Bitcoin Forum

Today, I found that one of the most constructive user, nutildah (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=317618) got red trust.
His red trust left by iCEBREAKER (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=17501), who really really hate Bitcoin Cash, Monero, and DASH projects.

nutildah's profile page (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=317618)
nutildah's Trust profile (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=317618)

I don't want to distract to their differences in standpoints of those projects, my question is simple"
Is the red trust a kind of Trust Abusement?
Yesterday, Hhampuz (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=881377) created his topic on Positive/Neutral Trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5117687)

theymos' guide on leaving feedback

This one is not official guide on how to leave positive/ negative trust, but it can be used for reference.
This guide is not a pefect one, so I thought it is time for theymos and DT members to create official guide on criteria to leave negative/ positive feedback. Which kinds of violations will lead to red trust, something like that should be discussed more.
We already have forum rules, so why not have rules for Trust feedback?

---

Personally, I think this one is Trust abusement.[/list][/list][/list][/list]

NO he deserves it. He is a dirty scheme pusher and a snake. Totally a dangerous member.

If suchmoon says people pushing "possible " scams are worthy of red trust then he is 100%

The fact you are defending this red trust when there are FAR FAR more questionable red trusts given out by Proven scum is telling on your account.
Are you its ALT or something? what is your particular concern with this member?

This is why NOOB members should not be in the trust system at all. They have no idea of the history here.

HIS RED TRUST IS GIVEN FOR

SUPPORTING AND PROTECTING AND SHILLING FOR A PROVEN SCAM.  Suchmoon says even those promoting a "possible" scam need red trust. 

Forum's trust issues can be discussed in reputation board, please move it there instead.

I saw his case by chance.
He listed in my club, there:
Nutildah has currently ranked at the 116th position in the list of most merited profiles on BPIP. (https://bpip.org/report.aspx?r=mostmerited)

This is how I am seeing nutildah’s trust score  :-\

Trust:   5: -0 / +2

Really?
This is what I saw, temporarily, on the profile page of nutildah.
Trust:   -1: -1 / +1

You don't have a custom trust list, so you see his trust based on DT feedbacks (iCEBREAKER's DT2 negative feedback).

Meanwhile, you have a custom trust list. I don't know which feedback you see, but you have someone on your list's Depth 1 or 2 that left him a positive feedback.

I also confused why on this speculation board this thread was posted it is must on reputation.

And this is what I have seen on nutildah's profile.
Trust:   0: -0 / +1

Maybe each one of us has a different view on trust ratings depends on how we costume with it.

Having trust score of  0: -0 / +1 really not possible. :o

If you don't trust the feedback of ICEBREAKER then just simple add (~) before his name on your trust list,case closed.

Like I said above, nutildah has a negative feedback based on DT (Default Trust). If you have a custom trust list, you may not see it in the same way.

---

Why wouldn't it be? The "trust score" increases with time. A positive feedback (made today by Hhampuz) isn't going to score you any trust score. That's why the first digit is a 0.

Possible meh?

I though when someone got positive feedback from DT member they must attain trust score as well,atleast one.Because on many cases I have seen people with 1: -0 / +1 , but no profiles with zero trust score while having positive feedback.

Sorry for OT.
I don't think we can quote this guide since is made from one people outside the network, also I disagree with some of his guideline points.

For nutildah's situation, I'm reading the history of his feedback.

Where? You must be talking about the risked amount. That's not necessary and only means something to the score when it increases (with time).

Example:

For the score number (the first 0):

It's not only possible to have a score of 0 for a few days after the trust was placed, but when the system was implemented, everybody had a score of 0 because it requires time to increase.

Just add ;dt to ignore your trust list so

trust https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=317618;dt
profile https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=317618;dt

now from these links you shoud see -1 -1 +1

I waited for your final personal judgement on the case of nutildah as well as from others DT members.
Trust System is too complicated to me.
To be honest, I don't care too much about the Trust System, because I don't run services, and make deal with others here.
And, I only feel really trust someone when they have big amount of Trust points, above +30.
Too little positive or negative trust points might be abused, so should not be taken into consideration, seriously.

---

Despite of my limited understandings on Trust system, I still felt that current Red Trust on nutildah is a wrong one.
It's something like personal assasination.  ::)

Given that Nutilda actively supports this kind of trust rating for everyone else, I don't see any issues here. I would be happy to reconsider my position if Nutilda can explain why this rating is invalid though.

Aren't we glad to have TECSHARE in DT, what with the new "standards^*" he's advocating?

---

^* - doesn't apply to TECSHARE or his trust list.

Please focus on the case of nutildah, because I really want to known that this case is Trust abusement or not.
If it is trust abusement, the case should be use in official guideline to leave + / - trust feedback.
Criteria to leave positive feedbacks, as well as criteria to leave negative feedbacks.

---

With official criteria for Trust Feedback, the forum might be cleaner due to less topics created to complain about their red trust.

Initial trust score after getting the feedback remains 0, it gets +1 after each 30 days passed.
Read more here- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5069647.msg47920887#msg47920887

---

Liked how people are getting into custom trust list. Lately, it's working. Maybe after couple of months people will be more aware of it and build custom trust list.

I countered the negative that iCEBREAKER left for nutildah as it seems to be nothing more than arguments and a difference of opinions. I don't know nutildah any more than them being a participant in my campaign but when I read up on it I figured that was the best way to go. I also asked nutildah to remove the negative feedback they had left for iCEBREAKER since at that point it only becomes a back and forth where everyone will lose.

No that is not true.

There is not just a difference of opinion.

The project is a PROVEN scam. Or has origins tied to a scam. There is no room for opinion.

If nutildah has been constantly defending or excusing this then ...............well......

So you are making a precedent here for your trust which I am noting down.

Those supporting proven scams and defending them are not eligible for RED TRUST and you will counter that.

Thanks I will archive this now for future use.

Also you feel just arguments and differences of opinion (which this is not) are also not grounds for red trust and they too you will counter.

That's a good post and I hope that you really meant it.

I can't see any trusted feedback on nutildah trust wall on  DTview (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=317618;dt). May be due to  iCEBREAKER is out of DT network now. iCEBREAKER (-1) Excluded by Suchmoon and Hhampuz and included by TECSHARE. To be honest I am not getting why nutildah got negative feedback from iCEBREAKER. Although read reference link but it's not pretty clear to me. Am I missing something?

Well, since I have explained it several times already you must be clearly stupid not to be see the legitimate and factual reason. This easily meets the suchmoon standard for giving red trust. But guess what she now ~ to protect her pal the snake nutildah so he can rest easy again for now until he iCEBREAKER gets back on perhaps.

I already said I would reconsider my stance if Nutilda can explain why this rating is invalid. Of course that would require them to admit their own hypocrisy...
Funny how my standards should apply when it serves your brown nosing pals, but not any other time I bring it up, but I am the hypocrite right? LOL.

Well, everyone is free to cast a vote on that with their exclusions, which I just did.  As I explained in the other thread, it was long overdue.  I haven't trusted TECSHARE since he stalked me (thread, PM, and finally in a neutral trust when I blocked his PMs) after I didn't feel like engaging in a debate which his inflated ego found necessary to win.  He's aggressive and arrogant and I don't think he exhibits sound enough judgement for me not to exclude him.

iCEBREAKER likes XMR. nutildah made fun of XMR.


You can apply your standards anywhere and anytime you want. That's the difference between what you'e proposing (hard rules) and what I prefer (users choosing to include/exclude other users based on how they value their judgement). You're suggesting want to take away my freedom to decide whom to trust, you filthy communist ;). I don't want to take anything away from you. Feel free to keep iCEBREAKER in your trust list.

And you just magically decided this the day of my inclusion into the DT1 did you? Why not earlier? Oh right it is not about the exclusion, it is about making sure I am perpetually marginalized to satiate YOUR OWN ego.




If only you could refocus all that energy you spend on trying to look cutesy into making a logical argument...

The standards I advocate for would not prevent you from doing anything, you would just face consequences from other DT users as a result if you refused to follow those standards. Such a totalitarian I am demanding people be treated innocent until proof of guilt can be produced! Such Communist! WOW!

Welp, it's already something like that, albeit it's your own trust list facing them consequences. Forget the hypocrisy of not following your own "standard". If you can't be bothered to set up a responsible trust list even under the current extremely lax guidelines, you can't be trusted to be in DT.

Is it? I was on DT1 earlier today until one of your pet muppets suddenly decided my judgement could not be trusted by sheer coincidence I am sure. Again, I am perfectly open to reviewing his inclusion but, you insist my trust list is flawed and I am unable to maintain it. Last I checked I was more trusted around here than you even if you are part of the brown nosing human centipede trust mob.

It's not a coincidence.  I don't trust your judgement, don't think you should be on DT, and voted accordingly.  What is it about that that's baffling to you?  As I said, excluding you was overdue, and the fact that I did so just now is only relevant in your mind because....who knows.

Nope, iCEBBREAKER made repeatedly trolls in Monero, and others (DASH, for instance) for ages.
He also really hate BCash.
For nutildah, it seems that his case solved for now. I don't know how his issues solved, but looks good for now, even there is no neutral trust/ feedback.
However, I thought that Hhampuz raise reasonable potential forces, his former red trust likely 'back-and-forth' trust between nutildah and iCEBREAKER.
That is at somewhat extent, Trust Abusement, in my standpoint.
Furthermore, it looks ridiculous to see someone got red trust due to support one of top altcoins, DASH. ::)

He must have had a big change of heart then because was a big xmr fan when i noticed him posting in prior years.

Funny (if true) same happened with lauda and spotty. I intially thought they had switched accounts when I caught up with them again years later in a few debates. Lauda was going through a good period where it seemed to be almost a reasonable human being and even helpful.

Your dedication to pursuing personal vendettas over building a trust list that serves the forum over your own personal interest has been duly noted. I just think it is sad you still harbor all this resentment over having your own behavior checked 4 years ago. Maybe you can regale us all with more tales about how I abused the trust system by leaving you a neutral rating over it.

Thanks tranthidung for posting this. Hhampuz had a good point about not leaving "back and forth" trusts, so I won't do that going forward. The situation seems to be resolved. And thanks to everybody else for coming to my Reputation thread.

Since nutildah considers the situation resolved, I suppose I will be leaving my trust list as it stands. Thanks for the reply.

I thought your view on trust was that it should be reserved for trade-oriented issues. Leaving trust feedback for opinions was something you were thoroughly against. iCEBREAKER also left a negative trust for Evan Duffield, the developer of DASH, which I think renders his judgment pretty unsound. But that's just my personal opinion. I also have a negative trust left by somebody who neg trusted Vitalik Buterin. Maybe I can attract someone who neg trusts Satoshi next.

That is my view, but considering that you so vocally support otherwise I figured you should at least explain yourself. After all the people you support demand people grovel before them and beg for negative ratings to be removed over inconsequential incidents, I don't think asking you to explain your position is too much.

As evidenced by what? I never thought it was a good idea to leave red trust over opinions. As has been explained to me, trust also shouldn't be left for situations that could be handled by moderators.


... And what position is that? Your trusted member iCEBREAKER is clearly engaging in behavior that goes against your standards, which seems highly hypocritical coming from the guy who wants "objective standards" for ratings. Seems like he should be the one explaining himself, or else you should explain why you are keeping him on your list.

Our main disagreement stems from the fact that you think there should be a body that enforces "objective standards" for ratings while I think having a fluid system which attempts to regulate itself is more beneficial, as the regulators of the regulations are also only human and therefore prone to subjectivity.

Why complaining? you promoted and supported a proven scam. You are by suchmoons definition a scammer and need a tag?

Seems hypocritical to moan about it. Suck it up, your tag is more deserving than most. 
I think sticking up for liars and trust abusers is something now in your history and most will likely view you as untrustworthy once we get these teething issues sorted and the swamp drained.

I think more snakes will get some red as time progresses. Let's see how it all works out and how much you all favour the system when all your untrustworthy actions are slathered up in some nice red paint. Then we will see who wants proof of scam before getting the scam tag.

You are welcome, my friend.
I known you due to we are in the same campaign, nothing more.
Moreover, I admired you so much due to your earned merits. That's why I created the topic.
Back and forth red trust tagging should never be used.
It is trust abusement, even trust is not moderated in the forum.

As evidenced by your continual frothing mouthed attacks any time I try to argue for a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. Also your willingness to support people who do exactly what was done to you to others on a daily basis by the dozen. If you yourself do not endorse such principles I am not sure why you also get to demand protection by them as you continue to poo poo at the standard.

I don't know, you tell me, that is why I asked. I wanted you to explain to me exactly why his rating was invalid. You refuse, so I guess you don't care. If you don't care why am I obligated to care for you? It is not hypocritical at all to keep him on my list because while I advocate for that standard IT IS NOT YET THE STANDARD.

It would be like North Korea saying hey USA, we will disarm our nukes, but only if you do it first ok? Oh China and Russia, they are going to keep theirs for now don't worry about them. In essence you are demanding those I associate with all keep a standard that is not yet a standard, which is asinine. If I followed this logic there would be NO ONE on my trust list, it would just be exclusions.

Our main disagreement stems from your inability to understand that "a body that enforces" already exists, only they operate on completely arbitrary standards. I don't know where you get the idea some new body of people will need to be assembled. People are VERY prone to subjectivity. That is why we are badly in need of some structure from Theymos, such as issuing the notice he prefers we operate with a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. I am advocating all the same people now present evidence to support their negative rating before doing so. That's pretty much it. The rest is your pure imagination.

Perhaps you should try leading by example.

Its extremely hypocritical of you because it goes against your entire philosophy when it comes to trust ratings.

You know exactly why his rating is invalid.

But you're not going to change anything; you never were. However, if you did, it would probably work to your benefit. Earlier today you were shown to have trusted two known scammers (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5118173.0) -- your judgment is highly suspect.

I should have known better than to fall for your trolling attempt. I won't be responding to you here any more.

Yeah... no. That's pretty much the definition of hypocrisy. Didn't you compare DT to democracy recently? Perhaps you should do what some politicians do when caught in an obviously blatant hypocrisy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Murphy_(American_politician)).

BTW your standards are a subset of the current guidelines so there is really no reason for you to not do what you preach.


Don't be melodramatic. I'm sure someone agrees with you on those standards. Otherwise you'd be really stupid to push for them if neither yourself nor anyone else is willing to follow them.

I want to know why YOU think this rating is invalid. See how that works? Of course you can't answer that because you know if you do your own actions will then be revealed to be hypocritical BY YOUR OWN WORDS. Run along now sweet summer child.





The constant projection you people partake in would be hilarious if it wasn't so destructive to this community. I brought up democracy because it is the most similar existing governmental system to what we have here, except for the informed populace and accountable representatives part. Good try at a smear though bringing up politicians to tie me with visceral emotional sensations in lieu of a logical argument.

I do, do what I preach. I didn't leave this rating iCEBREAKER did. Funny this whole time both of you are screaming hypocrisy at me while you yourselves are A-OK wit this standard every other time it is not you or your friends. I am holding you to your own standards then you turn around and call me the hypocrite for not removing some one for doing what you do every day dozens of times a day. You have no principles, and your pathetic attempt at moral grandstanding is quite hilarious to me.

I'd be honored if I could call nutildah my friend, but that's not relevant here. Yes, I think you're being a hypocrite, but also yes, you can do this to whomever you like. I don't need theymos to set a standard to my liking. I can simply exclude you. I'm a little disappointed that some people seem to be including you because of things you say and not the things you do, so it's important to point those differences out.


Really? Do I red-trust people for making fun of my favorite shitcoin "every day dozens of times a day"? Well, sounds like you should include me in your trust list then... or at least have a look at the dictionary. Hypocrisy doesn't stop being hypocrisy because "others do it too", even if that were true. Your hypocrisy is entirely about your words and your behavior.

Of course not. Why would it be relevant that you all run around like one unit together forming the perfect brown nosing human centipede all backing each other up no matter what and including each other, and excluding the members they also choose to target. You have a lot of nerve pointing at me and crying to do as you say not as you do.

You and the people you support run around negative rating people based on suspicion, which is exactly the standard iCEBREAKER is operating upon. You scream about the injustice when it applies to you and yours but I am the hypocrite for not removing him because he doesn't meet the standards I would like exactly? If you keep stretching like this you are going to snap, be careful. Feel free to start a separate thread in reputation about my supposed behavior you find objectionable and I would be happy to discuss it. Of course you won't though because this is all just desperately crafted sophistry to try to cover for one of the members of your brown nosing human centipede of a trust mob.

However, suchmoon is already an observable hypocrite. This is regardless of which standards we adopt because she has observable double standards. Those are the only standards she wants to be able to enforce selectively.

xcoin aka darkcoin aka dash is a proven scam. The dev even offered a 2,000,000 million coin (reaching value of 1000 bucks each) to make up for the scam launch and the subsequent slashing of the minting to magnify that captive instamine after promising it was a fair launch AFTER much battling and lying from their crowd that it was all a bunch of shit and the launch was fair and there was no captive instamine.

Lauda is actually a scammer. Lauda claimed he was on the launch and that there was no instamine so he knew that for SURE. He lied for financial gain which is what scammers do...they lie for financial gain.

Pharmacist, lauda, nutildah all had their noses in on that scam and were all protecting and praising it or lying the launch was fair and no premine. I think suchmoon was possibly a big dash holder too. Does not mind profiting from a scam perhaps.

So suchmoon red trusts persons because she believes the projects they are supporting may "possibly" be a scam.

Then suchmoon goes and includes on his trust list these same liars, scam supporters, trust abusers and proven greedy sneaky racist trolling sig spamming puppets  and does not red trust them does she?. Now she is crying about one of them getting red trust.

Now she is claiming hypocrisy and talking about "standards"?  Which ever standards you adopt you can't get out of having observable DOUBLE standards. Subjectivity can excuse most devious scheming ... but treating identical situations COMPLETELY differently demonstrates what sort of person she is. Dirt.

It is pointless to try and debate with these fools because they already know that what I say is true, but will never admit it. They do not need to, their actions demonstrate clearly how they are abusing the systems of control that they have been allowed to entrench themselves in.

Xcoin was launched quite a while ago. Regardless of whatever caused the "instamine," whether it was intentional or not, how could Duffield have known at the time that his coin would go on to have the success that it did? Literally thousands of other altcoins have come and gone since then, but his remained, because it was novel, inventive, and it worked. My trust on Duffield was left to counter iCEBREAKER's (as stated): clearly Evan created something useful that went on to be immensely successful.

That, combined with my particular distaste for Monero, is what led iCEBREAKER to leave his negative trust on me. He went out of his way to dig up a post from last April (almost a year ago now) to find a reason to neg trust me. The amount of trolling he has done against Dash over the years is simply insane.

BTW I hold ZERO Dash, just respect for its developer. If that's worth leaving somebody red trust over, and TECSHARE considers it a valid reason, then so be it. By keeping iCEBREAKER on his list, he's implying its a valid reason to him. Obviously I'm not changing any minds here, more just explaining myself to those willing to entertain rational thoughts.

I traded Dash back when it was Darkcoin quite a bit. I had a laptop containing about 63 Dash that was stolen out of my apartment in 2016. Lost about $20k worth of crypto that night. I had .dat backups on a USB stick, which I unwittingly kept in the laptop case, which was also stolen.

Here is my Dash address, you can see exactly the last time I moved any Dash:

Xhrj1twMEYYavovibiuzpYTvPoz7fGxQmD (https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/address.dws?Xhrj1twMEYYavovibiuzpYTvPoz7fGxQmD.htm)

I am not implying anything. I repeatedly stated I am open to reconsidering iCEBREAKERs inclusion on my list if you can simply explain to me why you think his rating is not valid. That's it. You haven't done that, you just told me your side of the narrative without actually answering my question.

"Nudilah is a Dash shill who apologies for Evan's massive Instamine (see his buttkissing Trust entry) and spreads FAKE NEWS about competing projects (see Reference link).
Nudilah also viciously attacks the motivations of people questioning multi-year delay of Dash's previously announced i2p and Masternode Blinding features. "

Explain to me what makes this rating invalid please.

It depends on whose guidelines you want to go by. These seem to be the generally accepted standards:


I would like to point to items in this last section, which I believe in principle you are in agreement with. Please note that none of the trust left by me in the past 4 years falls into this section.

Should not be tagged:

Criticizing others.
Posting an unpopular opinion.
Promoting altcoins.
Anything without solid evidence or very strong circumstantial evidence*

These 4 items all pertain to iCEBREAKER's feedback. About the news of Monero being excluded from Poloniex, it was true at the time, but obviously they had a change of heart and decided to continue listing it. I also pointed this out in the referenced thread. About Dash being a "scam," that is an extremely subjective viewpoint at best. Over the years, the markets have dictated that it is not a scam, and it has real world utility, as I admit Monero does as well. I just did not care for the way that the Monero supporters went about promoting their project, and I still don't, but its not worth leaving somebody a red trust over. (For example, it would never occur to me to red trust FluffyPony or Smooth or any of those guys).

OK, so there you have it.

I didn't ask for the opinions of others. I asked for you to tell me why you personally think that rating is not valid.

Your exact words were these:


I thoroughly complied with your request. This is entirely based on my opinion, which holds in regard the opinions of others.

Edit: BTW, thanks suchmoon, I appreciate your kind words, and your earlier guidance in matters surrounding what DT should be used for.

LOL. It looks like that I started a hot topic, that might long-last over weeks or months.  ::)
To be honest with you all, I don't really care about Trust system, because it is too complicated to me.
Of course, for someone who are famous, reliable in the forum, with or without Trustscore, they will always be well-known.
Trustscore is only make sense when I see some accounts the first time, I don't know who are they, how about their reliablity.
In such cases, Trust score makes lots of sense.

This is false. DASH is mostly a marketing scam with little to no actually valuable tech. Duffield knew what he was doing, there's no doubt there. Tagging him is possibly appropriate, but I never bothered to read up the thread of that shitcoin in recent times. It was a viable experiment, but now it is nothing more than a useless shitcoin.

Even if you exclude the trolls that get involved in most threads, you're touching on multiple hot subjects at the same time most notably "I know what a good coin is" beliefs.

Well, I beg to differ, as do the markets... It was the first of its kind and often imitated. Whether or not it will survive the long haul remains to be seen, as with every single other cryptocurrency, but its been in the top 20 coins by market cap for several years. I reserve the term "shitcoin" for more bland coins than this with less real-world adoption.

A good market is not proof of anything. Pretty much everything in top 100 is absolute and utter garbage (ETH, EOS, Tron, etc.). There's nothing to "differ". Either the tech is objectively good or it isn't, which in Dash's case it isn't.

I deleted my feedback on eduffield's account in the spirit of not leaving retaliatory ratings.

I'm also doing the same for gembitz and IconicExpert.

Your rating was a counter-rating not a retaliatory one, unless I mixed up something here.

Right, I mean since it wasn't against me, I guess it was more of a counter-rating. I almost put counter-rating but then edited it.

Some words of truth at last (by lauda not nutildah)

Nice to watch Lauda give the underlings a bit of bitch slap now and then if they step out of line. POW haha

Nutildah is observably lying again. It is not subjective. It's a proven scam.

A scam is "deliberate deception often to ensure unfair gain" ... you know what a deception is right?

Well, to give you an example: saying there will be a fair launch and no premine. Then going ahead and captive instamining (same as a premine for all intense purposes) then deciding to chop away the remaining 75% of the minting to magnify the huge captive instamine. Then creating a mechanism where those that held all the loot took more from any remaining miners and made the decisions too.  If this is not a scam then there are no scams here.  

You and others are simply telling blatant lies to profit and protect it. Actually the most honourable person was Evan who freaked out at all of the pressure that I and others that joined in  applied to him (whilst fighting their protectors like some in this thread) to offer the 2 Billion dollar air drop that the board was too sloppy to even claim at the time. I wonder how many of you were on that vote to prevent the airdrop going through? Would be VERY interesting to see that poll made transparent in the future for historical purposes.

I was less hostile to the project after this because  he did offer to do the right thing but was pressured by others to drop it. I think the project later on became more important than just the money to him.

I don't care about any of that now since capped ico's are essentially monster instamines  which ensure super narrow distributions. They like it like that so they  can collude and drive up market caps and dump it to suckers for hugely inflated prices (most are worthless)  before creating the next great white paper dreams and talk bunch of fantasies for investors to get duped into investing in.

Your only hope was to retain persons like AM who analysed a lot of white papers and debunked their dreams and nonsense or pointed out occasional interesting designs. Let's face it only 0.01% or less of the board have the tech chops to know a new interesting and plausible design. The rest is all guessing and hoping.  Most don't bother even attempting it and prefer to find other ways to milk the board.  

Even then you are bound to get those blinded by greed that will risk their btc on even the most obvious scam promising huge returns only to start crying they were scammed after. You will not be able to save everyone from .... themselves. Trying to do so is actually more damaging really. Best to let evolution take its course naturally. This is like some genetic engineering experiment that caused some damaging and dangerous mutations that likely need not have ever existed.

As I have said before many times. The most damaging scams to this movement are not the 2 bit run with the btc scammers. They are the projects that sound credible, have a solid white paper (to most peoples standards of understanding) they have strong backing and support and some talent, they grab headlines. They don' just exit. They gradually dwindle and erode the dev funds and eventually seem to stop pushing updates.

Perhaps some middling drama and dev friction and founders leaving.. then the full dump and investors capitulate and let go at huge losses......time passes guess what the devs have been working secretly and diligently and some great updates " meanwhile accumulating all the cheap tokens back that they originally sold to investors for huge sums" and again it spikes back right up to where it was before and a period of enthusiasm and belief returns. Then the cycle repeats until eventually one day it does not come back and it is found on page 20 of coinmarket cap.  These are the killer scams and they are the ones that crush the spirit here more than those that cut and run straight away. They are also impossible to stop unless you have experts who tell you flat out this white paper would require likely 3 nobel prize level break throughs or is just technobabble dreamed up by some marketeers that could not con seed money from anywhere outside crypto fantasy land.

So given those are unstoppable and only the 2 bit whack a mole scammers are temp preventable let us not over estimate what the DT can do for projects that are hugely damaging scams. DT for the trading board is different and should be attended to by long term trusted traders that have dealt with vast sums over the years.

I mean this is without really factoring in the damage that DT members advertising, campaign managing, and in any other way supporting these "long game" scams can bring by seemingly guaranteeing their success/legitimacy in the minds of noobs.

Keep DT for the trading forums, and only for proven scammers. I mean if someone is a proven scammer lets fucking delete that piece of shit anyway.

Really, you haven't. The post you claim answers my question is a purposely overly inclusive list of other people's opinions, then your version of the narrative. You have not once in your own words told me why you think iCEBREAKER's rating for you is invalid. If any one is curious, nutilda refuses to answer this question because they know I might later hold them to those same standards that they themselves held to others. Nutilda can't have that now can they?

Because trust should be reserved for matters directly involving finance: the exchange of goods and services for crypto or money. It shouldn't be used because somebody said something that you disagree with.

But I already know any answer I give you will not suffice. I should have stuck to ignoring you; you're clearly trolling me at this point. I think everybody else can see what is going on here. This is what you do, you talk in circles until your "opponent" gets bored and moves on, and then you can declare victory.

It would be in your own best interest and reflect your own endlessly-explained belief system if you removed iCEBREAKER from your trust list. Not doing so is clearly hypocritical on your part. Have a terrific day.

/end of discussion

[waves magic wand and starts discussion again]

Ok, so it seems to me his comment was in fact directly involving finance. If I say I really like XYZ gambling site, and they are actually a fraud and you redtag me for it, are you not negative rating me for what I said?

Lets look at a few examples from your own ratings:


"bataklik   2019-02-23   0.00000000   Reference   Promoter of scam project that is pretending to be a successful project. Please see here for scam accusation thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5110191.0 . This user's account has likely been hacked and is untrustworthy. "

"BrieMiller   2019-02-22   0.00000000   Reference   Promotion of HYIP products, part of a bumping service that bumps threads with low-value posts. Not genuinely concerned with the outcome of projects. Do not trust this user or take any of their questions seriously. "

"cryptobenn   2018-12-02   0.00000000   Reference   Promoting the ETH token scam "FREE Coin" "


There are more but I would rather not be here all day. I am not even saying your ratings shouldn't have been left, maybe they should, but that is irrelevant.

It seems to me iCEBREAKER's rating for you is functionally indistinguishable from these ratings you have left for others as defined by your own terms of what makes it invalid. Being critical of some one is not trolling just because you are having trouble dealing with it. I also like the nice touch of you calling me a hypocrite in a classic Alinski style refractory tactic to re-frame this about me when the post is literally about you and your received rating. I think everyone can see what is happening here, yes. Have nice day.

Confused, why nutildah's rating -1: -1 / +1 showing to me ??? Seems iCEBREAKER & shasan's feedback's visible to me by default. I think due to I have selected dept#2. Especially shasan feedback's make me always confused, because he had sent lot of positive feedback's who took loan from him even they are newbie account. I really don't think its necessary, even sent 3 feedback's to nutildah. Is it necessary? I think a lender could leave positive feedback's if he was on risk. However everyone have freedom to leave feedback but I don't like to see this kind of feedback's. Sorry for that but I have to exclude iCEBREAKER (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=17501) & shasan (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1883627) since they aren't on DT but feedback's is annoying me especially when I see a newbie green trusted by shasan (https://imgur.com/JV87mxc). I don't know who is from my trust list added them, also I can't force anyone to remove from their trust list. But if they removed I will also remove my exclusion. I have no problem with both of them except visibility of trust rating.

Because you have your depth set to 2, you will see many feedbacks that you don't necessarily agree with. The default depth of 2 works if you are using Default Trust, as "Default Trust" as a concept is level 0, DT1 members are level 1, and the people they trust become level 2. If you set up your own customized trust list, the people you choose become level 0, the people they trust become level 1, and the people they (the level 1s) trust become level 2, so you effectively end up with an extra layer of trust that you don't necessarily want.

For you iCEBREAKER will be level 1, as he is trusted by Lauda, who you have included in your level 0. shasan will be level 2 for you, as he is trusted by nutildah who is level 1 for you because he is in turn trusted by yogg, tmfp, Slow death, and xtraelv, who are all on your trust list (level 0).

Most people with a custom trust list generally set their depth to 1 rather than 2.

Also I had set depth#1, buy problem is all DT2 feedback's hide to me from original DT list. That means I will not able to see DT2 feedback's from original DT list. That's why I again return it depth#2. If select depth 1 then I become more confuse because I can't see DT2 feedback's. ;D

You can add ";dt" to the end of any page (thread, profile, trust page, etc.) to see it as if you were using Default Trust at depth 2 (the default settings). Also, if you want that view all the time, DarkStar_ has created a Tampermonkey script here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5096572.0;dt) which will do that for you. That way you can see everything as if it were default trust, whilst maintaining your own customized trust list.

His comment referenced me posting a news story about Monero. Has nothing to do with Dash. The Dash part of his comment has nothing to do with finance. It stemmed from when I asked him what was up with his multi-year obsession with trolling Dash (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg49621414#msg49621414). If you want to argue that does have to do with finance, OK fine, but as far as them actually being a fraud is concerned, that point is not well evidenced by iCEBREAKER. As I said previously I don't even hold Dash anymore, I was just intrigued when I saw iCEBREAKER had returned to continue his epic trolling saga.

After seeing my comment, he dug up and commented on several old threads of mine, looking for a reason to red tag me I suppose.


The difference is he left his rating for me spreading what he considered to be "fake news." Has nothing to do with finance or transactions. My ratings all implicate the user of having financially-related motivations and being involved in what is potentially a scam, and they are backed by evidence displayed in the referenced link.

Do you believe "being critical of some one" is a good reason to leave a negative trust? If the answer is "no," then you should remove iCEBREAKER from your inclusions.

@cryptohunter


Is it our Evan from Quark who created over 10 coins with instamine on that forum ?

No this is evan duffield this is a captive instamine ( a premine).

He specifically referenced feedback you have left for the DASH dev (which it appears has been deleted since, I am not sure I don't see it) as well as your posts about Monero. Also you again have left negative ratings for others simply for promoting projects that you feel are not legitimate. If those ratings are valid for you to leave I see no reason why his rating left for you should not be valid. Your ratings have just as much to do with "financial transactions" as yours seeing as you provided zero evidence to support your claims.

Usually I might be inclined to discuss this rating with him, but you seem intent on insisting you have a right to leave ratings like this for others while claiming ratings motivated by the exact same type of activity are invalid when left for you. I am willing to reconsider actions to resolve this if you are willing to start observing a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws when leaving negative ratings. Until then all I see is a hypocrite crying that they got a tiny taste of what they dish out to others freely without evidence.

I found this in Nutildah's trust ratings today and found it rather interesting... usually this would be grounds for completely removing any credibility for an account and red tagging it to the center of the Earth, but as usual, some people around here are more equal than others...


Reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1622642.0

"Account for sale. Archived page if he deleted the thread.

https://archive.is/BBMFH "

You will be receiving a comment like this "In 2016 the account sales were allowed in this forum and then later it was discouraged" by the forum rules so no one is going to tag that account since it is created in 2016.

Anyone knows here since when account sales were considered as untrustworthy behaviour? Exact date will be appreciated.

Account sales have never been against forum rules. Over time the user base has deemed it to be unacceptable on their own. Any other time this happens not only is the soliciting account assumed to have been transferred, but it is red tagged by everyone and their mother to ensure it will not be abused.

https://i.imgur.com/RPAkF0s.png

Funny how he posted this about 13 minutes after I said I was putting him on ignore (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5120877.msg50240672#msg50240672)...

Obviously I had a change of heart and have since changed my attitude 180 on account sales.

Back then, yes, it wasn't as big a deal, and I was pretty desperate for money. Times have changed, however, with ICOs and an influx of scams to previously unfathomable proportions. I recognize that and now would never sell my account. The crypto space has grown exponentially since then, with BTC going up in price almost tenfold in that time.

Also I wasn't as committed to the forum then as I am now. If somebody wants to tag me for a non-event from 3 years ago, I can't stop them.

Frankly I think tecshare takes things way too personally, which is what led him to comment in this thread in the first place. I've come to peace with the fact that he dislikes me... why he continues to troll me and seek to damage my reputation is beyond me.

I think you have this backwards. You know what is interesting is you used to have me on your trust list, but for some "unknown" reason as I became more vocally critical of trust rating abuse you fell in line with all of the worst abusers, not only excluding me, but then becoming their toadie mouthpiece attacking me any time I brought it up.

Then later you decided to follow me to Politics & Society where you previously showed little to no activity to prove how much of a brown noser you really are to your masters. Then when you are unable to even engage in debate you call me insane, run away, and "ignore" me. Who knew that joining a mob and attacking people would bring extra scrutiny to you? Poor you.

The fact of the matter is that this is just yet another proof of the fact that there is a set of standards for the ass kiss brigade of which Nutilduuuh is a member, and a set of standards for everyone else. As far as I am concerned this account should be considered compromised as there is no way to know for sure it was not transferred. I really wouldn't be surprised if this account is simply a sock used by another more well known member attempting to maintain their desired narrative without risking their main account.

You said much the same thing about me, but the fact is that you're a online pest who won't stop arguing until the person you're arguing with gets bored and disengages--but you don't stop.  This is why people are calling you a troll.  You are also accusing nutildah of stalking, which is what you yourself are guilty of.  You wouldn't stop pestering me until I had to block your PMs, at which point you left a neutral trust on me that was, to put it mildly, aggressive in tone. 

Nutildah is probably just tired of arguing with you, and yet here you are digging up 'dirt' that you think is evidence of a double standard.  Tell the police that they missed every speeder on the highway and ask them why they don't give a ticket to every one.  That's the ridiculous basis of your argument.  I was tagging account sellers in 2016 (not many other members were), but apparently I didn't tag him.  Must have missed him, because 1) there's no tag, and 2) I don't remember.  It was 3 years ago.  I'd tell you to give it up, but those words would be wasted on you. 

I can't see what you're saying but doesn't wanting to red paint somebody for this go against everything that you have been preaching on Meta for quite some time now? It seems extremely petty. I'm trying to actually help clean things up around here and you are trying to drive me out.. because you don't agree with my politics?

It will be interesting to see what transpired by the time I wake up in the morning, that's for sure.

Pharmacist I'm going to go ahead and merit your post because I agree with your assessment of tecshare 100%. Sorry to have my ilk contaminate your "brigade", hope you can forgive me for that.

You think this is because of your politics? Man if that was the case, this would be a full time job with all the people who disagree with my politics around here. No, this is about your own aggressive behavior toward me, and the resulting extra scrutiny. That is all.



Here comes the rest of the gang. What did I say about you? Who is forcing anyone to engage with me at all? Ooo a neutral. MUCH ABUSE! I didn't accuse anyone of stalking. I simply pointed out the only reason I know Nutilduuh exists is because of their repeated hostilities toward me, otherwise I never would have even noticed this. I just find it rather sad they now attempt to play the victim after the repeated instigation of attacks upon me by Nutilduuh for having ideas they don't approve of.

The fact is this would be total justification for any of you in the trust police squad to demolish an account, but not when they are just so good at kissing your asses huh? If you were on the end handing out the ratings you would consider negative ratings totally justified, but now you are the one being scrutinized suddenly everyone needs to make exceptions. If it were not for double standards, you and all the other trust abuse toadies would have no standards at all.

Everyone who disagrees with you is my sockpuppet. Case closed. Now that you don't have to sherlock around looking for dirt you'll have so much more time to implement your "standards". Thank me later.

So what part of this explains why Nutilduuuh gets a pass on trying to sell their account while anyone else who does this gets theirs destroyed?

EDIT: I find it very telling you personalized this even though I said nothing about you.

Nobody dares to destroy my sockpuppets, isn't that obvious to you yet?

Let me know when you can coax a logical on topic argument out of that hollow skull of yours.

Wow man. You just love a good conspiracy don't you.

Me unofficially staking my BTC/XCP address last April:


One of my first comments in the Counterparty thread:



Today's message from this address (1PypgzaAJXHzLPvkLQwWzqwn1AyhJd9YUi):


Signed:


But please, don't take my word for it:

https://blockexplorer.com/messages/verify

I was trolled extensively years ago when I was in the account selling business, examples are below.

IMO, the above is likely an indication that the trolling was not an expression of his opinion but was an attempt to discredit his competition unethically.

There is also substantial evidence that Lauda is/was engaged in account trading and he also tags sold accounts.

Absolutely meaningless. If you sold the account there is no reason you could not have also sold your wallets to sign with. That address was posted after the attempted account sale anyway, so there is no way to verify you are the original owner.

"Competition", LOL. If anything its an indicator that I was more of a dick back then, or perhaps even an indicator that nothing has changed, if one were inclined to see it that way.

You can dig up plenty of instances of me being a dick -- no question about that.

Which part of what I said you consider not logical or not on topic? Seems to fit really well with your 100% logical on-topic world-against-TECSHARE conspiracy theory so what's the problem now?

Sockpuppet.
Malware.
Sockpuppet.
Scam.
LOL!
Looks like some super speed pump and dump erce 20 scam crap.

What is point of this post?

Here's my favorite part about FREE Coin (besides the fact that they minted 10 TRILLION tokens!):

https://i.imgur.com/kErJsPY.png

He's inferring that his token will have an $8.3 trillion market cap by the end of 2024, which is 8x bigger than his prediction for Ethereum itself on that date.

The part of my selectively edited quote which you conveniently left out:


The point is Nutilduuh felt those ratings were justified, yet when the same standards are applied to them, suddenly we all need to reconsider. I like this one Nutilduuh left for example.

https://i.imgur.com/SlKyq5h.png

Can you tell me Nutilduuh, why is it account sellers are not to be trusted? Why is this bad for him but ok for you?

I just saw this as someone brought it to my attention.

This is incorrect.

I never had you on my trust list, not for one minute. Never. Not even as an accident. You can use LoyceV's lists in an attempt to demonstrate otherwise, but you'll just be wasting your time.

Really man. Your obsession with me is... well... flattering.

Lets stick to this one for a moment:

What is wrong with 3 selectively picked trust ratings?

You picked them for a reason.

So what is wrong with them?

Are they financial or not?

How far do his lists go back? Regardless the point is you engaged in high levels of scrutiny upon me for simply pointing out the abusive dynamic here, but I am "obsessed" for questioning your own behavior and double standards?

Wrong... its for other reasons, but let's save that for your own reputation thread shall we?


Yes. This is a pretty clear case of obsession if I've ever seen one, as far as this forum is concerned. And the dynamic is abusive, to be sure. I hope you're happy that I took you off ignore to respond to you. But its late and I'm knackered. As always, you can have the last word.

Any chance you will answer my question and explain why account selling should be negative rated for others but not for you? Is not the fact that you tried to sell your account evidence that you have no regard for the user base here and were willing to allow them to be scammed because you wanted money?

How about stop changing subject and address this one https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5118010.msg50244857#msg50244857 thank you very much.

Part of post is left out because you didn't say anything at all.

What does it mean?

I am not even saying
your ratings shouldn't have been left
maybe they should
but that is irrelevant.

Should they have been left or not? This is very simple question.

We have:

1)malware
2)scam
3)super speed erc 20  

Do you think rating should have been left for people who

1)spread malware
2)scam
3)run extremely super speed erc20   ;D

Or not?

Why did you post trust thingies?

How are these 3 examples the same as iCEBREAKER's trust rating?

Interesting concept. Tell me, why is it I should justify Nutilduuhs own ratings? That was kind of the whole point for bringing them up, to ask Nutilduuh to justify them and tell me why they were not the same as iCEBREAKER's rating. I love the turning everything on its head polar opposite game though where some how I am expected to justify the ratings of other people.

All of your answers are in the last few pages of the thread, but of course you don't really have any questions you are just looking for an excuse to keep the topic sliding away from the fact that your buttbuddy sold their account, and the trust police mob consider this grounds for destroying the reputation of the account if it was anyone else. Of course there are standards for the regular plebeians of Bitcoin Talk, and then standards for those with the golden ass kissing lips. You all here dog piling have no problem digging into the lives of others, but when the roles are reversed suddenly you all become victims.

I want to hear it from you.


OK, let me try it this way.

You are the one who brought 3 trust ratings into this thread.

Explain to our community, as one of the oldest members here, this:


You have presented 3 examples of trust ratings for people who:

1) spread malware
2) scam
3) run very very fast erc 20 tokens chain whatever

You must have reason why you have mentioned these trust ratings.

So say your reasons why they should or should not be -ve tagged.

That is how normal conversation works.

You say "I agree or don't agree that you have tagged scammer and person who spread malware because..."

After you are done, we will discuss account trading part. It is very important that you answer this before we discuss other part.

Well gee, I guess it is a good thing I have no obligation to respond to your contrived interrogation over other people's ratings. I don't know what I would do if I didn't have your approval to move on marlboroza.

Eh, okay.  Then don't expect anyone to reply to any of your accusations, as nobody has any obligation to do so.  Debate over.

[waves magic wand] aaand debate open again

I never asked for any of your commentary. I did however pose a direct question to Nutilduuh. None of your childish demands that I answer to this weird interrogation designed to distract from the fact that Nutilduuh tried to sell their account change anything.

The fact is Nutilduuh was ready to sell out this user base and expose them to scams for money, and this behavior would be grounds for total loss of reputation if Nutilduuuh wasn't protected by people like you who refuse to act on it and would be ready to act in retaliation if anyone bothered to hold them to the same standards they hold others to.

     Exactly when did the Pharmacist become a DT member? I'm not certain why us newer Dt members need to sift through old garbage looking for people to tag. I already went through the archived secolgs (http://archive.vn/https://bitcointalk.org/seclog.php) and did not find that Nutilda changed their password between October 2016 when he opened the thread and August 2017, after he announced the account was no longer for sale. I don't see why any new account holder would not change their password after obtaining the account and attempting to throw us off the scent by announcing the account was no longer for sale. I suppose that original Nutilda could have posted it and then sold it on the down low. However, it already took me an inordinate amount of time to sift through the old seclogs looking for changed password. If anyone cares to take over, so be it. I for one am not going to red tag an account that was offered for sale 3 years ago and then the sale retracted, when it appear to be a case of no harm, no foul.  Perhaps if this was a fresh incident, I would have tagged it.
     

Is it time for me to lock the topic, today?
I started the topic, but have not had anything to discuss.
Additionally, the case of @nutildah solved long days ago (two weeks ago).  :-X

Who said they need to? The fact is they do this on a regular basis, especially when it comes to people that speak out about being abused by them and no one ever has an issue with it. Now that it is one of the in crowd suddenly everyone is making excuses for them and defending them, but if it was anyone else they would be red tagged with zero controversy. The fact is Nutilduuh intended to allow this forums users to be robbed because they wanted money. It is also a fact no one knows for sure if it was sold or not, and this would be more than enough justification to totally remove any reputation for that account. Unfortunately there are a set of standards for the trust mob and their toadies, and a standards for everyone else.

I have no reputation to remove. As far as my rep shows to you, it should be a nice red color since iCEBREAKER is in your trust list. All for reasons you deem "fair." Also, there is no "standard" for how to deal with a 3 year old attempt at a sale of one's own account, as the issue had never arisen before you made it an issue.

There's also no way to prove to you that the account is still in my hands. There are ways to prove it to other people who are willing to entertain rational thought, but since the whole reason for you being here is because of a personal vindictiveness, you do not fall into this category.


As tecshare has never lost an argument (or even a debate), he will continue posting in this thread for all of eternity. I would say please do and let tecshare open his own thread about me.

The problem with your logic is that any time anyone attempts to sell an account it is assumed it has been sold, because in spite of what anyone chooses to believe the FACT is there is no way to prove that the account was not transferred. This is the standard the trust police take on this forum, but for some "unknown" reason you get a pass. I wonder if it has anything to do with all the brown on your nose.

What is also a fact is regardless of the time passed, even assuming the account was not transferred, you still publicly admitted you were willing to put the community at risk here by selling your reputation for money. This tells me quite a bit about your standards.

I am sorry to break it to you, but I don't care enough about you to be vindictive. The fact that you follow me around to be extra douchey just makes me not feel bad about exposing you. You do however serve as a convenient tool to demonstrate to this entire forum that there are not only double standards for the "special" people who kiss the right asses, but that those same people passing judgement themselves don't care if you put the community at risk, just as long as it is their brown on your nose.

You should really consider writing in ALL CAPS.


I'm glad you put the word "unknown" in quotes because the real reason is known: the affair happened 3 years ago, and the evidence points to this account not being sold. It doesn't matter to you if I signed 10 different messages from 10 different addresses associated with my account, you will continue to believe it is sold because you have a personal vendetta against me, which is overwhelmingly obvious. You are letting your vindictiveness overcome your ability to be rational, as you are famous for -- not much I can do about that.


Again, what "reputation"? It was a Hero member account back then and I never had a single DT, still don't. I know you won't believe this but it is also possible for peoples' standards to evolve over time, given things like the fact that the crypto space and demand for accounts has grown exponentially since 2016.


 :D That's a riot! You care far more than what is healthy. You were so distraught over me calling you insane and putting you on ignore that you doubled-down on your insanity, resorting to grade school tactics in an attempt to cast a negative light on me. Its since backfired on you and that's why I suspect you will probably triple-down in the near future.


Oh, I'm following you around, that's also a laugh.


Again, there is no previous instance of this type of situation happening: bringing an attempted account sale to light 3 years after the fact, especially when it has been publicly accessible knowledge the entire time. Thus there is no "standard" for how to deal with it. If I was on the outside looking at this happening to another account, I would consider it extremely petty to tag somebody for this 3 years after it happened. So how did I "put the community at risk"? Oh thats right, there's no way of proving I didn't sell the account, therefore it be sold  ::)

Furthermore, lets say the account was sold: what behavior have I been engaging in that would put the community at risk? You're really reaching for the sake of continuing your battered argument, which has since been shut down repeatedly.

So what part of your rambling makes the fact that you were welling to sell your account to be abused by con artists for profit acceptable?

You can dismiss my point-by-point refutation to be "rambling" if you like but again it just goes to show how your judgment is clouded by the vengeful nature of your personality.

OK, now that the entire debate is narrowed down to this one item:

I obviously shouldn't have done it. Being hard up for cash or taking into consideration the possibility that it might not have been "abused by con artists" aren't good excuses. If you think vengeance should be exacted upon me now for making a mistake 3 years ago, an issue for which there is no set precedent, I can't stop you.

The way which I offered my account was extremely forthright, leaving little chance for somebody to successfully use it to conduct a scam. When I applied for a loan several months back, this issue was brought up by the loaner, who asked me to sign a message from the address that I signed earlier in this thread. That was good enough proof for him, so frankly it doesn't matter whether its good enough for you, as we've never conducted business.

I have nothing more to say about this. I'm sure you do though, have at it if you must.

It is still a valid point no one knows if your account has been sold or not. People can choose what they want to believe but by all other standards applied to the user base here, your account should be red tagged because the fact is there is no way to prove you didn't. Most of the trust police consider the attempt alone worthy of negative rating, but you put in the work washing the right balls, so you get special exceptions.

Just because you made a thread does not mean it would not be used to scam other people, and there is no guarantee any potential victims would see it. The trust toadie brigade are willing to condemn people wholesale for doing exactly the same thing while they laugh in their faces about any excuses, but your excuses... your excuses mean something!