BUUURRRNNNN

Guys,

This has been bothering for days. Can someone explain this to me? Am I getting old and suffering for poor logic? Or do these two statements actually conflict and Post Oak is doing his thing?

I'm still confused why Bruiser and PO (perhaps? no way to know) have not inquired about the IP issue. Maybe it was actually different IPs and this asdf guy is a wizard of a scam artist with an epic long con or just a dude who got hacked that doesn't care about 2p2 anymore? (Or maybe he has the same opinion of Bruiser that everyone else does.)

Plz halp.

Unclear why Post-Oaks involvement is even relevant???

Red Flags towards what? Do you think this runs deeper than the hacker????? Do you think it could have been FBI CIA DOJ OR MAYBE THE RUSSIANS????????????

wth is wrong with you?

Sure hope it wasn't the Russians.

Because he claimed to have lost money in the transaction. I am unclear of what his involvement is, yet he is claiming involvement. He could clarify this by saying "Bruiser and I have a business arrangement." Yet as of not he has not bothered to clarify how he is involved.

Personally, I consider them both completely incompetent and wouldn't trust either to hold any of my funds. If we're going to be using third parties to hold and move money, and extra level of diligence should be performed. Maybe this seems crazy to you as I doubt you really hold any substantial amounts of money for other people. (As in high six figure holdings.) This vetting process is a major part of being able to trust people to do this.

I simply want more information to better understand what actually transpired.

I guess success is what is wrong with me. I operate like a person who doesn't get scammed in easy to avoid ways and want to help understand the mindset of how someone so incompetent could get scammed, and even moreso how someone else could trust this person with their funds. (Or lies about it to get a word in on the conversation with extra validity.)

Prop,

Can you actually check IP history for users or does that not exist? If yes, would there be any reason why you couldn't disclose whether the IPs were the same (or from the same C block)?

not that my opinion matters to anyone discussing this (which seems to be thremp and only thremp, but I digress), but seeing how I know enough about PO to know that a) that money isn't very likely to be a deal-breaker for him, and b) he lost a lot more than that when betislands folded, my assumption is that thremp cares more about this right now than he does...

also, poogs...dodger's best work has never been in this forum, literally or figuratively.

in SE he's a savage. easily my #1 'drop in with a great one-liner' poster there.

Was PO the guy who has like 600k or something there?

It does exist and is used frequently, but how it works is a mod places a requests for IP history and one of the few accounts with that permission processes it. I'm not familiar with much of 2+2 policy and only occasional venture outside this sub. My uneducated opinion is I don't see why a mod from that forum couldn't confirm / deny what you're looking for. But really I'm not sure. It would be a matter to ask mods of the transfer forum about.

I'm pretty sure that is not a #safespace, but I'm curious why no one actually utilizes this tool. I assume it is because learning about magic box technology is something that only nerds and sperglords bother to do.

Regardless, #themoreyouknow.

Thanks btw.

My mistake I didn't realize you were trying to vet Bruiser and PO to hold your high six figure holdings - my mistake.

So lets say they have some type of financial arrangement does this somehow change anything? Are you suggesting that based upon their "incompetence" in this matter that they should no longer be trusted to swap funds or bet against?

That is a wonderful strawman! I wasn't aware that I had anymore stake in this than you, yet here we are discussing it. Perhaps you're just white knighting on the internet, an age old pasttime and equally as reasonable.

Yes. If someone did that type of due diligence with third party money, I would consider them even more inept and on the hook for my funds. Sending BTC first randomly over the internet to strangers is just clownshoes. Doing it with someone else's money is full on idiocy.

I would certainly let them send first if I didn't find interaction with either immensely distasteful.

I also think neither of them are well suited to using a computer to make a living as per their comments. I'd be interested if they intend to contact the moderation in that thread and post the results of the IP query. I mean... What if it turns out to be an actual IP from Russia that logged in? And Josh is a sneaky ninja using a hacking hotspot to disguise his true criminal intentions.

Fine it's a strawman but imo still as pointless as whatever you're trying to argue? If you knew PO & Bruiser had some type of arrangement would that make them somehow less trustworthy?

So because they made a mistake on a transfer with their own funds you think neither of them are trustworthy to hold third party funds? Would it be a big mistake to ask PO to hold funds as an escrow for a contest or bettor because they made a mistake on their own private transaction? Are you of the belief they would not keep the funds safe?

I'm sure if there's evidence that asdf was behind the theft it will come out soon don't you think? I believe Bruiser has taken the necessary steps to confirm asdf's story.

Oh and FYI Bruiser promised me a nice crisp $20 to defend his honor - I ain't no cheap white knight pal.

It would depend on the nature of how Post Oak was involved in this transaction obviously. I think both of them are well into incompetence where I wouldn't interact with either professionally (since I have a pristine rep and can deal with people who aren't the dregs of society). But if we think that outting asdf has communal value, then surely being transparent about your involvement with transfers so that community members have more information to vet you would be a good thing? Or do you disagree? We can only wait until there is an issue (Poogs-style) to find out? And we use public disclosure as leverage against people?

I don't think either Bruiser or Post Oak have any idea what they're doing. Post Oak called for Twitter to ban asdf's account, which was a literal LOL moment. Do you honestly think he is capable in any way to figure out how someone would have been hacked? Bruiser was the guy who got scammed initially so my hopes aren't very high. They didn't even take the steps I just outlined to figure out what IPs he was using along with any pertinent information. To be honest, I think most people are totally inept and I just want to point out how inept these two people are while also providing a few nuggets of useful information so that I don't delve into pure trolling.

I think outing asdf does have significant communal value and should be pursued if it does turn out that he was somehow implicit in the scam. I also trust that if there was a reason to believe he was indeed involved that Bruiser or PO would have done their requisite due diligence and have made it public. I would be willing to bet they already took the steps you previously outlined but are simply not making their investigation public.

What I do not agree with is how any involvement PO may or may not have w/ Bruiser change the circumstances of what happened? Maybe you can enlighten me?

Since you brought it up I would be interested in knowing more about these reputable characters which would vouch for your pristine reputation?

You seem to not understand a basic fact of this discussion. If you claim to be involved in a public transaction that is being discussed, you are expected to explain what your part was. Apparently you seem to think transparency only applies to negative experience. This results in HBob-esque dishonesty, which we can all agree is hilarious and he is a complete ****tard.

Furthermore, if they are sitting on evidence I would say that would make them both pretty big pieces of ****.

You are a dreg. Why would I ever pay any attention to your opinion of my rep?

I do think that the transparency should only apply towards asdf and the investigation into asdf unless we have reason to believe Bruiser took questionable actions which deserves its own separate investigation.

I disagree that sitting on evidence is wrong but that's a fundamental disagreement - no reason to go back and forth.

Unclear how I've become a dreg but so be it.

Again, this is how we get situations like HBob and his absurd claims against EL. You are completely wrong in how this should be handled. Sitting on evidence that could help people in the future avoid getting scammed is being implicit (sic) in future fraud. Many people do this, but it is still bull**** and unethical. If someone pays you so you don't out them for slowpaying, you are part of the problem. Again, people struggle with transparency and have your attitude. Do you think people aren't completely clear and communicate fully with each other who're not dregs?

Pretty sure you've always been a dreg. You'd be aware if you weren't. (IE you could easily ask another chat room millionaire about this)

In earnest, your attitude is what is wrong with the community and why fraud perpetuates. Oyah, and dumbasses who get scammed.

disagree w/ everything mentioned here.

I understand i'm a dreg and all that but how many ghosts do you have???

I'd raw dog an aids-infected gorilla, hell I'd let the gorilla take a turn before I try to understand what in the cold blue **** is really going on here.

Nothing bolsters the case of a Have like being opposed by a Have Not. Thanks Bayes.

Not sure what that means. Is that some forum jargon for what Bruiser is doing?

It would be like me accusing someone of cheating me without explaining any of the details on how I was cheated. Post Oak is doing literally that. He is claiming he was scammed out of money by asdf with no details on how he was scammed. It is likely he wasn't scammed by asdf, but has some agreement with Bruiser where Bruiser's bumbling cost him money that he absorbs. Kind of a subtle difference. But this is like if I buy a stake in you in a pool, and then you cash, and Poogs absconds with the escrow money.

Of course, that is all conjecture because PO won't divulge his involvement instead he just seems to be claiming some financial impact to increase his own perception of his opinion in the matter.

We have two fundamental disagreements. No amount of back and forth solves that.

Yep, I have given clear examples of where one party was falsely defamed in situations where transparency had not occurred on the part of the accuser. You seem to be relying on strawmen and the absurdity of "everyone has an opinion".

You also seem to how the hypocritical view of how someone who is defrauded has no moral obligation to divulge this to the community. Perhaps they are hoping the scammer will defraud someone else and keep quiet in the hopes of getting paid? HBob has done this exact thing as well before he made up his false backstory to accuse EL.

Basically you want to out "scammers" while the accuser is free to keep secret every detail he desires along with having no duty to help those people he's suppose to alert. The fundamental disagreement is that you a poor thinker and can't understand how your incentive structure increases fraud and dishonesty within a community.

But hey! You keep on keepin on. Post your opinions and I'll be free to continue to make fun of how absurd they are!

I like PO *shrug*

that "have/have not" stabbing made me smile tho.

thremp dont let any haters get you down. we both know you are right and i am incompetent and not a good candidate to hold 6 figures for you for whatever reason. please stand by. to increase transparency i will take a picture of me and PO holding hands and then some profile shots and try to get that along with my bank statements up here for you as soon as possible. btw, im down big today, any tips?