Bitcoin Forum

I notice to today I have a message next to my name: "Warning: Trade with extreme caution!"

As it appears Goat is now on the default trust list, despite that fact that he completely abuses the "trust" feedback, leaving negative feedback for just about anything he doesn't like (basically using "negative trust" as a "dislike")

Examples of negative trust he has left for me (keep in mind that I have never had or attempted to have any business/trading deals with Goat):
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=73389

Claim 1: With this claim he also claims that he "risked 1BTC" with me:

Lied about Bitcoin being illegal in Thailand. Claimed to be a media source. do not trust this guy with anything he says, never trust him with BTC

Claim 2: He makes another distrust rate about the same issue:

His wife runs the now closed and suspected scam site bitcoin.th.co

PM me for info if you need to file a claim with the Royal Thai Police.

A) The site is bitcoin.co.th

B) It's not a scam site, and the business is still in operation, business is still in good standing

The fact that one individual on the forum can dislike a topic, and then make it so that every single bitcointalk users seeing by default that "Warning: Trade with extreme caution!" is crazy.  If you look through Goat's negative trust feedbacks for other users you can clearly see he as a recent history of abusing the feedback system.

I don't mind if anyone leaves me totally unfounded bullshit feedback, but when that is instantly visible in red next to any thing I post that crosses the line.

Goat isn't on the default list. Badbear is on the default trust list, and Badbear trusts Goat. So goat is a layer deeper.

If you wanted him off of it, you would have to talk to Badbear about it, and convince him to remove him.

Isn't the default trust list depth set to 2 by default?

Which means Goat is on the default trust list by default.

Or if the default depth is only set to 1 then it really doesn't matter, so only users changing their depth settings would see Goat's feedback; and I live with that.

Yeah the default is two I think, but still same outcome, you need to talk to Badbear. Hes the only one who has any say in the matter.

*edit* hold on a second, I think I'm reading something wrong, tis late, lemme relook at the default trust.

Ok, message sent to Badbear.

Yeah I'm pretty tired, and am unable of processing how Goat is on the Default trust list. He doesn't seem to be on Theymos' default trust list, and it looks like Goat added trust to Badbear, not the other way around.

Then again, I could just be reading the list wrong, I'll designate someone else to answer this question for you, maybe Mr.Goat himself  :)

My best guess is he is on the Third level in depth. CanaryintheMine who is on the default trust list trusted Maidak who trusted Goat.

This ^
He is under Badbear's trust list.

goat is a bitch

I think the term you are looking for is 'doe' or 'nannie'.

 - edit: make that 'nanny'.

What's the purpose of default trust?

Supposedly so that feedback left by respected community members can be seen by all.

Somehow Goat has managed to wheedle or pay his way into that group, and so any of his bullshit feedback is seen by all.

There appears to be two ways to get labelled as a scammer on the forum:

Method 1)
- A member lays out an accusation with full story and facts to support their claim
- The accused can posts rebuttal and other members can ask questions
- Mods weigh the case and assign a scammer tag if they feel the evidence is compelling

Method 2)
- Goat doesn't like something you say

you left me bad trust saying you think im a scammer cause i dont accept escrow when in fact i have escrow with john is cool in my ad. truth is you left me that trust cause i deleted your post asking me to ship first for you. you troll around this forum harassing people like your the secret police of bitcointalk. you attack my integrity cause you have more posts than me and "VIP" under your name. your a dipshit goat and i love it when i see other people call you out for being a jerk.

you already started a thread about me in scam accusation. we went back and forth and there was no compromise. why the fuck should i create another thread about this? right here is the perfect place to bring this up cause there is another person who started this thread saying you leave unfair trust.

you called me a scammer so i called you a scammer. you left me bad trust so i left you bad trust. you know whats up dont act like your innocent. you started this BS. you posted about me in scam accusation and left me bad trust warning others you think im a scammer without me saying a single word to you. all i did was delete your post. i let a few weeks go by and PM'd you trying to make peace and offer to mutually remove the BS from each others profile. you are too proud to go back on it and admit you have no good reason to call me a scammer.

If you see a person abusing their default trust rating you should welcome it instead of fighting it.  The more people see the red and then investigate and realize it's BS the less meaningful it becomes thereby solving the problem all on it's own.  Before I used to see it and think oh wow red better be careful but as I go along and investigate I realize it's mostly childish or politic BS so think of it as noob repellant.  Noobs stay away from you and those who understand what it really is don't care that it's there.  Look I'm red too and loving it.   8)

fuck that this guy is throwing his post count and "VERY IMPORTANT PERSON" status around with the intent to ruin others reputation. he is a self righteous bully he deserves to be called out and belittled the same way he treats others.

Badbear don't care.

john doesnt care either. since he is the "global troll buster" i PM'd him about goat starting a scam accusation thread about me but i guess they dont care enough to put goat in his place and scold him for spreading his BS around the forum.

i PM'd him 3 weeks ago when you started the scam accusation thread.

I do care, problem is OP has already spread misinformation and lies about me as well, so I have no reason to believe him and intervene as he has requested. Also consider that goat isn't the only one to leave him feedback for that so I have a hard time believing it's personal as he claims.

John K isn't related in any way. Badbear is the only one responsible for Goat being a part of the trust list. And that is until someone else on the default trust lists trusts him as well. There aren't secret meetings where we all get together and gossip and decide who to add to the list. If someone does a deal with someone on the default trust list, and they leave positive feedback, they are now on the list.

Actually a slight surprise, as Badbear and Goat don't get along very well. The fact that Badbear trusts Goat just means that he seriously would trust goat finanically.

i know, i only PM'd him cause i saw global troll buster under his name. goat is a troll so i was hoping he would bust him for spreading fud.

Generally I don't see a big surprise here.  There are people I don't get along with at all but would trust relatively highly in financial matters.  Similarly there are people I get along with well who I would not trust with a $10 bill.  I'm talking about in real life more than in cyberspace of course, but the same basic principle applies even here.

goat should be banned.

 :D

this forum does ban for trolling right? im pretty sure he has crossed the line many times. give him the boot. he wont be missed. bitcointalk will be a better place.

That's incorrect, leaving someone feedback doesn't add them to your or anyone's list.

Sorry, should have reworded that. If someone on the default trust list, trusts someone else, then that other person's feedback onto another person, is then categorized as "trusted feedback" assuming you use the default trust option and have appropriate depth set.

Its a confusing ass system. Sometimes I look at it and just kind of wonder how someone ended up with a certain feedback score, try and investigate, and just give up and declare it witchcraft.

No the company was never closed.  The company was buying/selling bitcoins (prior to August) , now the company is only selling USB miners and basically holding waiting until trade can begin again.

PM with more coming shortly and we can then tackle any issues that you seem to have with that information.

Yes this became apparent quite quickly.  He then got pretty hostile after my post about Goat wheedling or paying his pay onto the trust list.

I have also tried to reason with Goat, explaining at great length the process that bitcoin co. ltd. went through and why I had/have reason to believe bitcoin trading is considered illegal in Thailand.

Goat refuses to engage in reasoned discussion, but instead will only state that it's self evident that i'm wrong and untrusted.

I have tried to explain in the simplest manner possible to Goat why buying/sell bitcoin is illegal in Thailand, here was my information:


Goats response to this was "wow you really are slow."

He has poked around at the feedback he left me.  Finally remove the totally fictitious 1BTC that he "risked" with me.  However still stubbornly refuses to remove his other feedback.

Again I appeal to the mods to remove Goat from the default trust list.  I have no problem with Goat's trust still remaining on my account, but I should not be branded with a red "Warning" next to every post I make.

Which of your responses would you like to quote?  Feel free to quote the PMs.

Again, mods have no power over it. The only way to remove Goat would be for Theymos to remove Badbear from the default trust list. That or Badbear would have to remove Goat, and he has already addressed that.

As you can see from Goat's replies he provides no argument, information or fact.

Just that his feedback is unimpeachably correct and beyond question, does not require any information to back it up.

And once again includes an insult for good measure.

Ok, I've adjusted the topic to include Badbear.

I contacted Badbear as per SaltySpitoon suggestion to remove Goat from his 2nd level trust, as this was resulting in Goat being on the default trust list.

I explained to Badbear that Goat's feedback was untruthful and the information showing why it was wrong.

Badbear showed no interest about knowing more or reading the information, instead said that because another person (Lohoris) had also left similar feedback then it must be true (despite the fact that Lohoris had been heavily lobbied/persuaded by Goat on the topic https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=264203.100)

I also pleaded with Badbear that if Goat wanted me labeled a scammer, he should start a thread supporting it; to which Badbear said this thread should server that purpose? (So I have to create my own trial with a guilty verdict and work backwards)

Badbear said that I had to talk to Goat directly and then he was basically washing his hands of the situation; although I knew that it would be impossible to reason with Goat, I contacted him anyway as per Badbear direction....which was obviously fruitless...Badbear wants nothing more to do with it.

Badbear says about me: "OP has already spread misinformation and lies about me as well", where did I do this?

After it became apparent that this was a lost cause I posted: "Somehow Goat has managed to wheedle or pay his way into that group[the default trust list]"
And this translates into me "Spreading misinformation and lies about Badbear"?

You've pretty much proved goats case here, because you're lying. You post speculation as fact, which is exactly what the oroginal issue was about, or don't know the difference between the two, or you're trolling.

Somehow = speculation != asserting facts

Yes I was speculating how Goat got onto the trust list.

It appears there are 2 ways to get into someone's downstream trust:

1) They leave you public trust feed (ie I bought 10BTC of Goat and the deal went smoothly)...Goat is now "trusted" by you, and so therefore trusted by others that trust you

2) There also appears be some kind of private trust system, as you have not left any public trust feedback for Goat, but he appears in your downstream trust

I was speculating as to how Goat has gotten into the 2nd level default trust list without any public trust feedback from any 1st level default trust list members?  (ie it must be option #2).  And what was the reason for privately adding some to the trust downstream?

Is this not a topic worth questioning?  Is there a reasonable answer to why this has occurred?  And was Goat in your downstream trust prior to 2013-11-10?

 You have no idea how the trust system works, neither 1 and 2 are true. Being on someone's trust list isn't determined by feedback. I haven't left feedback for most people on my trust list. And yes he was on it before that date.

I've re-examined the trust system and it appears that you can add people by typing their username into the Trust list box.

So I am assuming that means you have typed "Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย " into this box on your account, is this what you mean?

You may have done this because you feel that you value Goats opinion and you'd like to see his trust feedback prominently featured next to each user; in which case my speculation about doing this because of wheedling or paying would be false and apologize to Goat and yourself for this speculation.

However I would like to point out that you are on the default trust list for the forum, which comes with added responsibility because the trust rating you see are shown to every single user in the community.  As such you should feel obligate to make sure those trust ratings/warnings are accurate*.

If you feel you didn't ask for/ didn't want this responsibility then you should recuse yourself and ask thermos to remove this responsibility by removing you from level 1 default trust list.

You may just be thinking "I'd like to see Goats ratings", you are actually saying "Every single bitcoin users should see Goats ratings"

*In this case of this thread I have called into question Goats rating, I think, considering that you are on the default trustlist and have deemed Goat worthy also, that you should take the time to properly review the case and give both parties ample chance to explain themselves with any doubles you may have.  If you feel that it's not worth your time to do this then as previously mentioned you should recuse yourself from the position.

ADMIN HELP OUR SITUATION

I AM SAME PROUBLUM

WHY GOAT MAKE -6 ME MORNING TODAY



HEY ADMIN NICK [Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย] ATACKS ME FOR NOTHING REASON

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334290.0



WHY THIS GUY MAKE ME -1
FOR NOTHING REASON

NICK
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=44233

 Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย   Picture/Text
Name:   Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย
Posts:   10400
Activity:   672
Position:   VIP
Date Registered:   October 19, 2011, 09:52:00 AM
Last Active:   Today


HE MAKE ME -1 REPUTATION NOT REASON
 Huh

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=131452


Untrusted feedback

These ratings are from people who are not in your trust network. They may be totally inaccurate.


No feedback.  Cry

Sent feedback






Trusted feedback

User   Date   Risked BTC amount   Reference   Comments
Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย 10: -0 / +18(18)   2013-11-14   0.00000000   Reference   Gambler begging for money for "sick mother"

 Huh

HEY WHY YOU MAKE ME - 6 point Double lol

 Cry

i not know him
i not here for war
i not understand and not wont be for sick guy atack me for 0$

This guy vampire my reputation

i cry


Administration please clear my profile
i not know this guy is crazy ateack me -6
i slep morning i wake up and read this in my profile today

Even John, an admin here, thought it was such FUD  that he moved it out of the press board where you posted it. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=264339.0

Won't say I agree or disagree with leaving you feedback for it, but it isn't unjustified.

goat is a bitch why don't people just leave him negative feedback also? I fucking did that ugly chai tea fucker

Your argument that I posted lies is that other people said so?  A lot of people said that world was flat, doesn't make it so.

If there is a specific thing that I said which you believe to be untrue, please let me know so what I can provide information backing up my claims.

It seems that Goat read only the title of my topic, and none of the article itself.

Title was "Bitcoin illegal in Thailand", and then the article provided details as to exactly what bitcoin activities were considered illegal in the opinion of Thai authorities.

Read details here:
https://bitcoin.co.th/trading-suspended-due-to-bank-of-thailand-advisement/

Yes, I do trust John infinitely more than I trust you, especially after the..."speculation" I've seen you post so far. It's also slightly amusing that you berate for using what someone else said, but at the same time want me to debate what someone else said.

John did not leave me any negative trust, Goat did, this is why I want to spend the time to debate, because currently i have a "Warning: Trade with extreme caution!" next to my name, which could cause me difficulty in trading with people.

Will you please consider the core issue (did I lie) or recuse yourself; as opposed to keeping the debate at Ad Hominem level.

Stopped reading here, I don't want to know about how you are same proublum and how goat made -6 you morning today.

Wtf is this thread...

Why do you think it could cause you difficulty trading with other people?  You are making something out of nothing.  There will be two types of people seeing your trust.  One set that agrees with Goat and thereby by extension disagrees with you and vice versa.  For those who agree with Goat you wouldn't want to trade with them anyways since by default they disagree with you.  So think of this as an effective filter of those people you wouldn't want to do business with anyways.  The multi page thread whining about it only increases that camp not decreases it.  Personally I think Bitcoin is so different that it is incompatible with the modern financial system so "BTC is illegal in Thailand" and "My BTC company was operating illegally in Thailand" is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.  The whining however is unproductive and annoying.

The warning says "Warning: Trade with extreme caution!", if for example i put an item up for auction ("trade") this could cause me to receive less bids, for people who are not interested in reading all the history and just steer clear because of this warning.

Note that EVERY user sees this warning by default, unless they have manually removed the default trust list from their settings.

Goat i have already provide clear evidence of why it is illegal to trade bitcoins in Thailand, yet instead of refuting this with your own evidence you just state that I'm silly/slow and of course that is wrong:

Applicable law:

http://www.kodmhai.com/m4/m4-2/h82/m1-9.html

Translation:  You can't change money "เงินตรา" without permission from the minister (BoT).  However this could be argued that bitcoin is not "เงินตรา" (money issued by a government).  If this is your contention then move to next law below:

http://www.baanjomyut.com/library/law/82.html

This means that you cannot sell, use or issue anything (object, mark, symbol etc..) that could be a replacement of "เงินตรา" (money) without permission from the minister (BoT)

The Goat is actually a snake.

I believe the Goat may be the most dangerous SCAMMER of bitcointalk. He is using multiple accounts to cover his work. It wont be long until we find who he really is.

Goat you did not address the laws which I have specifically laid out for you.  If you wish to continue to state that I'm wrong then you must refute these references.

It's spreading  :o

There is no law saying "You cannot keep a 3 year old in a basement and poke them with a stick", does that mean that it's legal to do that?  No, because there are laws again "Child Abuse" that those action would fall under.

Is there a law saying "You cannot smash someones car window with a hammer"? No, so is it legal to go around smashing peoples windows with a hammer?  No, because that would fall under "Property Damage" laws etc...

In the same way that bitcoin would fall under that laws that I have referenced in my previous post, because it would either be classified as "money" which is restricted under the first law, or it would be classified as a substitution for money which would be restricted under second law.

It's illegal to start a gold shop without a license in Thailand, yes.

There are specific laws governing the buying/selling of gold, and you need a permit to do it (operate a business buying/selling gold). *

* Edit: although I have no first hand knowledge of this only what I have been told/read, and research this further if needed (though it is a tangent)
An example of article talking about Gold shop requiring to registered with BoT:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/business/7500-gold-shops-must-be-registered-Commerce-30217019.html

If this is case then you must be able to show at least one business that is legally buying/selling bitcoins in Thailand, and a business that is legally buying/selling gold without any permits?

Why would I be "trolling", I'm here with a specific purpose, and that it to show that your negative trust is incorrect.  You continue to ignore the specific applicable laws that I have shown, instead make statements with absolutely no evidence to back them up, you can't even seem show me one single legitimate real world example and yet I'm the one that is trolling?

Hey Goat, I'm still waiting for an answer to this:

https://i.imgur.com/udO0FKJ.png]https://i.imgur.com/udO0FKJ.png
Now, I have proven that you are a LIAR twice.

Goat you have still not addressed the specific law reference that I provided.

If it's a face saving issue and you don't want to be seen as "wrong" I can understand that and I can also see your side of the argument.

I'm sure that if one wanted to (or was forced to do so) one could challenge the position of the BoT in court and the court may agree that Bitcoin should not be considered "money" or a "replacement of money", in which case the BoT would have no authority to restrict it.

Given that this has not yet been tested in court it's not 100% clear it the BoT claims would hold up, as such you may not be wrong, in the future someone may make this legal challenge and win and your position would have been validated.  But until that time your negative trust in unwarranted.

You have still not addressed why you think these laws don't apply to bitcoin?  Instead you use a gold as a strawman argument when you know there are specific laws governing gold and even in the US there are legal tender laws blocking the use of gold as a currency.

So if you dont understand it, what chance do newbs have?

And as for goat being on the DefaultTrust list, I mean wtf? And If I read this right, he paid to be on it? LOL

Wow, this whole 'trust system' should be renamed 'abuse system', because that is how its commonly used. Everyone on this board would agree, (except for an elect few who seem to have enough buddies to make sure they all pat each on the back and give each other positive trust), the whole thing is farcical. Theymos said he would 'trial' this system & kudos for making the effort, but it has failed, and failed miserably. As a result, reps are inaccurate to a large degree, and as such are meaningless & misleading, except to those that dont understand the system and accept ratings at face value.

Its about time the whole 'trust system' was removed. It has failed to achieve its goal, and contrary to its aims, is a broken mess that is not to be trusted.

Gravedig moar. I do believe the Trust system has flaws which do need to be fixed ASAP, though. The idea behind the Trust System is quite good and well thought-out, but when it comes to how DefaultTrust is managed (100% centralized, as a matter of fact) and the actual execution of the system, it falls apart.

Goat wasn't on default trust, he was on mine for a little while. And no he didn't pay for it, don't be so quick to believe something you read just because it supports your beliefs. 

Since we are all necroing threads here.  Why are banned people ie Goat still part of trust system at all?

I PM'd BadBear about this a couple months ago, and by the lack of his reply I'm assuming that he is uninterested in auditing his Trust list.

I removed him like, 9 months ago. Here's a reference for that, and I posted later on in that thread about why. I don't recall ever getting any pm's from you.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=386422.msg4265231#msg4265231

Little off topic.. but... who reckons the default trust list should be changed from 2 deep to 1 ???
Would solve a lot of issues..

In certain threads you can't reply or give opinion in fear of some tard who is a few levels deep from giving you neg rating... generally to protect some one or them selves from people commenting.... 

That is probably the best option. Although the issue then would be it would centralise the system to much.

Hmmmm yeah you're right, good point. It would be more central which would defeat the purpose.
Getting rid of the system all together wouldn't be so bad..

The main problem I think is people making other people go 'red' for personal reasons. Not sure if Goat had the power to do it, think he did... he would fit perfectly in this scenario. i.e He doesn't like you due to some stupid personal issue, maybe you didn't roll the red carpet out for him, or you looked at him the wrong way, then bam... 'red'.

Thank you for the clarification :)

My point exactly. Anyway, lets just ignore the elephant in the room and make out its not there.

Perhaps if we just ignore it it will go away  ::)

The people listed on DefaultTrust are something like moderators in charge of maintaining the default trust network (because I don't want to do it myself). A default trust depth of 2 is necessary to make that work:
- Depth 0: DefaultTrust
- Depth 1: "trust moderators"
- Depth 2: people in the default trust network

If you significantly modify your trust list, then a depth of 1 would probably be most appropriate. Depth 2 trusts people who are trusted by people who are trusted by people you trust, which in practice tends to be too much if you have your own trust list.

Some of the problems with the Trust system are caused by it not being a real web of trust. Trust spreads too far and too quickly. I know how to fix this, but it's difficult to implement, especially in an efficient way. This is on the requirements for the new forum software.

I agree that having things centralized like this is imperfect, but I don't know of any better solution. Making the default trust list blank would make the whole system nearly useless because it would take months for new users to notice that the feature exists and figure out how to use it. Perhaps after users reach a certain activity level the forum should make them define a trust list if they've ever posted in the sections that use Trust.


If you use DefaultTrust with depth 2, then ratings like those are bugs in the default trust network and you should post about it in Meta. Someone will be removed from the default trust network to fix it.

Why not just scrap the default trust list all together.
Go back to the old system were if someone scammed they go red. That list can be maintained by the mods. Surely a couple of mods wll be happy to maintain the list.

At the moment I don't see an advantage... for e.g. back in the pirate days... pirate would of had 10000000000+ feedback points... then he does his little scam and everyone is farked over... even though he was so incredibly trusted; however in the end it would of made no difference because everyone would of gotten screwed over.

Alternatively.... Make a system were you can only add trust if both parties agree... So Alice enters a deal with Bob... Bob agree's... Now Alice can make up any lie she wants.... and Bob does not have to agree and can call Alice a lying bitch... but the beauty is both Bob and Alice entered into an agreement to be able to add feedback for each other.... So regardless of the outcome they both agree'd to to be able to add feedback.
Right now anyone can add anyhing they want abou anyone... Its the same reason WoT didn't work... you can basically just add anything to anyone, even if neither party was in a business relationship.

Theymos, I'm not sure if you have done any analsysis.. but if so... has the rating system made a positive difference ??
Half the time a newbie comes on.. they don't know the rules... they ask for money... and get made 'red'. Now quite possibly they were going to scam... quite possibly indeed... but on the other hand you don't know that...

Another option which would reduce so much spam.... don't allow newbies to post up in the loans or securities section!!!!!

I just think its so flawed. Someone could do 50 0.05BTC trades equalling.. what like $100... high roller!!!
Where as in 2012 me for example (and MANY others) were borrowing and lending out 1000's of BTC... Even though BTC might of been $5 each... 1000's of them at a time could equal a shit load... I know in my example... Foggyb was lending me $1000's of BTCs at a time.. and I would pay him back 10% interest on time every time... but maybe I only did it 10 times to a single person..... so perhaps I borrowed $20k and paid back $20K plus interest... who is more trusted... me who borrowed $20k+ and repaid.. or someone who borrows 0.05BTC 50 times from different people ?????

Thanks for reading :)