Bitcoin Forum

I dunno this guy. How come these people are getting into DefaultTrust? Now-a-days no scam accusation or reference is required by DefaultTrust people to make someone red?

I think a better question is why is someone who has zero trade history (and thus no reputation to maintain) allowed to be on Default Trust?

Having this person on their trust list is a clear example of using shills with the trust system, however in this case the rating are going to show up by default to everyone.

Not exactly. cryptodevil has had an active presence on the forum for scam busting and apparently had trustable behavior, so someone on depth 1 added him to their trust list.

IMHO, I think that the trust rating was unfounded; the possibility that the OP was just a supporter of CloudMining.website is pretty plausible.

cryptodevil is a shill account whose sole purpose is to harass companies that he thinks is a scam as well as the customers of the companies that he thinks is a scam. It is one thing to warn others about a potential scam, but it is inappropriate to continuously harass a scammer, and even less so to harass someone who is doing business with such scammers.

cryptodevil has zero trading history and as a result if he is incorrect about a rating his reputation will not suffer (because he has zero reputation to start with), and as a result he has no incentive to give out ratings that are reasonable, supported by facts (instead of speculation), and to remove a rating when it turns out he is wrong.

There is the threat of being removed from the default trust list, if his ratings are unreasonable.
That should be sufficient.

You have got to be kidding me  ::)

Being on DefaultTust is a liability if anything because it attracts a lot of drama towards you when you leave a negative rating. Even if you never leave a negative rating, others will try to figure out what it takes to get a positive rating from you and then farm trust from you.

It is however unlikely that cryptodevil is going to get removed from DT because the ratings he leaves are nearly identical to those of ThePhwner and dooglus, except most of the time, only one of them will leave a negative rating. This means that none of them will attract sufficient attention so that other level 1 DT people will not exclude any of them, and that the level of controversy associated with each of them is reduced by roughly 2/3, which is substantial.

By having zero trading experience (at least from the account he is leaving ratings from), he lacks the experience to be able to reach a middle ground with others, and lacks the ability to show that he has a history of acting reasonable. 

Different people have different motivations.
Some people might like the attention / drama that you talk of.

1) You're sure they're a sockpuppet
2) You claim they lack experience

To be able to draw that conclusion you must know the owner behind the account and their experience level. Do you? Or are you jumping to conclusions.

In other news, there are no requirements for a position on default trust. Generally, if your feedback is spot on you'll get there. Regardless of any trading history, post/activity count, the number of hairs on your head. Stop imagining rules where there are none.

There is no evidence of any trading experience.

To say that someone should not have trading experience to be in the DefaultTrust network is ridiculous. If they have no experience trading then what would they be doing looking at marketplace threads where the scams are going to be taking place?

Even by your criteria, the feedback of cryptodevil is not spot on and as a result has no place on DefaultTrust.

No, not having trading experience shouldn't be and is not a disqualification from being on DT.

What would they be doing looking at Marketplace threads then? What incentive would they have to have to be reasonable with individual trust ratings? If they have no trading experience then why would they have sent any trust ratings?

AFAIK the qualification should be that
the person is trustworthy and
the person leaves reasonable trust ratings.

Past trades may indicate trustworthiness but it isn't the only indicator. Well, theymos and BadBear isn't on DT because of trades. ;D

There are DT members with 0 trust score and quite qualify being on Default trust than many others.

How is anyone suppose to know that you are trustworthy if you have never been trusted in the past?

Theymos may not be on DT because of the trades he has done in the past, however he has conducted business on the forum in the past. For example he sold (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=42208.0) a TI-84 Plus with a Pink Faceplate, and he auctions off forum advertisements multiple times per month.

I am not sure what trades BadBear has conducted in the past, however he has been trusted with sensitive information in the past (and AFAIK continues to be trusted with such information). He also trades his services as an admin for several BTC every month. 

Yep, how come trust is developed only by doing trade? I used to trust Quickseller once, not because he had done a lot of trades, but because he was great in busting out scams.

Trust is not equal to doing lot of successful trades.
Past trades is not a guarantee of trustworthiness, though it most of the times have to be taken so because there are only less things to base it on.

theymos isn't on DT because he sold a TI-84 plus with a Pink Faceplate. ;D

It is more like:
the person is not untrustworthy, has not indulged in suspicious behavior and can be reasonably trusted; and most importantly
the person leaves reasonable trust ratings. (includes busting scammers and leaving negative trusts as well as leaving neutral and positive trusts)


Doing lot of solid successful trades might get a green trust score, but they wouldn't be added to DT for that.

The reason I came across the scams that I was able to bust was because I was active in trading. So although trading may not have been the direct reason for such trust, however it did play a roll (at least behind the scenes).

Also the scams I busted were not quite as obvious as the scams that the person who gave negative trust to the OP harasses about. I also don't go around in threads of scams posting repetitive information in an obsessive, and harassing way. I will warn others about what I believe to be suspicious behavior, and if someone has any questions or wants clarification, then I will most likely provide answers/clarification. I won't however accuse anyone who chooses to do business with a scammer to be a shill of that scam site, and the same is true for whoever chooses to take the risk of doing business with a likely scammer (although there is certain criteria that would make me believe that someone is actually a shill/alt of a scammer, and the OP does not match this criteria IMO)

You are not trustworthy by default, but rather the opposite.

No theymos is not considered trustworthy because of a single trade, and especially not that trade. However the fact that he completed that trade (apparently) is an indication that he might know how to act reasonably when dealing with others.

I would like to know who is this someone. I need to talk to him. Because, the person left me -ve did not communicate me anything yet. Its like he can make anyone -ve at his whim.

It is not about being shill/supporter or anything. When I was a newbie, I was doubtful about www.cloudmining.website and hence asked for people's opinion (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=852857.0). Since then I have only reported the facts I came across. Their payment with Tx ID, review by other cloud mining monitor. So, I am not allowed to post the facts I see or what? Lately, they had some issues with payment confirmation. I was the first to report that on the forum...
Even I did the same before - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1014548.0. If I am their shill, why would I point out -ve things about them? Not only that, if you follow my post history, you'll find I was also active on CloudMinr.io thread, where I lost fund. If I am a shill of this cloud mining, why would I report payment on CloudMinr.io?

Given the above facts, how can someone point me as a shill for merely reporting my experience with www.cloudmining.website?

This is normal for the forum. I have been through it too.

you don't break a single rule and some dicklicker still leaves you bad trust.

#typical

Normally people from DT will be reasonable if they gave you a false-rating. Try to talk it out with that member and see what they're willing to do; if you truly think it's unwarranted then you can make a thread in Meta to complain!

Wrong. Now stop talking, chump.

The trust system was never about rule breaking.
@OP I don't think trading history is required to be on DT. cryptodevil has pretty shallow feedback and it shouldn't really bother you.

Yes thats totally true in many cases people do get negative trust even though they haven't broken any rules.

One example would be scammers, since scamming isn't strictly against the rules.

you don't have to talk any more

the DT members dont tag you for breaking the rules, they tag you if they feel you are a scammer or youre suspicious in general. in your case, you were attempting to buy positive trust from DT members which is pretty darn shady.

it's quicker than ass kissing like you do

please do feel free to point out where im kissing ass. also, its not quicker if it doesnt work in the first place.

about every thread you pretend to show concern

how about this  stop kissing ass and just eat a dick

Cryptodevil is on the list of dooglus.

please do feel free to post any example where i ask dt members for trust. you wont find any because i dont. you seem quite mad that people tagged you negative for being shady, which is what theyre supposed to do.
https://i.gyazo.com/2b172be3da84ee69705e9e81a6746116.png

oh ya put me in ignore so you don't have to respond to the evidence

nice one slick scammer ;)

I've seen it happen on multiple occasions and I'm simply offering the easiest solution. I can't say that an attitude like that would assist in getting any -ve reputation removed, but to each his own.
They're not on DT for no reason, and 99.99% of the time they don't -ve for no reason either.

Just trying to help, and normally de-escalating the situation is your best option.

You haven't been through it.  You have no unjustified negative trust on your account.

I've noticed that it's a common theme around this forum for users with negative trust to assume that the system is flawed. The DT members are corrupt and they're all apart of a higher bitcoin elite society that revolves around ruining the network for newbies. I just think it's a little absurd that someone can talk and act the way some of these members do and expect no repercussions.

Oh I see, like that is it, QS? Done having your tantrum over being put in your place about your transparent attempts to deflect from the truth that you are a proven and even self-confessed scammer and now are looking to make wild accusations about me, for which you have absolutely no evidence and will never have any evidence because it is, unsurprisingly considering you are involved, a big fat fucking lie.

Here's the thing, the Trust system allows people to rate negatively if you have reason to suspect a person is a scammer.

You scammed people by performing 'escrow' trades with yourself. That is fraud. You even admit to having done it.

Which part of that behaviour qualifies you as being trustworthy? Ergo, the rating I gave you is correct.

As for RussianRaibow, GermanGiant and SpanishSoldier, check the history and you will see that it has already been proven they are connected to the cloudmining.website scam.

Seems that scammers with an axe to grind are starting to get shitty because more and more people are making it harder for them to operate so easily around here.

You have not given any explanation about why you left the -ve on me. I have already explained my position here - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1201224.msg12628417#msg12628417

I'm with cryptodevil on this one, he seems to be paying attention to ponzis and cloudmining sites where other DT members fail/don't like paying attention to them. And the OP's post history seems too much similar to germangiant who is promoting/shilling cloudmining.website at every point.

From the looks of it the OP is reporting his experience doing business with a company that someone *thinks* is a scam. I have not seen any evidence that the OP if affiliated with any scam site.

From the looks of it, there is a company that is doing business in a way that someone does not like and as a result, this person gives negative trust to anyone that does business with that company. All while *speculating* that they are "shilling" for such company.

If someone is essentially gambling their money by doing business with a company that has a high chance of being a scam and then reporting their experience then they are no more a scammer then someone who gambles on an actual gambling site, say (a made up site called) gust-bice and reports their experience. I am sure that the owner of gust-bice would much rather this person gamble on their gambling site though....

It's really unfortunate if someone is given -ve based off of being gullible enough to fall for a scam or for being trustworthy enough to believe in a new company. I don't think you blame participants for being involved with a "potential" scam if they are simple trying to reap the rewards offered to the "users(victims)". Although I think we're getting off topic, and should re-adjust ourselves because it's unfortunate that QS gets harassed in literally every thread he's mentioned in. There's already dozens of threads with dozens of pages dedicated to complaining about QS and the reciprocal as well.

Where the difference here is that I don't speculate when I give trust (except for the *rare* neutral rating that says that something is being looked into and that caution should be exercised). In the case of the OP I think it is pretty clear that speculation is being used (exclusively) in the decision to leave the rating.

This seems to be a common theme among users who are in dooglus's trust list (more specifically those who are in dooglus's trust list but not in anyone else's on level 1's trust list) as well as dooglus's ratings.

I wouldn't call someone who devotes their entire post history to a known scam, a innocent victim who was just "recommending" the service. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1046014.msg11836838#msg11836838 have a look here, more or less same thing cryptodevil is saying.
Lastly, I respect your arguments and opinions on scam or scammy behaviour QS but this one is, I estimate, just for demoralizing cryptodevil and getting him removed from DT.
P.S: Found it better to answer to you both guys at once instead of individually

^^^ This.


Have you seen your post history? You even keep reposting the same promotional content from previous posts from months earlier. You are actively trying to encourage others to join what is clearly a ponzi-based scam and it looks very similar to kind of spam GermanGiant has been posting, too.

That you have posted *some* negative comments here and there is no different to the sort of tactics used by shills to try and avoid the accusation they only speak positively about a scam.

Maybe the reason he is here is because he is interested in cloud mining.

During the ponzi craze that took place at the beginning of the year, there were plenty of people who were posting exclusively in various ponzi threads, including those that were run by TheGambler aka Moreia aka James Volpe, as well as ponzi threads that were not run by him. I have a good reason to believe that Moreia was not the person behind these accounts.

Just say Vod.   ;)

I was not actually talking about you in that particular post. Although I do have separate concerns about some of your other ratings.

It is also unprofessional to name someone like that and I prefer to avoid unprofessionalism whenever possible.

There goes another irony-meter.

Try and remember that in the future.  It will help you look more professional.  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1179238.msg12603059#msg12603059

:)

Hey now! He's just reminding you of everywhere that your godliness has been announced. I wouldn't say that's unprofessional, it's almost evangelistic! He's gathering a compilation of your great words, almost like a bible.

I'm joking, but prophesying about yourself is just as unprofessional as calling you out for it :D even though I understand you're not the one who mentioned it first. :P

Since when is there any professionalism or logic in religion?    :D

This means what? The link the post above you contains is pointing to another person's statement, which I replied to as well.

Why are you just giving blanket statement? Backup your words by quoting my post history that you are pointing at. Which promotional content you are talking about? My posts regarding CMW consists of blockchain Tx and screenshot showing people made ROI with it. If you find ad or other promotional content that I have posted, please show it. I did not even wear their signature ever.

So, I have posted *some* positive comments here and there makes all the difference? Is this what today's standard of DefaultTrust? Things are clearly pointing out to the fact that you have some incentive in silencing people to post facts about certain services.

 ::)

OP asked me to look at this thread. While I think the wording of the feedback is a little harsh I don't think it's out of place. OP talks like a typical cloud mining shill.

In https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=844310.msg11453983#msg11453983 for instance:

    "they keep on paying months after month disproving all BS lies"

It's very common for Ponzi apologists to claim that "still paying" somehow proves it's not a Ponzi.

OP isn't simply reporting on the facts as he claims. He's using faulty logic to promote a likely scam.

--

I'm not sure whether it's worth addressing QS' veiled attacks. Probably not.

Still paying? Hah. Technically pbmining is still paying as well. So that proves very little.

scrypt.cc too.

Funny that, considering the OP has been compared to GermanGiant who also came running to you to whine about his ratings at the exact same time RussianRaibow came running to me to try the "I am the new owner of this account, therefore noscam!" bollocks.

See, this is what happens when people buy and sell accounts, a business based almost entirely on fraud and deception and promoted by sellers who have access to multiple forum accounts and frequently use them to provide some sock-puppet support to their alts or even fraudulently conduct 'escrow' trade deals with themselves as both the 'escrow' and the trading partner.

Hey, Vitamin King, there is little point in posting the key parts of your post history in this thread because it is all pretty much the exact same promotion of CM, although if you can't see for yourself how obvious-shill-is-obvious then you are either lying or an idiot. In any event, you continue to promote a known ponzi scheme as though it is a legitimate cloud mining service, even though you know it isn't. That makes you untrustworthy.


I'm starting to believe that QS is suffering from a serious mental disorder, he certainly displays definite symptoms of dysfunctional neurology/psychology. No joke.