Bitcoin Forum

Does anyone have any recommendations for users who they feel deserve to be on Default Trust? I'm mainly looking for people who are very active in leaving accurate feedback, mostly against scammers and potential scammers etc. I can add people directly to level one via my main account or level 2 with this one, but I'll probably just be using this account to add users for now so I don't have to worry about who they trust as well, but I will likely promote people with good lists over time.

I would recommend adding the following to your trust list:

The Pharmacist.

He was actually one I was considering and I had already asked him if he would like to be included, but wanted to make sure he was prepared for all the drama that will inevitably ensue from all the shitposters and account farmers he's tagged.

Yeah, he'll a get a shitstorm of drama.

What about zazarb? He tags a lot of people with overdue loans and other shady loan attempts in the lending section.

Nah, probably not zazarb. Whilst I don't disagree that he's left a lot of valuable ratings he's also a prolific loaner and I don't want to have more scenarios where people are just taking out loans for trusted feedback which is what will inevitably happen.

Loan thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161170.msg12233132#msg12233132

He's also previously sold accounts (though I guess they're likely from defaulted collateral): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1194528.msg12538293#msg12538293

I see that the snowflake is still butthurt that his shady empire got destroyed. ::)

+1 for this from me. Obviously he may have to correct a few ratings, but IMO most of his are very good ratings.

No.

I think it would be good to have someone that felted a lot of people who are involved in shady practices with accounts. It would serve as a reminder and a deterrent to prospective traders.

I'm on board for The Pharmacist as well. Straight shooter and def has no problems with having broad shoulders

Yep, I too would have to agree. Though for sure there will be a shitload of drama surrounding him because of all the accounts he's tagged so far that have no DT2 negative trust yet.

+1

---

Wait, isn't hilariousetc on DT2 so adding accounts on hilaiousetc would make them DT3?

He controls the account hilariousandco, though. ;)

Recommend deleting Lauda / Bad Kitty  from DT.

Bad Kitty negative rates others like she is a retard with a paint brush.

I'm open to suggestions.  I realize I've gone crazy with the reddening agent, but I'll listen to advice.

*Awwwww...consider my cockles warmed.* 

Any ETA for the first addition? I'd like to see the impact that it would have and analyze his left ratings/amount of butthurt that will happen.

I'll PM you if I see something that I disagree with as I usually do that with pretty much any DT member.

Oh boy, prepare your butt for a lot of tears and drama.  :-X  ;)


I think The Pharmacist is a good choice and it would also be nice if we would get some active people for the altcoin section to tag people there.

I would recommend also members, who are not too often participants in signature campaigns to avoid conflicts of interest (although there are many honorable members, who are also active in signature campaigns.).

If you can't objectively asses and handle your own conflicts of interest, that doesn't mean that others can. Therefore, this suggestion is bullshit and similar to "women quotas" in companies. The people that are best qualified should get the relevant position, and similarly for DT, the people that are active, properly tagging people and have valid stances should be put there.

The problem is a lack of reports. Nobody can patrol that huge cesspool anyways.

Yeah agree but that is why i think it would be a good idea to get active people that tag and report there.

If we really want to change the way the forum works we should go the whole length and that includes the shitcoin sub.  :-\

I would also support the recommendation of The Pharmarcist, I have seen his comments on issues and the way he handles such. Although, not on everything I agree with him, but I am sure he has the wherewithal to call someone bluff and tell it to their face.


Thats a testimony that whatever you doing, someone is watching...

My advice since you asked for it is to be more receptive for reviews. I have seen some people get tagged while some people clearly deserves it, others learnt from their mistake and ready to comply by rules. For example, a newbie asking for a non-collateral loan and the tagged will the there even after he is  a full member mind you, he never even got the loan he asked for.

Fucking sadist  ;D.

i honestly expected him to have already been added when i came back to the forum a few months ago, surprised its only just now happening. i think it's a pretty good move though.

i dont think being a regular participant in sig campaigns would lead to a conflict of interest in the context of leaving reliable ratings; DT members just leave ratings as part of their contribution to the forum, this doesn't at all tie into just making some pocket change off of posting regularly.

Let me just say this:  I have tagged some particularly egregious shitposters, and I have seen them come back and apply for campaigns that I've applied to.  It is not my intention to neg them as a means of securing myself a spot in any campaign--and most of the time, they're newbies who wouldn't be competing for Hero+ spots anyway.  I'm aware that it could look like there's a conflict of interest, but every neg that I've left was not left with the thought that I would be on DT2 someday and would gain from it personally.  They were all left with good intentions, so to speak.

I work in a field where second chances are the norm.  However, this isn't real life and I can't judge people's intentions, just their actions.  It's very clear there are scumbags here who see absolutely nothing wrong with scamming or ruining a great forum for personal gain.  Those people who beg hilariousandco (or Vod,Lauda, and everyone else) for second chances somehow never seem to demonstrate that they understand where they went wrong--it's just juvenile pleading, like you'd hear from a 5 year old who got caught pulling flowers from the garden.  I have seen some people I've given negatives to be relatively good members, like Josephdd1.  If people stop buying & selling accounts and haven't gotten any more negs, I've been known to remove feedback.  But I have to go with evidence and gut instinct when the request is made, and frankly I'm comfortable leaving a rating in place.

Thank you all for the kind words.

I've already got this today:
And though he deleted his retaliatory negative trust, I do believe he was totally spamming my trust page with a whole bunch of bullshit at one point.  If there's an archive of it, I'd love to see it again.  And I mean he left many feedbacks on my page over the course of a few months.  Plus he's dealt in accounts more than once, and that's a feedback that I'm not inclined to remove.

Would you agree that anyone caught buying/selling forum accounts should not be on Default Trust?

Personally, I think anyone caught trading accounts should receive a negative trust. If only some account traders receive negative trust and others don't, it suggests there are unequal standards and favoritism being enforced.

If people really do believe that "Account sales encourage scams, spam, and account farming" then it should be enforced across the board.

Not necessarily.  I think Yahoo62278 has sold an account or two, but everything else he's done merits his inclusion on DT.  If you're trying to get me to agree that across-the-board negging of account sellers is deserved, without taking into consideration any other factors, I'm not going for it.  There is a big difference between some scuntbag who's an account farmer and constantly has auctions running and someone who's sold one account and never did it again (that we know of).  As I said, I have removed negs if and when I've seen the member give decent proof that he's not a menace to bitcointalk.  It's rare but does happen.

Every case is different, plus I could probably spend a year straight going back through all the threads where accounts have been sold.  Not going to happen.  People who whine about unequal rule enforcement drive me insane.  If you got tagged and someone else didn't, suck it the fuck up.  Cops don't chase down every speeder on the highway.  The argument falls upon deaf ears, my man.

Well.. :-[ I *might* be sadist but only when it comes to the people that really deserve it. :P

There is no need to attack such legitimate members at this point. They've long realized that such actions are wrong, and have moved on.

I concur. It's just a bullshit excuse from those that got caught doing something.

I saw members accusing competitors without evidence in the past. But didn't see you giving negative feedback to yours, so I also think, that you are a good choice for default trust.

Given the current situations in the forum,I'd gladly recommend myself [Why wouldn't I ?  :P]

Being on a DT is a long time responsibility.I would like someone to be on the DT who has ample of time to deal with the critics and negative tag all the open cases by taking an  appropriate decision.Last time I recommended Lutpin and Mexxer who were  an idea choice for the DT [fortunately they did get selected].Can't really think of anyone who deserves to be there..

That usually doesn't work and is frowned upon even though rationally it can make sense to suggest oneself. I think I did this one.

It's quite the burden if you're active.

One of which scammer the other. Ain't it weird how these things work?

I could think of a name or two (other than the Pharmacist), but they are more people that I'd *personally* place there if I could.

Agreed!!

See Lauda's outed alt connection and various scammy behavior here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1702409.msg24591879#msg24591879), which Lauda refuses to add to the OP.

Lauda immediately revenge negged me for even mentioning it. ::)

Some of the other collectible traders on the forum I would trust with my BTC are already on DT, but how about Zepher, Minerjones, Hhampuz? Or are you guys mainly looking for scam/spam/etc busters?

Now slightly off-topic -

Who has access to/manages default trust? Is it just admins and global mods, just admins, or all staff?

I am curious why you have had such a change of heart about this. It was not long ago that you would strongly be in favor of trading accounts.

I am also curious to know why you are making this a reason to veto zazarb's position on your trust list, yet you leave Lauda on your trust list when he had dealt in accounts in the past.

Zepher and minerjones are already on DT.

I have not. Keep wasting your time with shills and making up lies snowflake.

Very strong evidence has been posted that suggests otherwise.

If your evidence is a shitpost from the past, then you are very much bamboozled. You don't even realize how pathetic and butthurt gobsmacker must have been to dig up graves, and then read 2-3k posts in order to find nothing.

---

Case in point: zazarb is not a fit candidate.

From the looks of it, you took the time to delete at least 3,000 posts, which in itself is an indication you were trying to hide something.

here (http://archive.is/2TBKt#selection-3023.1-3026.8) is an example of xanis placing multiple bids on an account.

Why exactly are you saying this is nothing? Are you saying that xanis is not you? Or are you saying that xanis was not buying accounts? Or both?

Or, unlike the account farmer and account trader such as yourself, I wanted to clean up shitposting which I did.

Placing bids != actually buying something. Furthermore, even placing bids != intent to buy something. Non Sequitur

The equivalent of that is finding a very early shitpost of mine, and accusing me of spamming now because of said shitpost. To my knowledge, Xanis was not buying accounts but was rather just shitposting.

---

Not that said case is on-topic. Zazarb is barely tagging anyone who deserves it, and he left way too many positive ratings before for minuscule deals.

LOL. You tried to buy a dozen accounts on two occasions (that's what was dug up at a glance)........and a year later you are talking about how you "can easily live from" posting with 4-5 accounts in sig campaigns.

I havent gone through Xanis's posts at all, I just checked your most obvious wallet. Bitcointa.lk, Bitcointalk.to and Hollila are a fucking bitch to parse and I don't have the time or energy right now to deal with it atm. Theyre archived anyway.

I just saw the way youve been negging lots of peoples accounts for the exact same behavior you engage in. I just wanted to start a conversation. Don't worry, snowflake, my account is intact. I also noticed you were online all day, post count dropped instead of rising though. It's nice to see that you squirm just like everyone else. :-*


You tag people with negative trust for both actions. So, it's okay for you, but untrustworthy for others?? Is that how things work??

So you admit to both placing the bids to buy that account and that xanis is your alt?

Nope.

If I talk how easy it would be to rob someone in a certain way, does that mean that I've also done it? Non Sequitur.

I do not.

So that's who you are. ::)

Xanis was banned on my request, but I obviously don't remember every post.

---

It's nice to see how you like breaking the rules, yet attempt to call out others on certain actions. Can we get back to the actual topic, @OP? Conclusions recap:
The Pharmacist - Yes.
zazarb - Definitely no.

Anyone else? :)

Xanis made multiple bids on a forum account. Several screenshots and links provided. Xanis is tied to your wallet through blockchain analysis.

What do you mean by "Nope?"


Who?? Why so vague?? We're all friends here. :)

So to clarify, xanis is your alt, correct?

this is on topic because there is a question is a "~lauda" should be added to the OP's trust list.

We all believe a true Vod should be in DT1.

So say we all...

Timeline of Alcohol Prohibition:
Alcohol was legal.
Prohibition began.
Alcohol became illegal.
Sale of alcohol led to incarceration.
People who had sold alcohol before prohibition were not punished.

Track the analogy.

---

I send out negative trust towards those that are spammers. One-liners and burst-posting is usually indicative of spam.

Read above.

Lauda ≠ Welsh ≠ tysat. Trust is at a user's discretion.

Read above.

Read Lauda's reference. Especially the highlighted part.

Common theme.

Sure. You had one incident of someone being rated negatively due to account sales. I'm not sure how strongly the first two users felt about account sales but the latest feedback talked about hacked accounts. Maybe that played a role in the trust, I don't know.

You fucked up the quoting, so your first sentence is irrelevant.
This type of quoting ≠ Spamming. If a user consistently posts one-liners within minutes of one another, can you really justify it? Are they seriously being constructive? Especially when they post in the 30+ page spam megathreads with their garbage general/vague replies?

[Not talking about extortion.]

It was rated negatively in 2013 by those accounts. Doesn't mean that people had the same opinions back in those days. In fact, when I sold the accounts I do remember there being quite a few escrows willing to do the job.

The title is additions. That would be a exclusion, and is therefore off-topic. QED.

There were a few members that Quickseller used an alt to complain about (in one of those "Lauda something something" threads), i.e. was whining that they didn't receive negative ratings for account sales from the past as I was tagging people left and right. Now I can't, nor want to look for this post but there were names such as Yahoo and KWH (IIRC; if I am mistaken, I apologize) and others. Anyone objectively assessing the situation can easily conclude why nobody has tagged them, you or other similar examples.
Don't get me started on this obvious lame "fear" of getting tagged for no reason. Such silly psychological games might work on kids though.

---

You should be getting a bonus for busting down trolls. Didn't you use to wear a signature from Bitsler or something?

I think that everyone agrees with you. :P

Exactly, but yet again Quickseller immediately takes a thread off topic and makes it all about him so locked until further notice. I will re-open a new one for discussion in due time.