Bitcoin Forum

I know we like to usually look at things the other way around for example

If someone knowingly promotes or supports a scam or untrustworthy project we will term those persons untrustworthy and scam supporters.

However what if project willingly is employing or supporting individuals that are PROVEN untrustworthy and dishonest or even perhaps prior scammers??

Should then we class them as untrustworthy projects and therefore risky and dangerous to become involved with and perhaps even our duty as honest members to alert other members to this danger?

Can you not only vote but can answer and provide full reasoning behind your reply.

Let's not discuss individual cases here.

Yes, I'm strongly inclined to tag anyone who knowingly hires frauds/scammers - although each case would have to be reviewed independently. e.g. a BH accepting a translator which was already tagged as fraudulent.

I am pleased to hear you say that Lauda.

I forgot to say that I did not vote because I don't agree with the biased reasoning on either option. The poll should not have any 'because' but rather 'Yes vs. No' and let people elaborate themselves.

I don't think any trustworthy project would be willing to hire someone deemed untrustworthy If the project cares about its reputation or doesn't have an hidden agenda only which the person can satisfy.

At least IMO, There can be a few exemptions such as;
1. Those who considered the person untrustworthy, can they be trusted ?
2. There can be some reasonable explanations to PROVEN cases, but very rare.

Both are subjected to independent reviews and perspectives of the employer, just as Lauda supposed.

That being said, I however, strongly believe that almost every project will more often than not, tend to shy away from being dragged to such controversial situations.

I will add the word PROVEN in the specific polling options because that makes things clearer. Even though I did put this in the title of the thread already.

And who is going to define untrustworthy?

I have 4 red tags. Is it defining that I am untrustworthy? Trust and untrust is highly subjective. If a project find what they need from a person then they should be hiring them nonetheless they have red trust or not. They are paying their own money not yours or mines. So let them decide who they should pick.

By the way this does not mean that you do not leave a feedback (negative) if the project has clear intention to scam.

If they are PROVEN to be Scammers, then It's not out of place to negatively tag such project that hires them or consider it a potential scam.

That depends on the task the untrustworthy person will be responsible for.
If he is hired to accomplish a particular task and under clear terms, and by performing this task he is unable to misslead investors or scam them, that doesn't make the project a scam.

Would you yourself hire an proven untrustworthy person to do any task that you could hire a trust worthy person to do?

Perhaps give me an example of where you would if indeed you would do so .... and why you would do that?

Question is hard, if project support PROVEN untrustworthy person then that project isn't trustworthy to me. Problem is who will determine PROVEN untrustworthy? I tag someone if he isn't trustworthy to me, it doesn't mean he is not trustworthy to all over forum.

However since you have used proven,so we should mark them untrustworthy this kind of projects who had hired proven scammers, and we should prevent them by alerting peoples. We could make tread on Reputation or on Scam Accusation in order to alert peoples.

The bounty scam project is very abusive, even worse, when it reaches (hardcap) before the specified time, the team itself is deceptive and the results are carried away, in this case if proven and scam I think it is necessary to make a special thread. for this ...? sometimes given (redtrust) does not give a deterrent effect to the fraudulent "manager". I hope the purpose of this treand can tidy up the bounty manager list, even though it's already there but only the recommended bounty list manager.

By your logic, anyone employing a known extortionist should be seen as untrustworthy.

I will keep this in mind...

Gee, I didn't expect this thread to end up being about Lauda.  I'm shocked, I tell you.  Shocked.

If we're talking about things like signature campaigns, most already have provisions in place that preclude anyone tagged with a DT neg from joining, which I agree with.  Projects don't want to be associated with scammers or even red-trusted members who aren't necessarily scammers but who might have done questionable things in the past (like mdayonliner) which earned them red trust.  The difference in the eyes of campaign managers (IMO) between Lauda's ill-advised sting operation and mdayonliner's $100k escrow attempt is the relative amount of trust each has.  Lauda has earned a ton of positives and has a far more established, net-positive reputation than mdayonliner.  

I'm not trying to single either member out, but it's a good example of why one might get accepted into a campaign and one might not--though I don't think mdayonliner has been denied before.  Maybe he could clear that up; I do recall him applying to one and getting in despite his overall red trust and that's likely because he's never actually pulled a scam here, ponzi history aside.

This question is so loaded and agenda-driven that I'm not sure what c-hunter is expecting to accomplish here.  I doubt anyone would want a proven scammer working for them, so the question really comes down to the definition of proven.  On bitcointalk, that's kind of a community consensus, with a sprinkle of politics on top since the actual outcome of an accusation depends on what DT members do.  

Edit (it'll get deleted in the other thread):
Meow.

Well since you are a DT1 member you have motive to agree with it. I wish I could have more faith in what you say. However , you are also a proven greedy sock puppet racist trolling sig spammer and that is rather untrustworthy. Therefore the rest of your post must be treated with extreme caution.

Persons of long standing that have no history of wrongdoing have been given red trust for even presenting the facts regarding wrongdoing of DT members. So I can not agree with your first point. That ALL those with red trust should be precluded from anything right now.

You clearly have motivation to push this narrative, you have proven yourself untrustworthy, you are somehow part of the trust system, this is even more proof that DT tags are not to be trusted, some have been red tagged for presenting facts regarding the wrong doing of DT members. That to me destroys faith in the entire system since there is hard evidence and yet many DT members are sanctioning such actions themselves.


I see, so you are saying that projects will not wish to be associated with proven liars like lauda, or proven sneaky greedy racist trolling sock puppet sig spammers like you? I would agree with you strongly on this point.


No, no, it is good that you turned up and brought Lauda into it, I was really trying to keep it free from these individual examples kind of thing. Let's discuss people that everyone is familiar with before we get down to the unknowns like mayday onliner or s therapist


Well, you know what proven is like. When it is there in black and white. Like when you were busted and had to admit your greedy and devious and quite offensive to some untrustworthy actions. Or proof like Laudas lying , or proof like tmans self confessed trust abuse.

Would you like to see the evidence... so that you start to understand what PROVEN is like?

So after clearing those specific individual points up that the pharmacist raised. Let's all give our opinions on whether persons PROVEN untrustworthy should be shunned by projects whom wish to remain free from scepticism regarding the honesty and integrity of the project itself.

Just something to consider, "proven" untrustworthy isn't possible. Each person has their own interpretation of what untrustworthy behavior is. We can probably agree on a few criteria, but there is plenty of middle ground and gray area. We can take a very clear cut scam, and completely alter our interpretation of it with one or two words. This is just a thought, not a point that I'm trying to make or argue, no real need to discuss it directly, just something I wanted to keep in mind.

Back to the point, does the employer know that the person is untrustworthy? If they don't know, its not their fault in my opinion, of course if the employer isn't negligent.

Does that untrustworthy person need to be trusted in order to fulfill their work? If the untrustworthy person's role isn't anything that requires trust, not a problem.
- relate this statement to hiring convicted felons. You probably wont get a job in a bank, but plenty you can be trusted to do.

Does the person promoting a scam know that its a scam? Should we go after pyramid scheme victims for dragging others in after them. Not without malicious intent imo.


To your main point, I go back to, does the untrustworthy person need to be trusted by the customers. If there is a project and someone hires someone untrustworthy and they know it, if they are willing to assume liability for any further untrustworthy actions that lead to damages toward the customer, its not a problem in my opinion. Its certainly a risk factor, but it should be a risk that the employer shoulders, not a customer. I don't think you need to call an ASIC company that hires a jerk a scammer because the jerk is, but I'd certainly hope that they realize that the jerk now represents them to an extent, and they are liable for that jerk when doing business as.

You are the one who mentioned lauda, not me.

Anyway, on the subject of signature campaigns (or bounty campaigns), employing someone who has tried to extort someone as a manager is a bad reflection on the underlying company. They are effectively the face of the company, or at least more so than any individual participant in a signature campaign.

The underlying reason why companies do not want someone with negative trust participating in their signature campaign is because they do not want to be associated with a scammer.

On a specific trust rating level, Lauda has shown his willingness to tarnish the reputation of anyone critical of him (which is a far cry from leaving him negative trust), and has more or less lobbied for the exclusion of anyone willing to leave him negative trust for his extortion attempt (which was not a sting operation as he claimed).

Is this suppose to be something to debate about? A projects that knowingly employ proven untrustworthy individuals is technically an untrustworthy project. When you associates with well known criminals chances are you might be one of them. And when the police (DT members) comes for them, you'll also be arrest (red tagged) later you can appeal your case in court (Reputation board) and after investigation if project not found guilty you'll untagged. The tagging is to prevent any scammers attempt. It's as simple as that.

At first I want to say that logically when you see a person has negative trust and specially hire such people, this automatically means you are stupid and own scam business.
But also there were cases when projects had some people with both negative and positive trust. For example TMAN, Ognasty, minerjones, lauda and so on. It's absolutely different situation and also their neg trusts were removed.
I can't say we need to alert them because they can dee trust of users, it's very hard to ignore red, bold text when you read posts.
Even if project isn't scam but for budget reasons hire red tagged people, this automatically means they have very weak and poor management who know nothing around it.

@OP, I was busy for couple of days, did some kind of truce happened between you and DT.

Just wondering if a known scammer started advertising a project then will you tag the project ?
If project denied that there is no deal between their project and scammer and scammer is doing on it's own?

What if deal is happened in private?

If we are going to tag by this logic might their competitor employs scammer to advertise for the legit project so that competition can be destroyed.

I think project need to evaluated first instead of who is advertising it for giving the tags

No truce. What leads you to believe there was a truce? I am just on vacation and don't have time to post as often right now.
Also I have decided to tone down my posts to presentation of fact and observable events ONLY

How would a known scammer get to promote a legit project most are not accepting even possible scammers? well that is what I have been told so far on this thread.

To whose standard is the "proof" required? ??? Your's? Mine? Theymos'?

This is an inherent problem we have... there is no defined standard. I see "red tags" being handed out to "alts abusing campaigns" because they all happened to deposit ERC20 tokens to the same address... In my mind, this is not definitive proof of accounts being alts. As I see it, it is just as likely (as is claimed by the "alts" in a lot of these instances) that it is simply a group of friends/family members all happily spamming away on FB/Twitter to earn some tokens and then consolidating them into one account to save on transaction/trading fees.

However, multiple BTC addresses "owned" by different accounts all being linked as inputs in a single transaction is definitive proof in my eyes that the addresses all belong to one person.

I've seen users here on various sides of various disputes claim (like your poll) that there are only 2 options... Yes/No, Black/White, For/Against etc... Unfortunately, in my opinion, the world we live in, isn't so neatly black and white... there are large areas of grey in various shades. So, attempting to define everything in such a binary manner is somewhat naive.

If someone was PROVEN to lie for financial gain then to me they are PROVEN untrustworthy in a trading system. I mean anyone disagreeing with this should explain why.

You will find people that will state that raping  is not a BAD thing but then again those same persons arguing that point are likely not going to be the kind of persons that you would want to deal with very much or be left alone with if you are vulnerable. Or bring them over to baby sit for you.

People will always find some "reasons" to disagree with WIDELY accepted views on things and their arguments should be considered but when you are dealing with a simple SCORE then

1. do you want those persons that are proven to lie for financial reasons getting a positive score
2. do you want those persons that are proven to lie for financial reasons getting a negative score

I mean surely you want to TRUST what they say as being TRUE? right?

I mean you send them the goods first and they say - nope didnt get them so they gain by keeping the money? you are happy about this or not?

Let's be sensible.

But YES I agree with you we need some RULES or CRITERIA that all persons are measured against so we have a universally agreed upon scoring system that makes some sense.  Same for Meta what makes a "good " post?? as suchmoon told me the entire good post bad post is MEANINGLESS without some definition or criteria.

That's not quite what I was getting at... I'm not debating whether "proven scammers are bad" or not, but trying to determine what the standard of proof is to consider something as "proven" in the first place.

For instance, do you just need a screenshot of PM or do you need a PM that has been independently verified/corroborated by a 3rd party or do you need <something else>? Do you then need X members of DT to vote "guilty"? Do you need X "members" of the forum to vote "guilty"? etc

Does that make sense?

I am beginning to think that perhaps this might be a topic for a different thread. Apologies for the thread drift.