has further benefited dooglus because anyone considering to play this game would be labeled a scammer, funneling potential gamblers to play at Just-Dice.





Douglus should remove cryptodevil from his trust list to prevent himself receiving undue benefit from cryptodevil's actions. If someone else believes that cryptodevil is deserving to be in Default Trust then they are free to add cryptodevil provided there is not another conflict of interest.

The strangest piece of this puzzle is that dooglus has actually given positive trust to a ponzi operator in the past for "being honest about being a ponzi" and refused to remove such positive trust even after being made aware that he left positive trust for someone who stole money from others. Maybe it was because the date of the trust was a time when Just-Dice was closed and such form of gambling would not compete with Just-Dice.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1208053.0

local rule: No discussing the merits behind leaving negative trust for people who post about playing in a ponzi -- this is already something that cryptodevil is engaging in, and cryptodevil has made it clear that he has no intention of stopping this practice.

local rule: No ad-hominem attacks

Yea my Panther got eaten alive by that Bronco. It did put up a pretty good fight though.

A decent amount of my Panther's loss was due to flukes and bad calls.

My cat is really hungry, and hasn't been able to eat anything in almost two weeks now. It has been very focused in being able to pounce on it's prey.

I think there is a fairly decent chance that it will annihilate a Bronco this evening. Stay tuned.

~Cam

So in other words you are unwilling to provide any kind of proof, unless someone pays you 0.1btc for the work required to research the proof?

I have a pretty good feeling that in about a week, my Panther is going to take down a Bronco.

That would be quite the site to watch

~Cam

It is funny you say that because I believe the Cardinal is actually from Arizona!

My cat is actually a Panther.

Okay thanks, that is good to hear.

I feel bad for that Cardinal though, it got stomped on, tried make a comeback but just failed miserably.

Does it matter what kind of Cat that I have?

I know this is somewhat of a long shot, but are there any Vets that frequent this forum?

I ask because I have this really big cat and it just annihilated and then ate a Cardinal. I mean the Cardinal should really be embarrassed.

My question is, should I be worried about this? Nothing bad will happen to my cat, right?

~Cam

If your ban had an amount of time behind it and was not a perma ban, then either BadBear or theymos banned you. All of the other moderators do not have the ability to ban on a temporary basis.

I think it would probably do you good if you were to take his advise and see a professional. Maybe your quality of life will improve

Let me see if I am understanding this correctly; you think that Kluge has given you a death threat, but you are willing to turn a blind eye to this if the negative trust that he left you is removed?

Do you actually believe what you are saying?

The "avatar" that Kluge is wearing is a quote from the person that hacked satoshi's account when he emailed theymos.

How does the overall community feel about dooglus giving positive trust to a scammer ponzi who ended up stealing at least 0.1 BTC? I think this might be forgivable if it is a one time occurrence and the offending party (dooglus in this case) wee to reimburse those who lose money because of his positive trust rating (he was saying that the scamming ponzi should be trusted when this was not a true statement.

I think what happened with the scamming ponzi was a form of trust farming because someone on Default Trust gave them positive trust when such positive trust was not due. It has been speculated a couple of times today in a thread that I created about this scamming ponzi that dooglus might have been selling his positive trust.

Does it not cost money to convert bitgold money to BTC, and BTC back to bitgold? I think this is pretty much the same concept of using LTC, or any other altcoin for collateral (maybe Vod just wants to pretend that he is boss around here, and arbitrarily say that the OP cannot get a loan).

The more important question to be asking is if a lender is able to properly secure bitgold USD while the loan is outstanding.....

Do you have evidence that dooglus is engaging in this kind of practice? Surely if dooglus has only given positive trust to a scammer then it must be an honest mistake. There aren't any other example of dooglus giving positive trust to other scammers are there?

---

I sent dooglus the below PM, however he has not responded nor has he removed his positive trust for the scammer

Dooglus has been online since I sent the PM, and he has even posted. He posted about nothing other then him bragging about cheating a casino back in 2012:
Bear in mind that the above statement is a bliant lie, the part about him having permission to cheat the casino. I would recommond reading this, and this thread, and judge for yourself. Most specifically this post where dooglus implies that he was self colluding in order to gain an advantage in a poker tournament. 

Dooglus doesn't have any kind of history of exploiting weaknesses in casinos does he?

So people often give positive feedback to their friend and then their friend scams, and you think that is okay? In a since those who are giving feedback to their friends are making it easier for their friends to scam. Do you think these kinds of people should be held accountable for this?