Bitcoin Forum

Hi,

I just noticed that next to my name someone has lowered my trust.  I'm not sure why this is or who has done it.  The main thing I can say is that I've never bought or sold any bitcoins on here so I don't understand what basis anyone might have for lowering my trust.

Can I see who lowered my trust in order to confront them and ask why?

Can I appeal this to someone to investigate in case it was just some troll?

Likewise, at worst case, can I retaliate and lower this persons trust as a last measure?

Thanks!

Of course, there is. Send a pm to TF and sort that out with him. ;)

Thanks for the suggestion.  I tried to send the following message but I just see 'tradefortress has blocked your message'.  I guess the best I can do is make my complaint public.  I did a retribution 'lower his trust' but I don't think it's very effective as he seems to be a very plugged in and active trader whereas I've never traded a single bitcent.  In anycase, the 'trade with extreme caution' is embarrassing but I guess there's nothing I can do.

Just discovered that his complaint about me says he risked 1.5BTC.  This is an out and out lie.  I have never had any trade deals with tradefortress and I challenge him to produce the slightest evidence that we ever had any deal.  I cannot understand why he is lying about me in this way.

FWIW, I can show on the blockchain that I only own about 1.1BTC and that most of that came from Dragon's Tale casino and sealswithclubs.

Wish I could do something to erase or challenge this attack on my integrity.  Is there no moderation system for this sort of thing?

Tradefortress' comment was "spammer, defrauded coinchat". Were you using coinchat in the last few months? If so, what were you doing on it?


see:

You could always own another 20 BTC in an address you wouldn't reveal.

TF has disabled PM for ALL USERS on the forum.  You can only contact him via email or on coinchat.

Well that explains a small part of my complaint.  I guess I'm just shocked that someone would accuse me of spamming and defrauding and not be available for discussion.

Sure I guess that's true.   However, I'd really like for tradefortress to show *me* the addresses that he ostensibly sent 1.5 BTC to.  That's real missing piece here.  A guy shows up and says he "risked 1.5BTC" on me but isn't around to reply to questions like "huh?"  "what?"  "when?"  "where?".

I used it a few months ago.  I didn't realize until now that 'tradefortress' is 'admin' from coinchat.  So at least this explains part of the puzzle.

I *did* use coinchat a few months ago and I was banned by "admin".  We exchanged some emails in which I asked him what I had done to be banned and I didn't ever get a detailed response.  He said I owed him 0.2BTC if I wanted to be reinstated on coinchat.  I asked him several times where he came up with that number and what I had done wrong.  Each time, however, he just replied tersely about some sort of fraud and paying him back.

The best guess I have at what he was angry about is that I was experimenting with robots on his site using the api the he published (and I as I understood it) he encouraged us to use.  I enjoyed coinchat and I learned a lot about node.js while I was experimenting there.  I was sad to get kicked off because I had a lot of fun chatting there and gambling on the various robots.   What I can't understand is how a site that gives money for chatting is going to cry 'fraud'  when I took money for chatting.  I mean, the site gave me money and I cashed it out using the site's system.  How on earth is that fraudulent?  Another thing I can't understand is how the 0.2 he asked me for (and I'm still not sure where he got that number) has now inflated to 1.5BTC.


see:

So, according to this, I still can't see how tradefortress has 'risked' a single btcent on me.  We've had no exchanges on this forum.  We've entered into no currency trade agreement.  This seems like a blatant abuse of a little guy by some angry, poweful bitcoin mogul.  I really feel like I'm getting pushed around by this guy and I wish there was something I could do about it other than try to change my username.

Tradefortress is probably mad because you made a bot that was spamming to get rewards. I believe there was a reward program based on how many lines you typed. This is speculation of course. If you can disclose the emails from Tradefortress (publicly or privately), I can get a better picture.

Hi tspacepilot aka wikib0t aka testycat aka newman aka manny on Coinchat,


Excuse the language but bullshit. You were using a bot to send automated messages on coinchat and reaping the rewards fraudulently. You know that is against the rules. Nobody with any intelligence will think it is OK to run a bot to spam coinchat and get rewards. Bots are not allowed to earn rewards, bot accounts must have the name b0t in them and you've tried wikib0t. You've also said you "reviewed the rules" through email on Aug 30 and then tried wikib0t.

I have zero interest in wasting time with spammers who try to lawyer their way out.

If an ATM gives you money you shouldn't have got, legally you're in the wrong.

what I would like to know is how you linked those account names on coinchat  to this username on bitcointalk  

was it with his ip address ?

I know you have used an exploit in the past to access the forum admin panel ....

What do you know, my speculation was right! :P

He didn't link those names to any bitcointalk account names. Quit jumping to conclusions.

Red herring  ::)

looks like you have tradefortreses back

Looks like you don't like tradefortreses very much

zack....watch yourself. i'd hate to see altcointalk suddenly vanish again... not a threat. don't get me wrong tradefortress has clearly tipped his hand once again, but it is foolish to involve yourself in his affairs unless you have something present on himl.

looks like more and more people are seeing through the charade.

altcointalk has been as good as dead since it was scrambled last time

Here you go.

@tspacepilot: I've updated my feedback to 0.503 BTC risked which is the amount you've withdrew from coinchat. I'm happy to remove my trust rating once you repay the coins you fraudulently withdrew.

yes he know he said that but how did you know to give him negative feedback when he hadn't said that when you gave it to him  ?

until he posted this thread you had no way of knowing it was the same person

I think it's entirely reasonable that someone using the same uncommon username on two services can be assumed as the same user, especially given this:

quoting for posterity. remember how i signedup with "Nimda" at coinchat and you thought there was relation to "nimda" here? just because the odds are low doesn't eliminate the doubt. the user kosmo kramer here? i know a guy on a local sports message board that goes by the same name. my point is people see cool usernames and copy them other places. it happens.

Yeah, that does happen, however in that case there was a mistake which would be corrected as soon as it was explained. But nimda (reverse of admin) isn't as uncommon as tspacepilot.

like i said you have apoint, but lets give the guy a chance to prove it. maybe disclose ips and compare. if he can offer know no real evidence, then we can conclude he is in fact a liar. fair enough?

eh on second thought,  i don't even care. you handle your affairs however you see fit. none of my business.

I'm glad that tradefortress has at least piped up to defend his outlandish actions.

I appreciate that others are also speaking up, it makes me feel like there's at least some sort moderation/arbitration going on here.  It seems, however, that this thread has gotten a little off topic.  I don't see why the odds of 'tspacepilot' as a user name come to bear on these facts:

1) tradefortress runs a site that gives out bitcoins for chatting
2) he's upset that tspacepilot didn't chat according to his "rules"

  (aside: i'd go into the fact that i wasn't producing spam, i was chatting legitmately (according to how I understood the system at the time) but I think it would be yet another distraction.  are the actions of chatters on a third party site really relevant to marketplace trust on bitcointalk.org)

3) he's decided that banning me from his coinchat isn't enough.  he wants to attack me on bitcointalk by asserting that he had "risked" 1.5 btc on me.
4) he's now admitted that he hasn't "risked" anything on me, that in fact he simply believes me to be a former user of his chat site with whom he is unhappy.
5) he's now changed his "risked" amount to be something closer to what he believes I cashed from his site (again, I might dispute this number but I think it's not actually relevant).

Isn't it obvious that any former usage of coinchat.org is in no way relevant to marketplace trust on bitcointalk.org?  Like I said, I haven't bought or sold any bitcoins in my life, but should I decide to do so, I don't believe it's fair to be penalized in this community because admin/tradefortress is upset about the results of his own site.

Please, community members, let me know what's relevant here?  As far as I can see, this is an angry bitcoin mogul who's feeling vindictive because I cashed out more than he wanted from his site which gives out free bitcoins for chatting.   Now he's going to do his best to smear me on the internet anywhere he sees me, no matter the relevance.

this point has been brought up before. he can't control his emotions and it has cost him his default trust. lots of people claim he is a scammer... i think he just can't afford to run coinchat tbh and would rather ban people here and there to get by.

Ok?
I was using a script (that you helped me make) which was experimenting with reading wikipedia articles, I was trying to turn this into a question answering machine.
Actually, I didn't get to review the rules until after you banned me.  I asked for them several times before that though.


It might help for you to review the wikipedia article on spam [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(electronic) ].  The accepted definition seems to revolve around sending unsolicited bulk messages.  I don't know why you think that my script to answer wikipedia questions qualifies as spam.  Also, thanks for your interest measurement, I'd say that I have zero interest in being falsely attacked by a bitcoin mogul who has demonstrated a surprising amount of interest in going after a little guy on a bitcoin discussion forum.


So, your coinchat site is an ATM?  And your use of the adverb "legally" suggests that you believe there's some relevant law here?   I'm sorry to say, man, I didn't sign any TOS when I joined coinchat.  I had a good time chatting and making friends until you kicked me off.  Ask around on your own site, tspacepilot was helpful and fun.  And I was having a pleasant time here too until you started putting fire up my ass.  If you have something better to do, then why not go on and do it?

wait a damn minute s o youwere using a bought to make btc chatting  and don't understand why you were banned?  :'( maybe because thats completely uneffin fair.  ::)

You don't have to sign a ToS for it to be active. Using the service means that you agree with the ToS. Damn, how can someone be so ignorant as you?
You spammed with a bot to get BTC and now TF wants it back. Sounds legit and logical to me.

My 2 cents.

No you weren't, you were spamming irrelevant things in your own private room. Your excuse doesn't cut it.


lol


I do give out free Bitcoins for chatting. A bot talking to itself is not chatting. You're not allowed to run bots unless your account has the substring bot in it - and before you get smartass-y, "bot" not "b0t".

1) tradefortress gives out coins for chatting on his site
2) he thinks i didnt follow rules there
3) he says, 'hay, i wish i hadnt given you so much btc for chatting on my site'
4) he invents an amount and accuses me of taking it from him on the bitcointalk marketplace where i have never traded

This is fair?

Actaully that's not my complaint at all. I figure whoever runs coinchat has the right to run it as they see fit. 

My complaint is that a guy who gave out btc for chatting on his site now accuses me of stealing from him on a market I've never even used.

1) A bot emitting messages to itself is not chatting.
2) The rules required bots to have the substring bot in it. This prevents it from getting rewards. Not knowing the rules is not an excuse. Keep in mind this forum has no defined rules.
3) Correct, as you have abused the service and defrauded coinchat.
4) From my read over the marketplace trust topic, it was named marketplace trust because it is visible in marketplace sections only, not that it was exclusively for deals conducted in the marketplace. If this is incorrect, some moderators have already violated the policy by leaving negative trust for activities not carried out in the marketplace. There's also quite a few trust ratings left for IRC / OTC trades.

Regardless, you have defrauded coinchat 0.5 or so BTC which was the amount you withdrew.

So your world works like this: a faucet gives you money for watching an ad.  You take the money.  A few months later the faucet owner finds you on bitcointalk and says: "hey I just found out that you weren't even watching the ad, you were making sandwhiches in the kitchen when the ad was playing.  This is fraud and you owe me three times the amount of money that you got from my faucet."  The faucet owner lowers your bitcointalk trust and calls you a spammer.  This is fair and right?

1) I am a human, not a bot.
2) Again, I am a human, not a bot.
3) 'fraud' entails some relevant law (please cite one)
4) mods please weigh in on whether actions on coinchat have bearing on bitcointalk marketplace trust.  Tf, please provide evidence that i entered into some currency trade agreement with you anywhere.

A better example would be using a python script to watch the ad 10000 times with a proxy list. You get banned, the owner emails and explains to you that you cannot use a not, and you do it again.

You owe me half a Bitcoin, 1.5 BTC was an estimated amount (which is not that far off when looking at how much the average user owns). I have updated the risked amount to the correct sum.

Are you now disputing that you have used automated or scripted mechanisms of emitting messages on coinchat which were fraudulently eligible for rewards intended for productive chatter?

We are not talking in the namespace of law. Pick up a dictionary and read up the definition of fraud. If you would like me to cite a relevant law, the CFAA forbids unauthorized access to protected interstate communications computers. Your first ban was an indication that you were no longer authorized to use the services provided by coinchat, however I am not interested in talking about legal matters or the CFAA.

This is unhelpful and outlandish. Provide some evidence as to where you get these numbers and how they are in any way relevant to a currency trade on bitcointalk.  If you assert that you 'risked .5 btc on me', what were you expecting in return?  Where did I agree to this?

For pairity, Ill go ahead and arbitrarily assert that I risked 1.5 btc on you when I joined bitcointalk. If you complain, I'll lower it to the 'correct sum' of .5btc.

Please respond to my previous post first. Do you dispute my allegation you have botted? In addition, do you dispute that it was made clear to you in writing (email) that (I) you were banned from coinchat and (ii) bot activity must be done under an account with the substring bot?

We must proceed this way if you are interested in lawyering your way around instead of having a normal discussion. A common trick used is to switch the topic to something that would invoke responses from the other party once the subject matter on hand is uncomfortable to you. Unfortunately, I am not falling for it.

give it up. you botted his site, got caught and now you're mad he found you. 

Ok, thanks for the feedback r3wt.  I don't know if you're a moderator here.  But now I understand that tradefortress and powerful people on this site can use the marketplace trust system to abuse people who they hold a grudge against for actions unrelated to bitcointalk.  That is, marketplace trust and 'risked' BTC don't actually have to relate to any trade agreement on this marketplace.  In fact, if what Tradefortress is doing to me is acceptable then it's clear that  'risked' BTC doesn't actually have to mean that you sent anyone that amount of BTC, just that you feel it's an amount you are owed according to reasons which you only have to justify to yourself.

According to this logic, I have now registered feedback against tradefortress that I 'risked' 0.5BTC on him.  I feel justified in doing this because if I were ever to wish to trade on this site, surely my potential profits could have reached 0.5BTC were it not for the "illegal" slander which tradefortress has dragged my name into.  I justify this according to my own rationale, not that I actually sent him that money or had an agreement with him for services for that money.  Guess fair is fair, even if it hurts everyone in this case.

So do you dispute my allegations or not? We need to settle that before continuing onto the trust rating.

Welcome to the story of whiskers75. We share the same story (well kinda, I didn't spam, just ban evaded)
Note that TF has a thing for ban evading - he REALLY REALLY HATES IT.
I hope you settle in at whiskchat.com better than you did coinchat. :S

Tradefortress: it is you who are attempting to switch the topic.  Do you allege that I entered into a currency trade agreement with you as in below:


If you assert that we entered into such an agreement please provide documentation.  If you do not assert that we entered into such an agreement please remove your trust feedback against me and I will remove mine against you (which I admit was purely placed there for parity against your false accusation).

hey man, am i invited to??

welcome to the internet

Anyone can leave feedback for everyone on the trust system... that's my understand of the rules for it.

Yes anyone can leave a feedback. But those on the default trust clearly has the advantage.  ;)

its all fun and games til you bring facts and logic into the equation.

I see you invited yourself. xD

Thanks for the input, everyone.

I just want to reiterate this request so that everyone can see that we're waiting for a reply on this one:



@tradefortress:

If you assert that we entered into such an agreement please provide documentation.  If you do not assert that we entered into such an agreement please remove your trust feedback against me and I will remove mine against you (which I admit was purely placed there for parity against your false accusation).

Well. I am going to stick with TF on this one. He abused the system and broke the rules. Why should anyone trust him if he cannot even follow simple rules? I think its good that TF tells people about it.

 If Tspacepilot cares more about his trust rating here than his ego I'll bet if he admits prior guilt and apologizes to TradeFortress he might see his trust rating restored.  I think TradeFortress did the right thing initially warning the forum with limited information.

Many of us on the forum have been scammed by new members.

Ok, but it's really not about trust it's about false accusations.  By saying that 'risked' BTC on me he is suggesting that he and I entered into some agreement and that he sent me that amount of BTC and that I never followed through.  In fact, no such chain of events occurred and it wasn't until I said "what the hell?" that I even found out that TF is the sore admin from coinchat who seems to want to undo the past.

I don't get it, you make a site that gives out bitcoins for chatting then get mad when someone gets bitcoins for chatting then go and suggest that person stole from you on an unrelated site under a different name?

Again, it's not about ego, I've said "I'm sorry" to "admin" of coinchat via e-mail when he banned me.  He finally sent a link to the rules and I reviewed them and said I was sorry for breaking them.  He told me at that time that he wanted me to pay back such and such an amount (without any discussion as to where he chose this amount from and why) if I wanted to rejoin coinchat.  For me that was too onerous a burden so we parted ways (until very recently when he launched his attack on my trust rating here).

Well of course you're welcome to your opinion but I repeat that:

0) I never saw the rules of coinchat until after I was banned (despite explicitly asking for them several times)
1) TF and I never entered into any currency trade agreement
2) TF is falsely accusing me of having enterered into an agreement with him

For me, it's important make sure that people know and agree to the rules if you want to be relevant.  Also, I just can't see how coinchatting too often or too much such that I was banned by the admin equates to I owe admin whatever arbitrary amount he says I owe him and that if I don't comply I'm a spammer.

Here's the relevant question.  Obviously TF and I entered into no such currency trade agreement so it will be impossible for him to provide any genuine evidence that we have.  I'm just trying to leave this at the bottom of the thread because it's important to me for people to see that despite my feedback saying that TF 'risked .5BTC' (or whatever it currently says) in fact he and I have no such agreement and this accusation is false.

0) Your bad. Mods have better things to do then constantly repeating the rules.
1+2) As soon as you use the site, you make an agreement with the site owner (TF in this case). So you have agreed to follow the rules.

You used a bot, which is only allowed if it has "bot" in his name. So "b0t" isn't allowed. You were abusing the system and that is illegal, no matter what. So stop whining, be a man and give the BTC back which you earned by breaking the rules.

Trust ratings are not limited to currency trades.

Again, it's nice of you to chime in but you dont have your facts straight and you are missing the point.

The account he's talking about 'wikib0t' was created by me but I never used it beyond logging in and out a few times.  If tf is being honest, he'll admit that. 

2nd, as I've stated before (despite it's irrelevance), my use of a 'bot' has been entirely overstated.  Admin on coinchat was helping me to make a script for answering questions from the wikipedia.  I enjoyed chatting on coinchat quite often before I was banned and told to pay an arbitrary amount to be reinstated.

3rd, why are you so interested in the rules of coinchat?  Are you a tf sockpuppet?  I dont really get it.

4th, the main point, whatever gripes tradefortress (and bitcoininterest) have about my use of coinchat, it doesn't justify false accusations and extortion attempts for arbitrary amounts of money on another site under another name.

You should calm down.


Whatever you are arguying about the CoinChat problem, does not change anything.
If I understand correctly, you admitted that you used a bot, even if you were sometimes chatting normally.


Anyway, you will never get the trust rating removed before paying back TF what he wants (half of coin or something).


From now on. You have 2 options:
1) paying back the coin, and not being marked as a scammer here.
2) refusing to pay back and being marked as a scammer.



If you don't pay back, regardless of you thinking it as unfair, you will be marked as a scammer.
And in my opinion, if you break the rules of a btc related website, you are not really trustworthy.


That said, you can keep crying here, but it won't change a damn thing.
You have 2 options (I said it earlier). Choose which one you want to take and move on.

Risked btc in trust ratings is explicitly defined as follows.  


If you admit we did not engage in a currency trade then that is obviously tantamount to admitting that you are abusing the marketplace trust system because of an unrelated personal grudge.  Tf, why don't you admit that it's time for you to make this right?  Drop the false allegations against me and I will drop mine.  I really don't think this is helping you or your reputation to keep holding out on charges that you have admitted are false.

Second sentence is only an example. It does not mean that it has to be a currency trade, just an example... 


If the facts are true, and it seems that you do not even deny them ; you actually did steal that amount of btc from TF.
Does not matter anyway: trust rating are not moderated.

Thanks, I feel rather calm.


Ok, so tf is licensed to extort any amount he chooses.  I just accept that?
For you, it's not relevant that the rules were asked for repeatedly and weren't provided until after the ban? Hmmm.
Charming.

Huh?  I have no idea where that amount comes from.  Tf started it at 1.5Btc and seemed to lower it to .5 arbitrarily.  In any case, I certainly have not stolen anything.  I sent messages to a site that gives btc for sending messages.  How is that stealing?  I hacked nothing,  I enjoyed the site normally until I was banned.

There is some problem with the quotes which make the last post quite difficult to read.


Anyway, I will make a last answer (hopefully) here:

I do not use CoinChat, but it seems kinda obvious that if you are paid for chatting, and if you spammed there with a bot in order to get a few euros, it was abusive. Now, if you don't want to fix your mistake, fine. But stop crying here.


I already told, and I think that other people did:
No one will ever remove TF's rating until you pay back.

You'd better start a new nickname if you don't want to pay back what you stole.

Great, so using coinchat is stealing.  And coinchat users are 'stealing' whatever amount tf accuses them of.  I wonder why you seem to have such a vested interest in this?

Finally, decrying false allegations against myself is not 'crying'.   If you are going to stay involved in this conversation, please stick to the established issue: tf invents an aribitrary amount and falsely accuses me of stealing from him.  He engages in extortion against me for this amount on an unrelated site.

I just hope that tf doesnt get unhappy with you someday (assuming you are not actually him), you may not like it to be falsely accused and crucified without evidence.

-sighs- You are not stealing if you follow the rules. According to TF you broke the rules. So pay up or shut up.

Using an automated script on an account that does not have the name bot is stealing.


Figure of thumb value was 1.5 BTC, I looked into the DB and gave you the exact number afterwards.

Why so much drama?
You don't want to pay back?
You don't like the trust rating?



This discussion seems pointless and endless :(

Someone should do a drama to earned BTC ratio study of CoinChat vs #bitcoin-otc.

Exactly.


Someone seriously should write a book on coinchat drama. I can count at least 10 chapters.

Clearly tspacepilot did is unethical. Its common sense. My advise to you tspacepilot refund TradeFortress and move on.

Thanks for your 'advise [sic]'.

1) I have not acted unethically and not a single shred of evidence has been produced which suggests that I have
2) tf is unethically attempting to extort payment from me for arbitrary amounts at his whimsy.  He is falesly holding marketplace trust against me despite admitting he risked no btc on me and that we had no agreement.

For all of you who are suggesting I pay whatever amount he asks, I just hope he doesn't go after you next.  What guarantee do I have that he wouldn't just try to extort more? 

Others have suffered similar fates at your hand?

Nice to know that tf is the final arbiter of truth when it comes to his accusations.

Tf hath spoken, pay up or shut up.

Have you withdrawed in coinchat? I think that's the risked btc.

I am not using CoinChat. And I am not using bots.
I am respecting all rules.


I don't fear anything because I am honest.
And even if someone gives me a fake trust ratings, anyone will be able to see that it is unfair and undeserved.

So I don't give a shit.
You are sick/mad because you deserve it, and several people from the forum tell you so.

If you don't want to pay back, fine. Just close this thread and move on.
Bye, have a nice day.

I wonder how many sock puppets tf has on this site.

I'll say one thing about this thread, I started it with two questions in mind:

1) someone lowered my trust, who? why?
2) what recourse do I have?

Now I know the answer to (1).  Tf, aka the admin on coinchat, is who.  The why seems to be a general spirit of vindictiveness against a little guy who angered him some months ago.

As to (2), the answer seems to be little or none.  I can put the facts out here on this thread, but tf has too many sock-puppets or just plain minions who will answer each of my posts with 'tf is your god, you have angered him and therefore you deserve any and all consequences he chooses to mete out for you.'  So its clear that any rational challenge to my attacker is going to be overwhelmed by the flood of TF worship.

I'm going to keep going back to these facts:

a) I did nothing wrong on this site or any other
b) I have never traded on the bitcointalk.org marketplace
c) Tf and I entered into no agreement and risked no btc on each other (tf admits this)
d) Tf refuses to remove his slanderous feedback

Tf is continuing to attempt to extort an arbitrary amount of money from me in exchange for using his godlike powers here to clear my name.  To those that suggest I pay the blackmailer whatever he demands I ask this: what will stop him from going back to his 'DB' in a week's time and return saying 'oh I made a mistake, actually you owe me xx more money', reslapping me with an antitrust rating until I pay again.  I'm beginning to wonder if the other people who have called him a scammer suffered from these sorts of extortion attempts.

So I simply repeat, yes I chatted on coinchat.  But no, that does not amount to an agreement to pay tf whatever he demands.

I will help you:


1) TradeFortress.
2) Only recourse is to have an agreement with TF. Only agreement is to repay what he wants.


Now, you got the answer. Whatever you will say is worthless.

Only agreement is to pay what he wants?!  Does this guy work for tradefortess?  Or he simply is an alt for tradefortess?  If the former, I hope you dont ever end up on his bad side or I'll be the one quoting this post in your complaint thread.

You have 2 choices

1. Refund TF and apologize
2. Create new alt and back to square 1

The tf alt patrol seems to be marching through this thread.

Did you just seriously called me a sockpuppet? Because I agree with TF's opinion? You must be an idiot.

I'm in no way affiliated with TF.

You create a bot and spam coinchat and withdraw bitcoin. You are not following the rules. Is that hard to understand?
 

You check the terms and conditions of a site, before signing up. That is kind of the expectation that you understand the rules of a site before using it.

The rules explicitly state that all bots must have "bot" in the name so that they Do not get paid for chatting. You make a bot that does not follow those rules, and illegitimately gain .5 BTC. I cant understand what the misunderstanding his here, you stole .5 BTC from Tradefortress by using a bot that was not allowed. You get paid for chatting on coinchat, not having a bot spam for you, and because of your bot, Tradefortress is out .5BTC hence the negative trust.

I'm really not understanding where the question of, why don't I get negative trust for stealing .5BTC from someone? If it was an honest mistake, you would have seen that it was against the rules, said oh sorry, and returned the ill gotten coins.

Edit* And after thinking it over, I don't really buy that you werent aware of the rules in the first place. Why would you have named your bot b0t rather than bot had you not known that names with bot don't get paid?

Salty sums this up well, I agree with him.  OP looks to be completely in the wrong here, TF in the right.

in this particular case maybe....

this is unfair you are backing up tradefortress  when he has provided 0 evidence that any coins were taken  

I have started multiple scammer tag requests on here with evidence and you guys couldn't give a dam about it

yet again staff persecuting someone with no evidence 

I'm only talking about this specific situation, if you're implying that I said TF is always right then you are wrong.



This one is getting a lot of attention because it's in Meta not Scam Accusations.

the main point I was making is that trade fortress has not provided and evidence that it was the bot that earned the money and not a human as the op says they were talking on there a lot and testing a bot so most of it could be legit and only a small % be the bot we don't know as there is no evidence been shown ether way yet everyone here is taking sides 

This is indeed very strange. This would suggest that the OP is lying about it.

Thank you.  It's refreshing for someone to finally respond with something other than 'pay tf or be shunned'!

Even if I do owe tf something because he paid me for messages that he wishes he hadn't paid me for, the total would probably amount to something closer to 0.01.  In any case my total withdraws on the site dont amount to more than 0.35 so the .5 figure is outlandish.  I note again that he started off at 1.5, then dropped it by 1/3 when people weee taking my side on this thread.

Still this is missing the goddamn point.  tf runs a site that gives away money for chatting.  I chatted for hours and hours and received money.  Tf decided he doesn't want me there anymore, fine.  How does this give him any right to lie about me on bitcointalk.org?  He is suggesting that he and I had some currency trade agreement and that I didn't follow through.  That is false.  I have entered into 0  marketplacd transactions and tf's grudges against former users should not be taken out by him on their trust ratings.  If he is going to act like that, I think it's a strong reason to remove him from the default trust list so that at least new users can make up their mind for themselves about people he holds grudges against.

Again, he suggests variously that I am spamming or defrauding or stealing, sometimes 1.5 btc sometimes other amounts, all based on his whimsy and with 0 supporting evidence.  How is any of this relevant to the marketplace trust?  Even he admits it's not, that it's based on his personal grudge with me about how I used coinchat some months ago.

What matters is if TF used the trust system in accordance with its rules. According to theymos, Therefore, TF can use feedback for whatever he wants. If it becomes frivolous, then people will ignore TF's trust or the entire trust system. Action does not need to be taken by the trust system admins.

Since I tend to be very conservative when it comes to deciding if something is unethical, it sounds like TF gave someone .5 BTC because his banning mechanism and bot detection were inadequate, and now he's retaliating through the trust system. However, the OP was gaming the system (coinchat) and not following the rules, and other people would call that unethical. TF would go so far as to say that it's stealing! It's hard to determine if that makes someone trustworthy without a definition of trust that everyone agrees on.

as said before TF is not in default trust list, therefore most people will never even see the negative rating.

Thank you very much for a reasonable and thoughtful response.  I really only have two small points of disagreement.  The first is that my total withdrawl from coinchat dont amount to more than 0.35, so the 0.5 amount is obviously trumped up.  This is obviously part of the argument that you are elegantly deciding not to be involved with but I wish to make the correction.

The second is that while you are right that if the trust system becomes frivolous, users will eventualky ignore it, there's an assymetry here in that some people are listed as trustworthy by default.  So when those people use the trust system frivolously, it endangers the system (and their victims) even more.  Therefore I believe that the trust system admins do need to reconsider their inclusion of tf on that list of default users to be trusted (or whether such a reified list should exist at all).

Finally, can someone provide a link to a concise description of the trust system and its proper usage?

I don't think this is right as I only discovered the negative rating because it did show up next to my posts (before I removed default trust).  In any case this is one of the few facts in dispute on this thread which can be empirically measured by anyone ;)

No, that is not true at all. tspacepilot opened the thread up, asking what happened. Tradefortress explained it to him, and rather than tspacepilot saying, No I never took the coins, or no, it wasn't me, they said, no, I never saw the rules so its ok that I took the coin.

tspacepilot has admitted to chatting using a bot containing the name b0t rather than bot, and withdrawing about .5BTC rather than 1.5BTC, in light of that, how can you say there is no evidence?

gotpetum brought up a good point a few posts back that I think most people are ignoring:


This quote is taken from the original Marketplace trust thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=211858.0) started by theymos.  Note the giant underlined bolded words.

there is no evidence that the whole amount was made by using a bot as the op has said he talked on there a lot and was playing with a bot so more than likely 80%+ of the 0.35BTC was him talking and 20% was the bot right now there is no evidence on how much of it was him and how much was the bot if anything he should only pay back what the bot earned him

I'm sorry salty but this isn't correct.  

1) The amounts are invented, I;m not sure from where.  Tf asserted 1.5 then .5 and I never withrew near that amount.
2) The b0t thing is a red herring.  Yes I registered that username but almost never used it.  I had hoped to deploy a bot under that name but never got the bugs worked out before I was banned.   Tf and I even had a discussion one time about that bot and he did not object to the name at the time.

To bring us back to the point: everyone agrees that tf and I had no currency trade agreement and that he is attempting to use his influence on a third party site to punish me for his grudge about my use of coinchat.

Ok, assuming that the bot only made .01 BTC, that means the amount is still wrong, but the principal is the same. Tspacepilot went on TradeFortress' site, and used illegitimate ways to gain Bitcoins. Tradefortress' feedback would still be valid, although he should probably change it to .01BTC if there was evidence.

But really, what is the difference between scamming .01BTC, .02BTC, or .5BTC, either way they would still have the negative feedback from TF and the reason. The arguement here isn't whether or not tspacepilot abused the site and took Bitcoins from Tradefortress, its A) whether its ok to post it on Bitcointalk, a different site, and B) Whether tspacepilot is at fault for abusing the system.

From the hundreds of other cases I've seen, the answer is yes to both. The amount isn't a major factor.

The rules state that a bot has to have "bot" in it's name, not "b0t". This has been mentioned before. So using that bot would have given you BTC you didn't deserve, because you break the rules.

For fuck sake, stop bringing this up. We already destroyed that argument. You don't HAVE to be in a currency trade agreement for him to decrease your trust rating. If he thinks you scammed him, he is allowed to, no matter if you guys ever made a trade.

God, why do I even bother talking to you. You only see your own truth and nothing else. I am out of here.

there is not even evidence that the bot even made 0.01BTC until it has been proven everyone should stop taking sides

If tspacepilot had not withdrew any fund from coinchat, and Tradefortress has lowered his rep for no reason, wouldn't the first thing tspacepilot would say is, hey, I never withdrew anything? They have argued about the amount, but the reasonable first step a person would take in defending themself is saying that they had taken nothing. Tspacepilot did not say they didn't withdraw Bitcoin earned by the Bot, they said they didn't withdraw 1.5 BTC or .5 BTC.

also


You didn't withdraw "anywhere near that amount" so you did withdraw something. And you "Almost never" used the illegal bot, but you did use it.

Oh if it's for fuck's sake then I think that makes your point a lot more clear.  I get it, for you TF shall can whatever he wants no matter the relevance or the accuracy.  Yes, for fuck sake I undersand you perfectly.


Probably for the best.  If all you can offer is the mantra that whatever tf does or says is right and true then I wouldn't exactly characterize your contributions as helpful.  Ciao!

Salty, I think I see your point about reducing this to a categorical notion.  However, I disagree wholeheartedly.  Tf is currently holding my reputation ransom for 0.5BTC.  He started off demanding 1.5BTC  (an amount I dont even have!).  If tf's ransom demand was 0.001btc I would probably just pay him to make this go away and hope that he didnt come back demanding more at a later date.  In any case I would be able to provide evidence from this forum where he and I made an agreement and if he didn't fulfill his part of the bargain that would also be public knowledge.  As things stand, there is 0 evidence regarding whatever I "owe" him (scare quotes because I don't believe I owe him anything).  Yet I am liable for any amount he chooses and my only recourse (it seems) is to decry the blackmail in this thread.  I really feel that the numbers do matter here because they are a) unsupported by evidence and b) my rep is being held liable for those amounts.

What this really comes down to, is:

• When was there a Terms of Service/Use/etc. published on CoinChat.org? And which revision of it specified the bot provisions, and when was that revision published?
• If that document/relevant provisions were only published after tspacepilot created his b0t and received/withdrew all BTC from using it, and CoinChat, can those terms be considered retroactive?
• Ex post facto laws are forbidden by the US Constitution for example, but should ex post facto rules be valid for private entities to claim "they broke the rules [that didn't even exist at the time they were 'broken']"?

Like I said before, I agree with TradeFortness on this point (you really should start reading). There is a lot of stuff I disagree with, but that doesn't matter now, because he has a point and I can see past my differences with him.

Have fun making up false facts and trying to get out of the corner you are stuck in.

Uh,  was this supposed to a link?  I thought you agreed that blind tf cheerleading wasn't helping and you planned to move along. 

Nope and yep. But if you twist stuff I say, I will have to correct it.

I don't think hes so much holding your reputation randsom, as he explained 1.5BTC was what it seemed you had gotten, and .5BTC is what it seems now. I'm sure he could actually check and find an exact number of coins that he lost.

The Reputation system works however people want it to work. There is no protocol or strict guideline for how it should work. If I see someone doing a very shady deal, if I wanted to, I can leave them negative feedback saying, this guy looks shady, and give them the reference link, or if someone ripped me off on Ebay, and I could link them back here, I could also leave them negative rep for that. The point of the feedback system is that you can leave notes for yourself and others, with linked proof and comments, and people can judge the validity of the claims themselves. Without proof, people will desregard the negative trust, with it, they will be far more hesistant to deal with you. My point was that the figure doesn't matter meant that unless you had planned on paying him back, whether it is for 1 Satoshi or 100 BTC, it would still show negative trust from TradeFortress, and would peg you as untrustworthy if people agreed that you are in the wrong.  If you were willing to pay Tradefortress back the amount that your bot had Actually earned, I'm sure he would be far more interested in searching through transaction histories to find an accurate figure.

but the thing is, should Tradefortress go through the logs to give you a more accurate number of BTC lost, or would it just be a waste of time. I'm sure hes thinking that a guestimate is perfectly fine, as he wont see any amount back.

And although you may not find anything wrong with your bot taking funds from coinchat, as I said earlier, it isn't really your, or Tradefortress' opinion that matters. All that matters is when someone who is going to do business with you, what will they think based on the evidence. I personally think you are at fault and wouldn't trade with you be it 1 Satoshi, or 1.5BTC (which leads into the significance of the amount owed) , and you can see that others think you are as well. But there are also other people who don't think you are at fault, so its a matter of getting people who don't find you at fault to trade with you.

Thanks, Salty.  While I'm saddened that tf's unsupported allegations would lead you not to do business with me (were there ever an opportunity), I really really appreciate your respectful tone and consideration of the argument.  I think it stands in stark contrast to most of what's been posted in this thread.  If I could get tf to talk with me in the same way, I would suppose that he and I would have been able to work something out.

Given your analysis of the free-form nature of the trust system (despite the fact that the trust thread seems to construe it much more narrowly as relevant to currency trades on bitcointalk), do you really think it's a good thing to have people known for reactionary and incindiary usage of 'risked btc' as part of the default trust scheme?  If the system is set up to include things like personal grudges not relevant to trading, then should there really be a 'default trust' list?  Finally, if the trust system isn't really about marketplace trust, isn't it more of a confusingly labelled 'friends list', like social networks or something?  I mean, if tf's lowering of my trust isn't more than a glorified 'unfriending', then I suppose I wouldn't have been that concerned.  However, saying that he 'risked xxBTC' on me (when he demonstratably hasn't) and demanding payment of that amount feels like something more than 'i dont like tspacepilot'.

I'm not saying I think you are a bad person, I'm just saying that in light of this case, I find your arguement invalid, and Tradefortress' allegations to be reasonable and believable based on the dialog between the two of you. I do believe that the amount may be incorrect, but the principal behind the thread/accusation, is that in my opinion, you exploited Coinchat and recieved Bitcoins that you should not have based on the site's rules in place. Your first comment was that you didn't know about the rules until after you were banned, to justify what happened. If someone gains unintentionally as you are claiming, as a result of ignorance of the rules, it would make sense that you apologize, and refund the amount in question. In my opinion, it is a valid claim that because TradeFortress suffered a financial loss due to the exploit, it is reasonable for him to make a mark on your trust until you two come to a resolution.

The reason TradeFortress is on the default trust list, to my understanding, is because he found a weak point in the forums security, and rather than exploiting it, he helped to fix it. That paired with his previous history of leaving accurate and reliable feedback for others, he was put onto the default trust list. All grudges aside, just the black and white picture, you took money from Tradefortress in a way that was not designed or allowed in Coinchat, and because of that he pegged you as untrustworthy. I don't really see any malicious intent in TradeFortress' amount that he pegged you as owing, I just think that in order to get a completely accurate figure, he would have had to spend additional time getting the facts completely straight for a case that didn't matter to him, because he wasn't going to see his money again. So rather than spend his time on a lost case, he make a ballpark guess.

As far as me not trading with you again, that was a little harsh, but I was trying to use myself as an example to get my point across. Your best bet is buying/selling things is to always use escrow. Trustworthiness isn't as big of a deal if someone reliable is holding the funds that could be scammed on either side. That or work something out with TradeFortress, and get this thing settled. Although, even then, escrow is still a good plan.

Sorry to necro bump this thread, however it seems pretty clear to me that tspacepilot scammed TF in this case. I understand that scammer tags were in effect at this time, yet for some reason "OldScammerTag" did not leave tspacepilot a negative trust. Also several members of default trust seem to have agreed that tspacepilot scammed TF, however did not leave any negative trust of their own. Has the practice of multiple members leaving negative trust when someone scams a somewhat new practice?

Assuming the mods are going to allow this insane necro bump, surely you realize that anyone looking at your post history would take into account that you are on some kind of anti-tspacepilot bender.   The real qustion is why?

I am asking a legit question. I see above that you had admitted to using a bot on CoinChat, didn't use the proper string of "bot" in your handle, and withdrew some amount of funds when doing so would have violated the terms of the CoinChat TOS (which you would have agreed to when you signed up).

Your post history does resemble that of a spammer (I wonder if you have used any bots to post here ::) )

I don't see any reason why the necro bump would not be allowed. There are several open threads about the trust system, and it appears that the trust system has failed in this case because when TF was removed from the default trust network, you lost your "warning: Trade with Extreme Caution" tag despite you still being a scammer.

I wonder if your thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1031791.0) asking to dilute the trust system has anything to do with this thread.

I honestly dont care why the dirt was dug up, but I wonder how you manager to keep this hidden from your rating. Several highly trusted people have left their opinion on this matter, but no ratings which reflect them. Your account currently seems legit, mainly because ratings by TF no longer carry much weight. Well, rather it would seem like this if it was not for Quicksellers rating.

It seems that people seem to distrust TF so much that they just outright ignore his claims without even looking into them. The coinlenders and inputs "hacks" took place very shortly after this took place, at which point TF was likely preoccupied with dealing with that and could not even bring additional attention to this scam.

Since TF turned scammer, he pointed out a number of scams/scandals that everyone promptly ignored. There was the silvercane ponzi that for some reason scammed him first and the community ignored him and then ended up getting scammed. When dicebitco.in scammed, he advocated that people remove their signature and many people promptly ignored him, some people appeared to do the opposite for the sake of not listening to him. I want to say there are more examples but cannot think of them off the top of my head.

From what I can tell people were not leaving negative trust against people when they were discovered to scam verses the 4-5 negatives that people would generally receive today when they are discovered to scam. Plus you can add the fact that no scam accusation was ever opened and TF was on default trust at the time. Not only that but he was a newbie/junior member at the time this happened so it was likely assumed that the account would get abandoned once this came to light (and likely was abandoned until TF was removed from default trust).

You ran a bot on coinchat, probably with TF's help. You admitted this before, so you can't really deny it now:


Coinchat paid people to chat, not bots. Bot owners on coinchat we're supposed to tag their bots with "bot" so that the system would mark them as inelligible for payments for the chatting they did.

So what exactly are you saying TF is lying about? are you saying your bots never received any payment for chatting? Or perhaps that TF said to you your bots were elligible to receive payments? This is what I don't understand at all. You claim the allegations are untrue, but don't say what is untrue, just that TF is a scammer, which is somewhat relevant of course but I have not took anything TF said into account here, only things you said and my knowledge of how coinchat worked.

You never said either of these things in the initial complaint or gave any other excuse so I suspect you did defraud coinchat, however this was a long time ago and the Bitcoin price was much lower too, approximately $128.50/BTC. So if you did defraud coinchat the amount you took was only ~$64. Not exactly the scam of the century, and as long as you don't have a history of doing this kind of thing then I don't think this on its own makes you very untrustworthy, nobody is perfect and everyone makes mistakes, there are no heros or villains in this world - only heroic and villainous acts.

Perhaps what you could do is offer to refund the $64 to someone who was scammed by TF. Maybe you could do this to "atone". However, the way you have acted when confronted about this by Quickseller doesn't exactly scream trustworthy at all.

Like I said in the thread that he opened on me, I don't think he is ever going to get caught scamming in the future because he has learned his lesson on how to avoid getting caught and displays a tendency to dispute any claim of him scamming even though the evidence again him is clear.

You say you "wonder how I managed to keep this hidden", I think it's pretty clear that the global mods in this thread saw this as an unsubstatiated he-said-she-said and left it at that.  TF was amongst the elite at the time, but history has spoken here.  My accounts "seems" legit because I am legit.  I'm a long-time bitcointalk forum member who doesn't do trades, but who does like to talk about the technical details of the protocol/software and I like to gamble and talk about gambling and I occassionally take small coding jobs.



Here's the deal man, first off, I feel very angry that I'm having to try to go through all this again, given the large time distance and the fact that while I have caused 0 problems around here, TF has well... But nevertheless, QS is determined to drag us all back through this mud so here we go.  I don't deny that I was working on a bot but I do deny any fraud or anything else.  I was in good-faith chatting on coinchat (using my fingers to type the messages and my eyes to read the replies and my own brain parse and understand them) and I was learning node.js and seeing what's what.  My best guess as to what happened is that my code didn't have a timer correctly set or I had some loop in there (I was a total noob) and that I sent a bunch of messages in a row or something and that's why "admin"/TF banned my account.  As I said upthread, it was only after getting banned that I got any kind of info about the rules for bots, how they were to be named, where they were to be chatting and whatnot.  This is despite asking TF about those rules on coinchat and him never getting back to me about it (I swear this info is somewhere upthread here and I still haven't read it all again).  Some time later (weeks, I'm not sure, but I recall it being later) I find the negative feedback on my account and I started this thread because I wasn't really sure what to do about it.

When you say that reading through this doesn't make you think that I should be seen as untrustworthy you should ask youself this.  Does it mean that I should be kicked out of a signature ad campaign?  I don't do trades so negative feedback from QS only has one real impact, it got me booted from my signature ad campaign and this was exactly his goal.  He even stated it on the main thread of my campaign.  Then he spent about a day looking for something to use against me and this is what he came up with.  After you've answered that, ask yourself this: is this the kind of behavior you'd expect from someone on default trust?  Bullying small, unimportant people because they've disagreed with you in the past?  Is that what default trust is supposed to be used for?

Here's the problem with you quoting those numbers: they are completely arbitrary.  TF had accused me in this thread of taking some wild amount of BTC that I didn't even own at the time, then he "ballparked" it somewhere else then I think he settled on "all money I had ever withdrawn".  But as I said, I spent many hours on that site chatting and having fun and I had withdrawn my rewards legitimately.  TF was throwing numbers out with no backing and demanding that I pay him those amounts in order to remove his negative rating.  I walked away from that ransom attempt.  History has shown what kind of guy he was and what kind of stock should be placed into his accusations.



Quickseller is some kind of zealous madman on a rampage against me at this point.  I honestly do not enjoy these drama festival flame-wars and I started a thread in Meta only a few days before this nonsense against me began in an attempt to make things more drama free around here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1031791.0   For that reason, I locked the main thread in which I call out QS for his unmotivated mudslinging smear campaign because the thread had degenerated into a flame war.  I'm not interested in continuing that flame war here.  QS, the best thing you can do at the moment is remove your negative trust on me and hope that I forget about this by the time that BadBear gets back from holiday.

so you admit to receiving some amount of funds that were not actually due to you then. If the bot was still running when it was not "intended" to then you would have earned some amount.
Doesnt matter. You are a spammer so not having an incentive to post on here is probably good for the forum overall, however regardless, you scammed, end of story. Just because you claim that someone was motivated to find dirt on you does not give you an excuise to have scammed in the past.
it doesn't matter if you scammed for .01 or 1.5, the fact of the matter is that you scammed. When you were called out about it you refused to pay and refused to even try to make it right.
why would I remove my negative? You scammed. When I called you out about the scam you threatened me and started a flame war. When people started to say that you were wrong you locked the thread you opened against me. All of these things make you untrustworthy in my (and probably in most anyone else's who is reasonable) eyes.

Nope, that's not right at all.  You're purposefully trying to twist what I say into some sort of confession to a crime that I didn't commit.  Even if you manage to twist my words enough that everyone's confused that still won't change the facts of what happened.  It will just mean that you succeeded in confusing everyone at my expense.

What I admitted to up there was that I wasn't very good with asynchronous code and I had some bugs that probably caused TF to flag my account as spamming.  This is me speculating about what TF's perspective may have been, why it was that he banned me. That doesn't in any way add up to an admission of spamming or scamming or whatever.

Well it does of course matter that I did not scam or spam, as TF puts it.  And the fact that TF is making up numbers left and right shows what this was, a blackmail attempt.
Nope, I did not scam and i haven't and won't.  It's not my style.  My style is gambling and writing code and enjoying study.  Your style is the dramas and the flamewars and the mudslinging.  I closed the thread because I don't want to go back and forth with you for another week while we wait for this to be settled.  Everyone can read through that thread (and this one, geez) and see what's going on here, you went on a mission against me and you have (temporarily) succeeded.  The reason you should remove the negative trust is so that badbear doesn't have to remove you from his trust list for this kind of behavior, but maybe he will anyway, I dunno.  I'm locking this thread too because I see no reason for this to continue.  You are intransigent, you are angry, you are full of yourself and your own power.  We'll see how long you last.

Id like add my view on things, tspacepilot was so nice to unlock the thread for this. I cant say if the thread will be locked afterwards or not. That is not for me to decide.

Firstly I value Quicksellers input on things and I think the rating is not a violating or misuse of the DefaultTrust status. It is pretty clear that the Trust System does not follow much rules and it should also be very clear that it is more often than not based on opinions.

I was tempted to add my rating along with Quickseller, but I decided against this. Keep in mind that I might be biased on this as TF tried to blackmail me in the past (see the above post by quickseller regarding the dicebitco.in campaign), I tried to mitigate this by consulting several close friends IRL.

My main reason is that there is no solid proof. I read through all the old posts as well as the new posts and never was any solid evidence presented. As I said above that is not always how the trust system works, but in this case I think it should. Its been way over a year and I think multiple negative ratings are uncalled for. A single negative rating by quickseller can be countered by a few good trades. A single rating can also be discussed with a signature campaign manager. This gets harder to more negative ratings an account has accumulated and I dont see any reason to make it any harder as it already is.

Indeed I am going to relock it because I think that the discussion is getting to the point of going round-and-round and the real solution here is in badbear's hands, but being away, I have to wait.

As you say, Shorena, there's no solid proof against me and what's more, I don't do trades and I don't cause trouble.  This whole thing is motivated on Quickseller's personal anger against me.  Perhaps from this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1018585.msg11034617#msg11034617

Perhaps from elsewhere where I have disagreed with him.  You can see that when I disagree with him he quickly switches over to "you are and idiot/don't know what you're talking about" or "you are just a spammer".  He does this against me in multiple threads and now that he's admitted that ACCTseller is his alt the timeline of his vengence campaign against me is really clear. (perhaps relevant, in this thread he seem to be arguing just the opposite point https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=875272.msg10015541#msg10015541, proof that the guy is interested in being right and winning the argument at all costs, ie, can't admit when he's wrong).

You are completely correct that trust system is unmoderated and QS can use it how he likes (see here for my ideas how how to have less drama over this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1031791.0).  Nevertheless those on default trust don't stay on there for long if/when they start using their status as a way to take out personal grudges, begin flamewars, etc.

In that spirit, I'm relocking this thread and awaiting the return of badbear or the removal of QS's smear, or both.