Bitcoin Forum

And seeing this system is not being moderated, why is this? Aren't I free with my f*cking merits for the god sake? Why do people follow merit transactions of other people and take a record of them? Bullshit. Lauda and such people MUST mind their own business.

If the system is not moderated, you wouldn't be having this situation you are in now. Besides, the merit system has clear terms and conditions of usage. Emphaty is not a ground to award merits. And 50 merits at a time was too much even for Emphaty sake. You just have to plead for mercy.

I wanted Lauda and the moderator in the local forum to remove this score.

I didn't get a response from either of them.

Finally, I wanted to announce my voice by creating this topic.

I'm hoping to get a result...

I am pretty sure merits are not moderated (says on local thread made by local moderator)... After all, this score is still untrue and misleading because NO trade was made.

Scams are not moderated either. Having a trade is not a prerequisite to leaving Trust.

You don't get the point. This feedback is STILL false. I did NOT request anything (money/merits) in return even though that person sent me. But Lauda says we did a trade.

I have a solution: Let's completely remove Merits of both or give back to their owners and Lauda remove this feedback.

Reading through your Trust left, you did not have any trades with them either?


combeltga   2017-07-30   0.00000000      SPAM ACCOUNT. POTENTIAL SCAMMER. BE AWARE!
Xmaseven   2017-08-10   0.00000000   Reference   Solely bought to manage the scam project Snapshot.
TeamSnapshot   2017-08-10   0.00000000   Reference   Scam project Snapshot. Scammed 20K+ worth of Eth.

I added a trust system to the marketplace sections. When you're logged in, you'll now see something like this next to Marketplace posts:

The first number is the user's trust score calculated based on how consistently they've received positive feedback. Probably no one will get a score above 0 until the system has been around for at least a month. The second number is the number of reported scams. The third number increases with the number of positive reports, as does the fourth number in parenthesis, though the fourth number is more resistant to abuse. This text changes color depending on the score. Users with a negative score (attainable through scamming) get a red warning attached to their posts.

These scores are taken from your trust network. They are not global scores. You can edit your trust network here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust
If your trust depth is set to 2 (the default), you will trust feedback by people you trust, people they trust, and people they trust. I might change the default in the future; we'll see how this works. Your trust list is public.

On feedback pages, you can leave trade feedback. There are no rules for this, but here are some guidelines:
- List all of the trades that you do with people (or at least the major ones). This is not like #bitcoin-otc where you give people just one score.
- Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts.
- Older ratings count for more, so don't delete old ratings if you can avoid it.
- "Risked BTC" is how much money you could have lost if the person you're rating had turned out to be a scammer. Or, if they are a scammer, it's how much you lost. Use the BTC value at the time of reporting.
- It's OK to post a rating about the person in general, not tied to a specific trade.
- If you want to make a rating stronger, increase "Risked BTC". 50 extra risked BTC is equivalent to an additional rating.

If your trust list is totally empty, you trust "DefaultTrust", which includes some trustworthy people that I'll select. But if you add anyone to your trust list, even if they don't trust anyone, DefaultTrust will no longer be considered part of your trust list.

In the near future I'll add these same ratings to PMs.

Tell me if you see any bugs. I didn't test this much yet.

In fact, they scammed me. Those are the accounts of ICO scammers. I translated their material for the bounty that I have never received. Get it now?

Obviously you don't get it now or ever. You have no clue how Trust works.

What a son of a bitch is this Lauda. Please have a look: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2829282 Sorry, but she certainly deserves that curse.

it must be the dowry for the marriage

You were trying to cheat the merit system - it such looks fair to me.

The people who scream "abuse" the loudest are usually the ones that deserve it the most.  :/

Lauda is lazy, rude, liar, scammer (has some clone accounts on this forum-there are some topics on forum if you search) no one loves her/him.
That person is violating the trust system on the forum to use her/his campaigns if someone join that campaign without her/his wish.
Neither campaign participants not coin owners like her.
Last time i joined her campaign for MANO coin team members said me they regret to hire her because she is lazy (dont do her job on time) and rude ppl on the the campaign. I have screenshot about that conversation with mano team.

Speaking of lazy, I wouldn't pay you either if you can't be bothered to even run a spell check on your garbage, let alone write something that makes sense.

"Foundaiton" LOL

What you talk about? who cares f.cking spell check here. Everyone understand what i meant.
Writing here and taking money for a work is very different things to compare laziness.
I think you miss the main idea here and talking bullshit. Or you are an other fake account of that f.cking Kitty that you try to digress the main subject here.

I'm talking about your "work" that you expect to get paid for. If you can't be bothered to do your "work" properly - why should you get paid?

https://medium.com/@saphiretr

Your article is a steaming pile of horseshit.

1. it is not your f.cking business. and i dont know why you interested in my work. Do you check all the articles ppl write here for >2500 characters :)
2. there is no problem with my article. if you really care you can write better.

I'm not interested in your "work" at all. Just stating the obvious fact that you're a shitposter whining about not getting paid.

You cant declare my article "shitposter" you dont even have the right for this.

You're the shitposter, not your article. Your article is shit, you posted it, you're the shitposter, i.e. one who posts shit. Quite simple really. I don't need any special rights for this.