Abuse of negative trust – mr.relax

[1miau]

In our German local section, mr.relax committed already an offence recently: mr.relax luring readers into risky trades (and therefore losing Sats)

After his previous offence, it didn’t take long for him to commit a new one, where he once again made misleading claims about his technical analysis (TA) trading strategy - and then sent me a negative trust after I criticized him...

In addition to his unproven and bold claims, which he made already previously such like, that his technical analysis strategy would be

"4-7 times more profitable than HODL" (archived)
"outstandingly better than HODL" (archived)

he created a new topic called "Trendtrading" (trend trading), where he claimed to "prove" his strategy.
So far, there’s nothing wrong about creating such a topic and documenting his technical analysis strategy. Quite the opposite: I’m in favor of new and interesting topics.
But the problem of mr.relax and his topic: it has been intransparent from the beginning and just to be there to "prove" that his recent bold claims about TA have been right by using misleading strategies.
To "prove" his strategy, mr.relax resorted to a number of clumsy manipulations to make his strategy look better:

• his entry time for his first trade in his topic was misleading: while mr.relax started his topic on February 07, 2023, he dated his trade back to January 14, 2023 – while Bitcoin’s price had already risen massively making his trade look better. And if his trade from January 14, 2023 wouldn’t have worked out, we would have never heard from it. But now, he presented it as "successful". It's always easy to point out, that a trade has been successful after it happened. His fraudulent tactics have been covered in mr.relax luring readers into risky trades (and therefore losing Sats) already.
• After I asked him to post a trading chart to prove that his indicators were indeed showing a change in trend at that time, he refused to do so because he claimed he doesn’t want to reveal his strategy and if he does, it would result in endangering his strategy because "everyone would use it". Sure, if everyone on Bitcointalk had such a power to move markets and decides to use his unproven strategy...  
• He didn't make realistic considerations to add trading fees and taxes into his trades – refusing to include fees and taxes would benefit his trading strategy even more – but to have a realistic review of strategy, he need to include trading fees and taxes – so far, he didn't make proper considerations.
• mr.relax repeated his misleading claims of "4-7x more profitable than HODL" several times.

After I criticized his intransparent approach and misleading claims (because his calculations are massively sugarcoated) and I suggested to be more transparent and less misleading, he childishly demanded from mole0815 to close his topic (because I exposed him) and mr.relax left me a negative trust feedback - LOL.



It’s outright abuse of negative trust from mr.relax.


tl;dr

In our German section, mr.relax abused negative Trust, which he left on my account, just because I criticized his misleading claims and intransparent Technical Analysis (TA trading) strategy topic.
Since mr.relax is DT2 currently (nowadays many clueless and / or fraudulent accounts are in DT2), he should be distrusted for abusing negative trust feedback.


Conclusion:

~mr.relax

[1714204316]

1714204316

[1714204316]

1714204316

[NeuroticFish]

I had to Google translate that trust feedback and I agree:

Negative tag is not OK to be given for insults.
Negative tag is not OK to be given as a result of disagreements.


Now.. I see some sort of oddity too.
You are trusting Buchi-88 (DT1), he trusts mr.relax (and makes him DT2) and you distrust mr.relax.

I may be wrong, but I think that mr.relax remains DT2 as long as Buchi-88 trusts him and no matter how many direct distrust we give him. <-- I was wrong with this, see the rest of the posts too.
But if my logic is correct, an idea would be that maybe you also discuss with Buchi-88 review his trust list. After all, I see he's a fellow German and may be more aware of the context too.


Of course, the direct distrust on mr.relax most probably also helps on long term.

[yahoo62278]

https://bpip.org/Profile?id=522205 I don't see mr.relax on dt2 according to bpip. Maybe a couple of you have ~ him already and knocked him off but i'm not really sure because I don't think BPIP updates that quickly.

[hosseinimr93]

https://bpip.org/Profile?id=522205 I don't see mr.relax on dt2 according to bpip. Maybe a couple of you have ~ him already and knocked him off but i'm not really sure because I don't think BPIP updates that quickly.

You are right. The user in question isn't a DT member.
If you go to trust page of 1miau and add ;dt to the end of the URL, you will see mr.relax's feedback as untrusted feedback. This means that he is not a DT member.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2143453;dt

[holydarkness]

I had to Google translate that trust feedback and I agree:

Negative tag is not OK to be given for insults.
Negative tag is not OK to be given as a result of disagreements.


Now.. I see some sort of oddity too.
You are trusting Buchi-88 (DT1), he trusts mr.relax (and makes him DT2) and you distrust mr.relax.

I may be wrong, but I think that mr.relax remains DT2 as long as Buchi-88 trusts him and no matter how many direct distrust we give him.
But if my logic is correct, an idea would be that maybe you also discuss with Buchi-88 review his trust list. After all, I see he's a fellow German and may be more aware of the context too.


Of course, the direct distrust on mr.relax most probably also helps on long term.

I got stranded here because apparently Iike to torture my brain and exposing it to severe headache. Long story short and completely unrelated to this topic, I finally tried to tweak the trust list around one week ago, and just a few hours ago, I realized that apparently it leads to me made things a bit too complicated for my brain... and what's displayed on my trust page, but talking about it will be OOT.

On to the topic, your post that I underlined, I don't think it's necessarily true. On one of the thread I read on my attempt to fix what I currently broke --or failed to understand-- I searched throughout the forum for clues --which also how I ended up on this board and nosily read this thread-- and read that,

[...]

Is it possible to be removed from DT list ?

Yes, That is the advantage of new DT system. DT1 members can remove anyone from DT instantly if he/she is corrupted. For example if Majority of the DT member exclude you than you will be removed from the DT list. Suppose you included by 3 DT1 member but 4 DT1 member exclude you than you will be removed from there.

[...]

So, on this relatively new decentralized DT system, mr.relax can be kicked out of DT2 without having Buchi-88 to remove him from his trust list, you just need more DT members exclude him [~mr.relax].

Please tell me I am correct, because this whole trust settings is a new territory for me.

[1miau]

https://bpip.org/Profile?id=522205 I don't see mr.relax on dt2 according to bpip. Maybe a couple of you have ~ him already and knocked him off but i'm not really sure because I don't think BPIP updates that quickly.

Yes, probably he's not DT2 anymore, I've looked it up on wednesday and it might have changed by now. As far as I know, he's just one exclusion away from getting kicked out of DT2 since he has been distrusted by Nestade, GazetaBitcoin and me before the incident (see LoyceV's trust list viewer).

I had to Google translate that trust feedback and I agree:

Negative tag is not OK to be given for insults.

I've not even really insulted him, but he likes to paint himself as victim...  
Obviously he doesn't like it when his fraudulent tactics are criticized or his questionable positions in general.
It's quite funny because he has been the one pushing lies repeatedly like the unproven claim, that Nestade would be my alt and that my trust from November 2022 would be a negative trust.
He has even sent unsolicited and harsh PMs to other forum members.  

Negative tag is not OK to be given as a result of disagreements.

Exactly, there are so many disagrements. What a shitshow if we would start to give out a negative trust for disagreements for example in Bitcointalk's reputation section.  

Now.. I see some sort of oddity too.
You are trusting Buchi-88 (DT1), he trusts mr.relax (and makes him DT2) and you distrust mr.relax.

Buchi-88 is a trustworthy member and it's just a coincidence.

I may be wrong, but I think that mr.relax remains DT2 as long as Buchi-88 trusts him and no matter how many direct distrust we give him.

Exactly but mr.relax is just 1 DT1 exclusion away from getting kicked out of DT2.
And the current DT selection is very favorable for mr.relax because normally, GazetaBitcoin, Nestade and I are usually DT1.
(edit: I misread that part, mr.relax loses his DT2 position if there are more DT1 exclusions compared to DT1 inclusions)

But if my logic is correct, an idea would be that maybe you also discuss with Buchi-88 review his trust list. After all, I see he's a fellow German and may be more aware of the context too.

It's a suitable approach but I don't want to bother Buchi-88 right now, especially because I expect that DT will exclude mr.relax quickly.
I expect at least 4 new DT1 exclusions for mr.relax due to his abuse listed above.
So, let's see next week.  

[hosseinimr93]

Yes, probably he's not DT2 anymore, I've looked it up on wednesday and it might have changed by now.

It has been changed and he is not a DT member anymore.
If you go to this page, you will see this: mr.relax (-1)
Since neither you nor GazetaBitcoin are DT1 member now and only Nestade is a DT1 member, another DT1 member has excluded mr.relax.

[1miau]

So, on this relatively new decentralized DT system, mr.relax can be kicked out of DT2 without having Buchi-88 to remove him from his trust list, you just need more DT members exclude him [~mr.relax].

Exactly. If Buchi-88, as a DT1 member, keeps trusting mr.relax, it needs 2 DT1 exclusions for mr.relax to be kicked out from his DT2 position.
Accounts are DT2 as long as one DT1 inclusion is active and are kicked out if they have 1 more DT1 exclusion than DT1 inclusion.
As far as I know, maybe someone can confirm.  

This means that he is not a DT member.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2143453;dt

Not anymore because if I'm correct, 1 DT1 inclusion makes him DT2 - and he needs 2 DT1 exclusions to be kicked out again. But before I created the topic, he only had 1 exclusion.

Yes, probably he's not DT2 anymore, I've looked it up on wednesday and it might have changed by now.

It has been changed and he is not a DT member anymore.
If you go to this page, you will see this: mr.relax (-1)
Since neither you nor GazetaBitcoin are DT1 member now and only Nestade is a DT1 member, another DT1 member has excluded mr.relax.

Yes, according to BPIP, NeuroticFish excluded him: https://bpip.org/TrustLog

[holydarkness]

[...]
Yes, according to BPIP, NeuroticFish excluded him: https://bpip.org/TrustLog

examplens kinda sealed it up, they also excluded him, he's now (-2)

[examplens]

[...]
Yes, according to BPIP, NeuroticFish excluded him: https://bpip.org/TrustLog

examplens kinda sealed it up, they also excluded him, he's now (-2)

uh, you're really fast with this check. I did that distrust a few minutes ago 

Sincerely, I can't detail investigate this case because I don't know the German language, but I trust 1miau judgement.

[NeuroticFish]

So, on this relatively new decentralized DT system, mr.relax can be kicked out of DT2 without having Buchi-88 to remove him from his trust list, you just need more DT members exclude him [~mr.relax].

I thought that this rule stands only for DT1. Thanks for correcting me (I'll edit now the other post too).
Then it was even easier. Indeed, this guy is no longer DT2. Problem solved.

Buchi-88 is a trustworthy member and it's just a coincidence.

I didn't tried to imply anything wrong about Buchi-88. I just tried to find a "quick fix" because I didn't know that the DT1 exclusion works in the same way on DT2.

but I don't want to bother Buchi-88 right now, especially because I expect that DT will exclude mr.relax quickly.

You were correct. It's already done.

[LoyceV]

He should read this:

The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas.

[CoinEraser]

Even though I'm only DT2, I've given him negative trust now. Unfortunately, I can't say much on the subject, since I have absolutely no idea about trading and haven't followed the subject either. But I rely on the statements of 1miau and this thread. 

[digaran]

Even though I'm only DT2, I've given him negative trust now. Unfortunately, I can't say much on the subject, since I have absolutely no idea about trading and haven't followed the subject either. But I rely on the statements of 1miau and this thread. 

That's a mistake, you should judge the case by spending time to reach a reasonable conclusion. Relying on what X, Y, are saying or not is bad by many standards. Especially when it's the reputation of another human being on the line.

We should always think about the consequence of our action before doing them.

[1miau]

...

He should read this:

The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas.

Yeah, that would be a good idea, although I beleive I have at least explained him the difference between the use of positiv, neutral and negative trust or even linked our German translation of your Trust guide topic. But he still doesn't know the difference between neutral and negative trust...
If there's an opportunity, I'll provide a link to your topic of course.  

Even though I'm only DT2, I've given him negative trust now. Unfortunately, I can't say much on the subject, since I have absolutely no idea about trading and haven't followed the subject either. But I rely on the statements of 1miau and this thread.  

According to our DT standards, we should be hesistant to give out a negative trust for the abuse mr.relax did. Distrusting him would be more appropriate because it would remove him from DT and his left feedbacks would only be visible under "untrusted feedback". Such feedbacks would not show up as default.
Distrusting works by adding ~mr.relax to your trust list, which you'll find here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust
Of course, it would be the best solution if mr.relax realizes his abuse. But I doubt it after his recent abuses.
Here's also a good beginners guide about DT: LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system

[CoinEraser]

Sorry, I was in a hurry earlier and expressed myself wrongly. I mean, of course, I distrusted him and of course I didn't leave a negative trust entry. That would have been wrong and I didn't do it. Sorry for the misunderstanding. 

[1miau]

Sorry, I was in a hurry earlier and expressed myself wrongly. I mean, of course, I distrusted him and of course I didn't leave a negative trust entry. That would have been wrong and I didn't do it. Sorry for the misunderstanding. 

No problem, I've also checked your left trust feedbacks and didn't saw a negative one sent recently, so everything is fine.
Many thanks for getting active on DT and acting against abuse, +1 

We are always happy to get more Bitcointalk members actively using the DT system, making it a bit more decentralized. 

[GazetaBitcoin]

In our German local section, mr.relax committed already an offence recently: mr.relax luring readers into risky trades (and therefore losing Sats) [...]

~mr.relax

Ohhh come on, not this clown again!

Yet he is back in action!

I remember I first heard about him last year in September and it seems he is still doing same shady activities here. In a way, he reminds me of saxydev, with his shenanigans regarding free AML checks.

I added him to my distrust list since September 2022 and I also gave him a neutral feedback:

He should read this:

The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas.

I believe that our mr.relax barely knows anything about Trust and feedbacks, as he noticed my feedback only in November last year when, of course, he came to me, very angry, asking me to remove the negative feedback I wrote. I explained to him that it wasn't a negative feedback, but a neutral one and, in case he wants to see how a negative looks like this can be arranged.

If I remember well, he replied, apologized for using wrong terms, but then he sent me a retaliatory feedback though:



It is what it is. In any case, distrusting him is a very good measure.

[1miau]

In our German local section, mr.relax committed already an offence recently: mr.relax luring readers into risky trades (and therefore losing Sats) [...]

~mr.relax

Ohhh come on, not this clown again!

Yet he is back in action!

Unfortunately, this clown is at it again...  

I believe that our mr.relax barely knows anything about Trust and feedbacks, as he noticed my feedback only in November last year when, of course, he came to me, very angry, asking me to remove the negative feedback I wrote. I explained to him that it wasn't a negative feedback, but a neutral one and, in case he wants to see how a negative looks like this can be arranged.

You are absolutely right here...
When it comes to trust, mr.relax is completely clueless and he doesn't listen to advice / explanations.
He claimed multiple times last year, that we would have left him negative / "bad" Trust.
Which is not true because it's just neutral Trust.  

...Nur zu. Oder verteile negativen Trust.
 

Die Hater dürfen mir deshalb trotzdem weiterhin negativen Trust geben, weil ich angeblich Opfer in "get rich fast schemes" locke.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5438474.0

I could give some more examples, but spending time to search about "bad trust" statements is a waste of time...

If I remember well, he replied, apologized for using wrong terms, but then he sent me a retaliatory feedback though:

A "bad" trust, dear GazetaBitcoin.  
It's probably the opposite of "positive" Trust. Or is it "good" Trust? And "neutral" doesn't exist?  
We don't know...  

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

I see it an unnecessary act to just leave a negative feedback on a user who doesn't go inline with your opinion, this is an act of abuse on the trust system and needed to be cautioned, for goodness sake one can easily press the ignore button than the unnecessary stress in leaving a negative feedback, i think those that do that out if curiosity, anger or any kind of vexation on the user they do so to tells more about themselves than the user they left with negative trust, some feedba doesn't worth deserving it when looked into, we take the law into our hands instead of following the due procedures.