5 ms·

I find it interesting that there were at least 100 people who both had enough money lying about in BitCoin (or at least, where able to figure out how to buy bit

I find it interesting that there were at least 100 people who both had enough money lying about in BitCoin (or at least, where able to figure out how to buy bitcoin on short notice) who intersect with the group of people who will fall for something which has all of the hallmarks of a scam.

dhosek 6y ago
I don't. Bitcoin as investment is already pretty scammy.
roywiggins 6y ago
If I were the scammer I'd send some money to myself to make it look like more people were sending money than really were. Social proof, etc.
- ehsankia 6y ago
  Didn't the address also send back 2K to a few people? Making your theory even more plausible.
  - Avicebron 6y ago
    Not sure if they did or not. But when this scam was around on Runescape that was generally the way it worked.
    - rcxdude 6y ago
      You don't need to send it any actual users. Just set up some transactions between wallets you control and use some sockpuppet accounts to make apparent 'winners'.
    - kaicianflone 6y ago
      Wait til the next runescape scam - buying $TSLA 2400 - just send it to my account here first and I will send you the money in BTC.
  - VBprogrammer 6y ago
    A couple of the early people really having their money doubled would probably do wonders for spreading the scam as fast as possible.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
mypalmike 6y ago
Some people I know who trade Bitcoin also are waiting for their Iraqi dinars to revalue in a decades old scam. It's not a nerd club.
LanceH 6y ago
I would have avoided the obvious doubling scam and gone for "donate bitcoin to this charity". Maybe with an explanation of how bitcoin can make it directly to the country where it is needed immediately.
- meowface 6y ago
  That's actually a pretty good idea. Your idea is the first one I've read out of hundreds that I think could've possibly been a more optimal strategy. It's tough to know for sure if it would've made more, though. Given the limited time window, I think I slightly lean towards exploiting greed vs. exploiting altruism. If they could somehow keep he tweets up for over 24 hours, I think your idea would likely win, but given they may have thought they might have about an hour, I think the scam route might've been more reliable.
  - elliotbnvl 6y ago
    Probably the most effective strategy would have been to diversify by posting various kinds of messages, some of which would be more effective and some of which would be less effective. Also would have been less likely to seem coordinated. But the general sloppiness of the stratagem points towards not having the time / resources to do that.
  - LanceH 6y ago
    Someone else suggested posting different BTC addresses per account and framing it as a quick charity drive contest. Which is a better version of this, IMO. As for which one would win, I don't know. I can see the argument of immediacy with the scam. The charity scam I think would draw in a lot more smaller donors but I can't see them feeling the need to immediately send. Personally I would have gone with the bounty, then shamed Twitter for the (probably) low payout in an effort to promote my brand.
    - meowface 6y ago
      >Personally I would have gone with the bounty, then shamed Twitter for the (probably) low payout in an effort to promote my brand. The problem is that the attack requires active social engineering to pull off, so it probably wouldn't have been eligible for a bounty. "I could trick your employees and gain access to user accounts" isn't really covered.
b1ur 6y ago
Honestly, it isn't awfully surprising. Bitcoin is seen by many as a get rich quick scheme on the same level as penny stocks or OTM options expiring this Friday. It doesn't surprise me that those people are holding bitcoin (in a misguided attempt to double their money) and are ignorant enough to fall for something like this (in a misguided attempt to double their money).
- H8crilA 6y ago
  I once sent an insignificant amount of bitcoin to one of those "honest Ponzi schemes" - that is websites which promise a quick return of 1+x% of your capital while declaring upfront that they will become insolvent, that they are ponzis. Just for the fun of it. I got my 1+x% back. The website shut down very quickly, the authors got scared by how many people decided to play this idiotic game. It's human nature to play games like this. The whole idea of startup "IPO exit" is really just a ponzi play (if you think the company is good - why the heck would you sell it just as soon as the "dumb money" moves in?).

dhosek 6y ago

I don't. Bitcoin as investment is already pretty scammy.

roywiggins 6y ago

If I were the scammer I'd send some money to myself to make it look like more people were sending money than really were. Social proof, etc.

ehsankia 6y ago
Didn't the address also send back 2K to a few people? Making your theory even more plausible.
- Avicebron 6y ago
  Not sure if they did or not. But when this scam was around on Runescape that was generally the way it worked.
  - rcxdude 6y ago
    You don't need to send it any actual users. Just set up some transactions between wallets you control and use some sockpuppet accounts to make apparent 'winners'.
  - kaicianflone 6y ago
    Wait til the next runescape scam - buying $TSLA 2400 - just send it to my account here first and I will send you the money in BTC.
- VBprogrammer 6y ago
  A couple of the early people really having their money doubled would probably do wonders for spreading the scam as fast as possible.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

mypalmike 6y ago

Some people I know who trade Bitcoin also are waiting for their Iraqi dinars to revalue in a decades old scam. It's not a nerd club.

LanceH 6y ago

I would have avoided the obvious doubling scam and gone for "donate bitcoin to this charity". Maybe with an explanation of how bitcoin can make it directly to the country where it is needed immediately.

meowface 6y ago
That's actually a pretty good idea. Your idea is the first one I've read out of hundreds that I think could've possibly been a more optimal strategy. It's tough to know for sure if it would've made more, though. Given the limited time window, I think I slightly lean towards exploiting greed vs. exploiting altruism. If they could somehow keep he tweets up for over 24 hours, I think your idea would likely win, but given they may have thought they might have about an hour, I think the scam route might've been more reliable.
- elliotbnvl 6y ago
  Probably the most effective strategy would have been to diversify by posting various kinds of messages, some of which would be more effective and some of which would be less effective. Also would have been less likely to seem coordinated. But the general sloppiness of the stratagem points towards not having the time / resources to do that.
- LanceH 6y ago
  Someone else suggested posting different BTC addresses per account and framing it as a quick charity drive contest. Which is a better version of this, IMO. As for which one would win, I don't know. I can see the argument of immediacy with the scam. The charity scam I think would draw in a lot more smaller donors but I can't see them feeling the need to immediately send. Personally I would have gone with the bounty, then shamed Twitter for the (probably) low payout in an effort to promote my brand.
  - meowface 6y ago
    >Personally I would have gone with the bounty, then shamed Twitter for the (probably) low payout in an effort to promote my brand. The problem is that the attack requires active social engineering to pull off, so it probably wouldn't have been eligible for a bounty. "I could trick your employees and gain access to user accounts" isn't really covered.

b1ur 6y ago

Honestly, it isn't awfully surprising. Bitcoin is seen by many as a get rich quick scheme on the same level as penny stocks or OTM options expiring this Friday. It doesn't surprise me that those people are holding bitcoin (in a misguided attempt to double their money) and are ignorant enough to fall for something like this (in a misguided attempt to double their money).

H8crilA 6y ago
I once sent an insignificant amount of bitcoin to one of those "honest Ponzi schemes" - that is websites which promise a quick return of 1+x% of your capital while declaring upfront that they will become insolvent, that they are ponzis. Just for the fun of it. I got my 1+x% back. The website shut down very quickly, the authors got scared by how many people decided to play this idiotic game. It's human nature to play games like this. The whole idea of startup "IPO exit" is really just a ponzi play (if you think the company is good - why the heck would you sell it just as soon as the "dumb money" moves in?).