Bitcoin Forum

This is an ALT by the way. I do not care about the tag however here is a point I want to make.

The reference of the tag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5143602.msg51067377#msg51067377
https://i.imgur.com/ltnuUhq.png

Do you still trust her judgements that she does not misuse the trust system for her own benefit? Looking at the inclusions I would say yes, you do. What a shame community.

Personally I would not (and didn't) leave you any negative trust--for the same reason I haven't tagged cryptohunter, Thule, or any of that gang.  But after reviewing your posts, you're doing exactly what Lauda said you were, which is perpetuating untruths about DT members.  You and all the other DT critics are lumping all DT members into this big, imaginary cabal that's all-powerful and evil. 

And that's not true.  May I remind you that Lauda is just one single member of DT.  Don't paint all the other members with the same brush, because not everyone agrees with Lauda.  In fact, there are many disagreements among DT members about a lot of issues, and it's supposed to be that way.  Theymos expanded DT1 for a reason, which was to give it more diversity of opinion. 

I don't think trolls like you should be tagged for spreading falsehoods, but that's just my opinion.  I have no control over what Lauda does, but obviously Lauda doesn't trust you and has given you a neg accordingly.  And frankly, a lot of us are tired of hearing this same old bullshit being recycled with alt accounts.  It's time to stop; if you don't like the structure of this forum, leave it.  Theymos obviously isn't listening to your tired-ass, threadbare criticism.

So much this. I don't (even though I get the "gang" label) give out negs to any of the trolls either but I do understand the ones that do. It's like a broken record at this point.

Edit; Would have given you more merit but I'm broke :(

From which I think DT members should be careful to leave tags if they diagree with someone else because their Trust-net-effects are significant, that can make others mad. If things highly correlated with scams, or untrusted exchanges, negative feedbacks surely appropriate used; but if it is just disagreements in perspective, or trolls, as theymos (not only you) pointed out in his guide, negative trust is somehow in appropriate.

---

I agreed that there are so many recycled threads on this issues recent months, and we all tired to see them floated around in Meta board.

But, but I thought you part of this gang? How come you are allowed to act independently? ::)

---

You got exactly what you deserve, and it's just a matter of time before you get your main account tagged too, that's if it hasn't been tagged already. In as much as you have freedom of speech that don't mean you should use that freedom wrongly. You can't go around the forum accusing other members falsely and don't expect a retaliation since such act can be considered untrustworthy. You and your types are those making the forum uncomfortable and if there was a way to get rid of you all I won't hesitate to second that decision. We all can engage in the activities of the forum without getting red tagged by simply obeying the forum rules and learnings from mistake of other. If you don't engage in untrustworthy activities you won't get red tagged. It's as simple as that.

Same here, I just exclude them in my trust list. I understand why some DT members do so (same for tagging alt accounts). There are currently ~80 DT members and only a hand full are being considered as part of "the gang". Those few members could easily be excluded (including Lauda) if they were actually acting maliciously like all these sad trolls are claiming. The way I see it that Theymos has created a decentralized trust system which will continue to grow with all the new inclusions. Perhaps these bad actors should stop complaining and try to contribute instead.

From more of an outsiders perspective looking in, with some detail - take it or leave it - I agree there is only a handful of dubiously trustworthy members in DT, and therefore like many people I have recently excluded some and added others. However I have to criticize the idea that it is a decentralized trust system, it's clearly hierarchical (DT1, DT2, DT3, etc), you can even view your trust list in it's hierarchical format to confirm this theory.

Personally I don't have a problem with this, the forum is built on distinct hierarchies from the moderators/legends down to the newbies, it's based on rank and merit, so believing there can be a decentralized structure (DT) that effectively assesses the trustworthiness of members is a complete fallacy in my opinion, even if the intent is to be decentralized. There is even the hierarchy of "trust knowledge"; for example it took me hours digging through meta/reputation threads to make my own semi-informed decisions. It took me months before I even realized I could edit my own trust list. If you're thinking "you noob" for that last comment, then question the accessibility of this hierarchy; it's relatively low, as it requires a lot of knowledge to be applied effectively from the ground up - the basis of decentralized structures.

Skimmed but didn't read? I didn't criticize any individual member here, or the DT group for that matter, only the concept that a hierarchy can be decentralized.
This is also completely fine, this forum is not a blockchain technology, therefore it's not expected to be decentralized, even if it could be improved.

Edit: Food for thought: DT trust accountability from the ground up  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5116287.msg51252290#msg51252290)

If this was Medium I'd give you 50 claps and then log on to a different account just so I could give you 50 more!

Please keep your 3rd world trash feltching false accusations to yourself.

Here is a challenge for you bitch.

Present now anything related to scamming this person has done to deserve a scam tag or you will be called out as a liar in future.

Also I can present outright scamming from lauda and it does not have a tag.

Lauda tags people and encourages her eurotrash gang/alts to tag persons presenting observable instances of her wrong doing. She is trying to silence whilstleblowers which of course facilitates scamming.

RED trust is for scammers or those you can present STRONG case have scammed. Get that into your undeveloped thick skull.

Now present the evidence to substantiate your claims or retract them.

You are proliferating FALSE information that facilitates scamming.

It is undeniable that the intial poster is correct SOME DT use red trust to silence people mentioning observable instances in their post history they want to remain hidden.  Other DT members do not do that themselves but support those that do. ALL are facilitating scammers.

We know you are only here to spam your sig for as high rates as possible gobble on as much cock as required to do so. Disgusting fool.

Problem isn't about "open talk", problem is about target specific DT or a group of DT (called DT gang). I don't know you are alt of which DT and I know very well you never worried about this account. Attack someone doesn't mean " open talk". You could always make an argument about DT judgement and its always welcome to me. But I can't accept "DT troll" although I haven't tag anyone for it and likely I wouldn't even future.

But your feedback is appropriate in my opinions. Always troll and attack someone obviously not a wise attempt. Constructive discussions always welcome but, "No troll & attack"

What you are looking for is called OBSERVABLE proof and OBSERVABLE facts. :D

lauda is correct

observable instances can not be called trolling. That is trolling trolling as has been explained to you before.

Repeating things that have been demonstrated as incorrect is trolling.

Which "attacks" do you wish to dispute? please let me know so I can demonstrate you are an imbecile for trying to term them as trolling.

Did you just admit to wanting to make alt accounts so you can give people more internet points? Wait until QS hears about this!

Next up on America's Looney Tunes Gang: Hhampuz embezzeling medium claps. :D

With the given situation you are in the red tag Lauda gave to you is justifiable, your account is obviously created to complain about the DT system and it's probably you are one of the members who got tagged by a DT member one way or another. Based from what I have seen DT members are more lenient and understanding to high ranking members or at least the trustworthy ones since they have the balls to complain about it in their own account unlike you who just created an alt account to cover your identity. Keep in mind you are tagged because you are using an alt account that is trolling in the forum and not because you are standing up against them. You aren't even really standing up because you are just hiding in your alt account.

Is that so? Maybe some one should tell that to the 13 cult members excluding me because they don't like my criticism of their pals. I am sure the long list of people on the list no one has ever heard of are far more trustworthy. My crimes are too numerous to count after all.

I can't speak for the other 12 cult members but I excluded you after you publically posted a PM between you and Hhampuz (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5145975.msg51187013#msg51187013). I don't exclude people if I disagree with them or just because I think that they are assholes.

I see, so the fact that I posted that message is more of a problem than his duplicity and inability to have a conversation like an adult. Got it. You know what would have prevented that? Him willing to have a conversation about it, instead he chose to hide like a coward rather than explain himself. The message had nothing exceptional in it other than a demonstration of his duplicitous behavior, this is just a pathetic excuse for you to virtue signal to the DT mob. There is no presumption of privacy with personal messages. If this is your standard you should exclude Suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1389916.msg14161146#msg14161146) too. I am sure I could find plenty of other examples of people on your trust list that have shared PMs as well, but oh that's right you people only apply these standards to others when it serves your bias. This is just a woefully pathetic pretext for retaliation.

Publically posting PMs is a dick move, especially when you do so to force him into a conversation. It has nothing to do with virtue signalling since I honestly don't care what the "DT mob" thinks of me.

I am not going to exclude Suchmoon for something he/she did over 3 years ago. Unlike some people here I don't dig into peoples past, desperately hoping to find something I can bring up. I would exclude him/her if he/she posted it recently. It might sound strange but some people actually change their behaviour when they grow older, which is exactly why I am open to revising my trust ratings/exclusions after a while. You should try it.

 Whatever excuse you can work out to justify your retaliatory punitive behavior right? One standard for me and another standard for thee. Yes, I am sure you don't care, which just so happens to be why you have pretty much everyone who excludes me on your trust list. Complete coincidence I am sure, clearly no one cares what people on their trust list think. No, you don't go around digging up people's past, you just support those that do. What should I try? I don't go around policing Bitcointalk like some kind of rent a cop like you and most of your trust list do. All I am doing is pointing out your hypocrisy and selective punitive punishment for the well deserved criticism of your butt buddies. I am not forcing Hhampuz to do anything, just exposing how he privately shows one face and then publicly tries to pretend as if I was harassing him which is why he JUST HAD TO exclude and block me.

Half =/= pretty much everyone. Stop making so many assumptions, you're starting to sound like QS.

So what part of this makes you less of a hypocrite in your applications of standards for exclusion? Quickseller is a confirmed con artist. Even the people who exclude me don't bother to argue I am a thief. Keep proving how unbiased you are by comparing me to known scammers to argue your extremely weak justification for punitive punishment.

Exclusions have nothing to do with me considering people a scammer, that's what the feedback system is for. I do not consider you a scammer but the fact that you publically post PMs makes me think that you are not trustworthy. Simple as that.

Thank you so much for digging that up. It was a person promoting a scam so there is that, but if anyone wants to exclude me for it - I'm a big fan of informed decisions so feel free, I certainly wouldn't have a meltdown over this. Some other things to look for in my post history:

• I may have said favorable things about a site or two that later turned out to be scams.
• I've said many many NSFW and plain mean things to pretty much everyone I came into contact with.
• I've been wrong quite a few times and - gasp - may have failed to admit it once or twice.
• I don't like lemons.

Not a comprehensive list of all wrongdoings but should get you started.


If you were a thief you would have red trust. As it stands, it's your judgement that is questionable. Your attempts to paint this as being called a scammer show that you either don't understand how the trust system works, or deliberately make yourself look like a victim, neither of which does you any favors as far as your trust inclusions are concerned.

You people sure do love inserting other topics so you can later convolute them. I made it pretty clear the punitive punishment was the exclusion. The "scammer" part was the pathetic attempt to ASSOCIATE me with scammers by comparing me to Quickseller. Learn to read then maybe impugn my words.

Quick question for you ball bags, do you think your exclusions are going to make me more or less of a "dick"?

Bullshit. I have never been credibly accused of trying to steal or misappropriate money.

What a clown show. You pretended to be your own escrow and accepted payment for a nonexistent service. That is theft and fraud. Just because it was JUST A LITTLE bit a fraud doesn't make it ok. Go away now.

Another note for the rest of the clowns:

https://i.imgur.com/Vrr0MNE.png

There is a literal warning not to expect privacy in your PMs with every message you send... but lets all pretend there isn't

Except you're the one inserting that "topic" and making the association with QS' scamming behavior, as opposed to his trolling behavior, which is where you two are like twins.

I don't think you need to blame the exclusions for making you a dick. You seem to be quite capable of that on your own but whatever makes you feel better.

Well if the exclusions are for "being a dick", then do you think further isolating me will make me more or less cooperative with the little Stazi community you have going here? If less so, then is not the point only to cause punitive punishment rather than reform? If being a dick and trolling is grounds for exclusion then you might as well wipe 2/3 of the trust list out. BTW being critical of your butt buddies doesn't make it trolling. You are all creating an environment where no one is free to do or say anything unless the collective proscribes it. Sounds like freedom to me!

You're extrapolating bigly and wrongly. You got one exclusion for something you (the alleged dick) did that was considered untrustworthy by a DT1 member. There are still other exclusions likely for other reasons because most of them happened before the "dick move" episode. I doubt any of your excluders care about your "cooperation" since they already consider your judgement to be flawed. But you haven't lost any of the forum "freedoms" either. You can still say the things you want, you can even bring up scam accusations should you need DT action on them. Being so desperate to get into DT just makes you look even less suitable for it.

You're right on one thing. Being critical isn't trolling. That's not why I consider you a deranged troll (or QS, or CH, or Thule).

The freedom I am referring to is being able to be critical of the default trust priest class without the punitive punishment of exclusion as punishment for doing so. No one is free to speak or be critical of the Default Trust Stazi here any more, your continual slander of me for doing nothing more than speaking critically is just further evidence of it. All of those retards are just convenient tools for you to dismiss legitimate criticisms and pretend it is all the same. The primary difference between myself and them is you don't have the convenient option of just labeling me as a scammer so you have to try to lump me in with "trolls".

I don't think TECSHARE is a thief at all.  In fact, if he wasn't such a cocksucker and didn't think the same of me, I would have no problem doing a bitcoin deal with him in which I sent bitcoin first.  I don't think he'd run away with my money.

The reasons he's excluded from my trust list are that he's shown poor judgement in his feedback-leaving history, which is the whole reason why he got booted off DT a few years ago, and that he's way too emotional (to the point of being unstable) when I've had disagreements with him.  I had to block his PMs because be wanted to continue an argument in a thread that I didn't wish to continue, and he kept sending aggressive-toned PMs to me.  And look at the neutral feedback he left me, and tell me it isn't aggressive:


That was in 2016, and here he is, still arguing with people the exact same way.  Meanwhile, I think I've mellowed a lot since then (occasional outbursts aside).  In any case, this is probably why a lot of other DT members have excluded TECSHARE from their trust lists.

That is simply not true. I don't need to label you in any way or even justify my exclusion of you. It's just that you don't like being excluded and you're trying to come up with all sorts of conspiracy theories to make it seem like the reason is not your own behavior.

If anything, being constructively critical of the trust system would be a good reason for me to include someone, and I've done so on a couple of occasions. I would consider including you if you weren't such an unstable hypocritical knucklehead.

Have you at least considered the possibility that all exclusions in their trust list are all from individual encounters and from different reasons? Like from what @TheNewAnon135246 is telling us he has a different reason why you have been removed from his trust list he didn't plan with anybody else to exclude you he has his own reason why he did it and not one of it is to gang up on you.

https://i.imgur.com/eFExlrv.png
LOL TheUltraElite, really!


But she is in your trust list and you trust her judgment.
http://archive.is/N1PSw#selection-539.0-541.1
 
I wish I could disclose my real account. See this is the exact reason very few people have balls to speak up from the real account. And I told you before that you stands in between. I completely understand the reason.

Not yet but it's clear that you are trying it hard.
You are better than this mate. You are proving that Lauda is your master and you gonna listen whatever she says. Have your own identity.

I believe from the heart that the accusation Quickseller bought against you is possibly wrong but an acknowledgement from you can make everything very clear. The community trusts you but you are acting so naive that you do not give a damn to anyone else (community) except the words from Lauda.

Oh I left you a neutral! HOW ABUSIVE! Please stop pretending this is about my judgment and not just your personal panties in a bunch over your inability to have a debate about a subject concerning the entire forum, and you being butt hurt I left you a neutral rating over it. I don't think you are a cocksucker, and even if I did frankly you probably suck the least cock of all the cocksuckers I consider cocksuckers. IMO your behavior has improved and you are starting to see the big picture here, but you are still a little confused as to who the real enemies are. Currently I think you have good intentions but are simply misguided. You are right, that was in 2016, and you still have your panties in a bunch over it? Who is unstable here?



You throw lots of labels at me, funny no one ever is able to point at any specific circumstances where I went too far. If they do it always seems to be a standard that they are willing to apply to me but not their special pals. It is always some nebulous label, they wave their hands, say abracadabra and call it justified.



Have you ever considered that these people are simply taking signals from The Default Trust Stazi Squad, consciously or otherwise, and are influenced to do things like this over minor issues because they have collectively crafted a false narrative? They do it all the time. Watch any time one of the chosen gets into trouble, the whole team rolls in to defend them from criticism attempting to burn anyone down that points the issue out at any cost.

PFFFT more like the Clinton Pedo Ring cover up Squad!   ;D

You are a special kind of stupid!

Be careful what you send in PM, everyone.  If you ignore people, they feel justified in posting your PMs.  Well, a certain asshole, anyway.  :/

Don't you have calls to make to government bureaucracies to try to get your opponents wrapped up in legal trouble as revenge or something? I didn't post his PM because he ignored me. I posted his PM because he acted friendly after I offered to help him, a day later he removes, blocks, and excludes me without explanation (for calling you out BTW), and then insinuates he had to do it because I was harassing him. Truly my crimes know no limits. Next time I will just report him to the IRS instead and everything will be cool ;)

Watch yourself peeps...  :(

Nice selective editing. Yeah pay no attention to the IRS kicking in your door, what is important is I posted a personal message in public!

EDIT FOR REFERENCE: The actual post so people can read what was actually said since Vod is using the trust system as his personal play toy for retribution again: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5145975.msg51187013#msg51187013

Nice selective editing of my quote.   Does the IRS kick down doors when you hide taxable income?  :(  You should move to Canada .

    No, they usually don't kick down someone's door, at first. They usually notify someone in writing  If they want to do an audit, they usually ask in writing for the tax payer's cooperation. The only time they are going to kick in a door is when they want to arrest someone for tax evasion (I believe the FBI actually does this) or they are seizing someone's property. However, a person's case has to be rather far advanced for them to resort to such extreme measures.

As usual you are totally full of shit. I didn't edit your quote, I added the rest of my quote which you selectively removed. The fact is that none of this is any of your fucking business to begin with and to pretend you did that for any reason other than to try to harass and intimidate OG in real life is a complete lie.


Well shit in that case I guess it is ok that Vod is trying to sick huge government bureaucratic steam rollers on people here when it is none of his business to begin with even IF it were true. I for one welcome our new East German Stazi forum overlords.

Nice dramatics as usual, but put my name to words I did not post.  Anyone can see for themselves you edited my post.

Why is it OK for you that your friend OG misquotes everyone, including the administrator?

Oh?   You make up select rules for people you like/dislike?  Then why constantly complain about that, hypocrite?

Thanks for the reply bones.  :)   TECSHARE selectively chooses what he wants to answer.  :/


It's really nobodies business when someone tries to scam, is it?  Curse all morality!   

No logical argument? Just start making shit up. It is the Vod way after all.

Just avoiding answers?   It is the TECSHARE way after all....

Look, this has turned petty, as all conversations with you do.   I'm ending it and you can just make up whatever words you want me to say.  :)

I did answer you, you just didn't get the answer you wanted. You are making shit up. Also I have no responsibility to answer for anything OG did or did not do. Way to pretend to be the better man Vod, very convincing. I have the number for the ATF if you want to send any more government bureaucracies after anyone else who dares criticize you around here.

And it will continue to be even more abusive than it is now the trust system. Talking about decentralization why are only a few people given power, more than decentralization this is just a communist run lobby. That is how I see it.

Speaking as some one very familiar with Communist ideology, it is a spitting image of the Politburo complete with lack of accountability, unpersoning, and punishing dissidents who speak against "the party".

Theymos set clear rules for DT1 qualification, and it applies to everyone.  How is it the forum's fault that you don't make friends easily?

Amen. Preach brother. I'd give you merits but the system won't allow me based on its design - see the other thread. I also have personal experience with communism - well my family did. Anyway, I am not opposed to anyone here and am not calling anyone out, but a quick glance at the forum reveals the lack of decentralization of the current system. Call me a skeptic, but any claims to decentralization deserve scrutiny.

I always smile when i read the word "decentralization" , it is something that everyone in crypto repeats without knowing what it actually means , and that's funny because plain decentralization does not exist, and we are trying to force it into existence, sadly this will never happen.

Anyhow, how do you ( or anybody who dislikes the current system) imagine a decentralized system to look like ?

a voting/election system is the closest thing to the imaginary decentralization , same like government election, just because the people you support fail to make it - it does not mean the system is bad, it simply means there are MORE people who disagree than agree with your point of view.

I am not saying this is a perfect system, but i see nothing else "better" replacing it except for a total "centralized" list picked by Theymos.

Yes, decentralization is a philosophical concept, and it's way overused, and... it's not absolute in practice. Take bitcoin. Within the ecosystem, there are clearly people who are more influential than others - according to their hash power, the amount of coins they have, their software development capabilities, etc. So other coins were developed in response to concerns about how bitcoin should scale, with differences over the meaning of decentralization, and in turn these coins have been met with skepticism about their own forms of centralization.

A forum like this cannot be decentralized - let's get that out of the way. A forum cannot remain truly decentralized, I imagine, unless it is willing to be flooded with trolls and perhaps illegal activities. So we can place moderators who balance out the power - I suppose like the EOS delegated system - but then this is also not truly decentralized.

So all we can do is make the forum as decentralized as possible - not run by any one person or group with interests that deviate from those of the ecosystem at least - without allowing the quality of posts to deteriorate such that the purpose of the forum is undermined.

Anyway, you are right, it is just not possible for this forum to be decentralized.

I am not here for making friends, different from the assholes(DT GANG) here I have a life outside of this forum. The point is with DT1 qualification it is still room for more abusive feedbacks. No one have answered me yet, why is more trusted a person who leave abusive feedback like marlboroza compared to one who have dealt thousand and thousand of dollars in Computer Hardware and Currency Exchange section ? This is the BIGGEST flawing point of this forum.

Meaning who?

Then your issue isn't with the system... it's with the people in the system.

Meaning you don't like how the decentralized system ended up and you want to centralize it in your favor.

If the system isn't effectively managing the people within the system, the system is broken.

Their problem was with the lack of decentralization. Their solution was to use a centralizing method in order to rectify that.

IMO there have been several steps towards "decentralization" that were meant to simply give the superficial appearance of decentralization. There is further evidence of this when the trust list didn't go in the way they liked, Theymos simply changed the rules to move it in his personally preferred direction as he always does.

It would have been far easier for him to move it any direction when he had sole control over DT1 but I'm sure you'll come up with another bowl of word salad to explain how it makes sense for you to peddle this conspiracy theory and at the same time to beg the big bad theymos to enforce your "standards".

Except this way he gets to pretend he decentralized the system so he doesn't look like a total hypocrite every time he invents new "features" to put a lid on anyone he doesn't personally agree with. There doesn't need to be any conspiracy, but that is interesting you would use that terminology to make a lame attempt to invalidate observable facts. Keep toading toady.

The only actual fact here is that theymos did decentralize the DT1 list by placing it entirely in the hands of the user base via their own trust lists, as opposed to his own handpicked list of users as it was before. Whether or not this was done to "put a lid on people he doesn't agree with" is pure conjecture based on your gut feeling and nothing else, not a fact as you seem to be suggesting.

I'm also curious as to how you think theymos has manipulated the publically viewable individual trust lists of however many users to obtain his desired goal (whatever that may be) without anyone realising.

Actually, he has been doing it since he created exclusions. He didn't like a rating I had left, and not everyone on DT1 would remove me from their trust lists, so PURELY BY COINCIDENCE I am sure, trust list exclusions were then created and I became the first exclusion by him and Badbear. This is demonstrably manipulation on his part to get the results he personally wants. He didn't manipulate trust lists, he manipulated the formula for how it is calculated until it basically handed control of it back to the group he desired on a silver platter. You will remember the so called attempted "default trust hijacking" that was going on, and then he again modified the system and that wasn't happening any more. These are all publicly observable events. I think the word you are looking for is "caring" not "realizing".

So you really think that Theymos added a feature to the current trust system purely to be able to exclude you? Talk about having a big ego.

Still no answer, why is a user like marlboroza which has contributed NOTHING financially to the forum more trusted than a user who resides in Currency Exchange and Goods, Computer Hardware which has put at risk thousand of dollars, this make no sense to me and looks like a fully centralized system rather than decentralization. This still remains the biggest flaw of the forum itself, including the trust system.

People are being tagged for something some users on DT think they will do, I have bought accounts (it is still allowed as far as I know) but have not scammed anyone and I have made deals here with people and Paypal risky ones.

What you are suggesting is even more stupid, do you know how easy it would be to game a system that relies on money being involved?

I think it is far more easy to game a system where money is not involved. I trust more users like minerjones, OgNasty, TECSHARE who have contributed massively to the forum and not your bullshit propaganda friends.

You people are so predictable. Yeah you are right, he just went around personally asking people to remove me from their lists because he didn't want me on DT2. Then when he couldn't get it done that way very shortly after exclusions were created and I was the very first one excluded, by Theymos and his main moderator Badbear OFC. This was all to protect some one who turned out to be a con artist BTW. Theymos made me bag hold his own embarrassment for him to cover for his own mistakes, I am just here to return what is rightfully his property. Yep, I am just imagining this and it is my huge ego, certainly not his huge ego.



Yeah you are right. It certainly is much easier to spend years and doing hundreds of trades with tons of trusted members and be trusted with thousands in value, than it is to run around and plaster hundreds of people red shooting yourself up to the top of the DT in a quarter of the time never having risked anything.

It's easy when you are using users to your preference, rather than the system as a whole.

Do you know how much positive trust has been flowing around for gamed deals with money involed? Short term loans, selling $1 items with unlimited stock etc. etc.

Bullshit propaganda friends is interesting though, last time I looked anyone was free to exclude users that they don't want to see ratings from, if you are a high ranking member that is yet to realize this I'm not sure what you've been up to.

You are correct Hhampuz.  A script kiddie can hack Microsoft/etc keys and build up quite a lot of trust quickly.   There are many ways to build trust just by selling items and not contributing anything else to the forum.  It's much harder to get respected knowledgeable users to trust you, and I think that is the issue a lot of these sellers have had over the past four years.  Gravy train is over.

The trust system may have a few issues, but it's a lot better than the centralized one we had before.  And it's improving with time.  

Exactly. Then it's up to me what that trust entails. Some people I might trust with straight up BTC/Phyiscal items while I perhaps wouldn't trust them to create a userscript or a wallet generator. Which is also why we have comments that can be added (or so I thought).

Who are you talking about?

And here's the deal... the positive trust comes from different users on bitcointalk. You don't seem to have a problem with that part of it except for the fact that the trust isn't going the way that you want it.

Assume that you don't know whether the person you're trading with was the same user that built their history around their account or not.

How are you meant to trust them? That user you're trading with has multiple identities, as far as anyone is concerned.