Bitcoin Forum

Just noticed a user called Butterscotch Cartman (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2481380) spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt)). And yes I noticed from my untrusted feedback. He/she left me negative feedback because I called scam to BitcoinSV. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5130333.msg50548368#msg50548368) According to this user SV is potential coin, lets say he/she is right. So if someone call scam to SV he/she deserve negative feedback on his/her opinion. But if someone call scam to bitcoin then he/she is deserve negative feedback in my opinion. And according to this user Bitcoin is biggest scam. (http://archive.is/OolKP)

My question is, if I left negative feedback now then will it consider retaliatory feedback? Although he/she isn't on DT and I don't care about his/her feedback but I am willing to leave him/her negative feedback due to anti bitcoin behavior.    

That user shilling Hex (https://hex.win/) with referral link, (Archived (http://archive.is/u8oPS))

Its look a ponzi scheme to me,

That's why ETH address on referral link.

Lets read few post of this user about Bitcoin FUD and negativity. He/she is spreading misinformation over forum.













There are one good articles why peoples think Hex is a scam, Why Richard Heart’s Bitcoin Hex is a scam (https://cryptoinsider.com/why-richard-hearts-bitcoin-hex-is-a-scam/)

Do you think he/she deserve negative feedback ?

They deserve a ban for shiling a coin. Shilling should be counted as spam here.

Edit- Tagged. DT should tag him too.

Probably. Report ref link spam to mods. If Hex is really a scam (haven't looked into it) - that might deserve a neg.


I think you should sell all your bitcoins - will you neg me now? ;)

Seriously though, let opinions be opinions. Saying bad things about Bitcoin is just that. Add a neutral rating if you have strong feelings about that.

That's the reason why I have open this thread and not yet leave any feedback's. I want to hear from community and from other DT's. Spreading negative regarding any coin isn't really subject to leave negative feedback's. I am just repeating his/her opinions.

I had not look on HEX also, I will take a look details about it if I have free time. Spreading FUD against bitcoin on bitcointalk community is really untrustworthy behaviour in my opinion.

Then half of altcoin board should be red - many shitcoin bagholders disparage Bitcoin, probably to make themselves feel better...

I think there are two issues here: (1) promoting a scam, which may or may not be worth a neg depending on the details; (2) badmouthing Bitcoin, which is not worth a neg. Those two often go together but that still doesn't mean that merely saying bad things about Bitcoin deserves a neg. So in this case it might be just semantics, if Hex is a scam. But I still want to be able to say that Bitcoin is stupid without getting negged to -9999.

Just my opinion but I think you should take a step back from tagging people. Not entirely, but it does feel like you are actively trying to search for new reasons to leave negative feedback. In contrast to coming about it organically through time and experience what you deem to be worthy of negative feedback. Ther eare areas where you are confident in your leaving of feedback and I would focus on that for a bit.

I say the above because this


If we are negging people here for a differing opinion then this is no longer a discussion forum. Obviously the majority of us disagree with them and they may just be trolling. Either way a difference of opinion should not result in a Neg. Personally I feel like most opinion and behaviors are deserving of a neutral as opposed to Neg or Pos feedback.

Just look at the feedback they left you. It seems really stupid right; and it was left solely because you differ with them on the opinion of a coin some people believe in.

In regards to the HEX stuff look into it. If it appears to be a scam, I like the approach Marlboroza took with similar scam promoters Iirc. Tag them with instructions on how to purge all advertising done at a minimum.That or warn them before the tag and give the same ultimatum.

Definitely report the referral link as that's against forum guidelines.

Again just my opinions, your feedback is your to do with as you please. Not trying to single you out just something that's been on my mind the past few days.

I agree with Steamtyme and also note that they have removed your negative feedback. I reported the ref link as spam. It is in a section about "what is your favorite coin" but it should still probably be removed.

You should chill out a bit with the trust-related issues; its good that you want to help clean up the forum but its better to ask questions first and shoot later.

I couldn't disagree more. As steamtyme says, red trust shouldn't be given for a difference of opinion or to try to silence people you disagree with. If we were to red trust and drive away everyone who ever questions bitcoin, then we would quickly turn in to an echo chamber. Different opinions, even ones you disagree with (especially ones you disagree with), are needed for growth and progress, even if just to make you reexamine and reconfirm your own positions and beliefs. There is no way to logically formulate an argument or hold a debate if you don't even read the arguments against your position. Progress depends on people saying "bitcoin sucks because of x", so we can then say "Ok, so how do we address x?"

Are you serious? That above statement really makes me wonder if you're suitable for the DT position. You cannot go around tagging people because their opinions don't comply with yours. He has all the rights to express his opinions as long as he isn't breaking the forum rules.

This guy is just pissed cuz he lost a lot of money buying in high.... For real. :P

I'm trying to initialize a rigorous definition that can be followed for justification of negative trust but I don't have the ability for it.

I wanted to start with, "any behavior that can be indisputably directly linked to negative results for outside parties".

The indisputably part may lead some to justify ponzis in saying that "some parties gain from it".

Removing that, we have a problem where certain points can result in one thinking that the user is acting in such a way that deserves a negative whereas other points can do the exact opposite.

---

For now the ideology of "is it worth ruining their reputation for this" applied to negatives on a case-by-case basis as well as inserting community consensus should be enough for me.

Small correction;However, thanks for you opinion, I have mentioned I found this user from my untrusted feedback because, forum member is detective enough and obviously someone will discover it.  

Are you not wondering it from beginning ? Did I tag this guy? I just ask for community opinion.  

Forum rules isn't moderated by trust system.

Wasn't it purpose of open thread instead of leave feedback?

---

However, thanks everyone for input your opinions and that was the intention of this post. I have got my answer and I am going to locked thread to avoid further spam.