Bitcoin Forum

My question for DT1 and DT2: what do you think about participants who join the campaign if they see that the BM is tagged?

My opinion: the red trust is synonym: "seems this user is a scammer".
So if a person joins to a scammer knowing that the employer is a scammer, may by the person is scammer as well?

First question is tagged for what ? After implemented new trust network, if someone just have red tag doesn't prove he/she is scammer. It would be more better to express opinions if you can point specific bounty manager. If MB tagged for scam someone then should avoid him. There would be more reason for tag, like "promote ponzi scheme" and also you should check ranks and reputation as well. I know some manager have red tag for promote ponzi scheme, but he have been managing btc signature campaign from years and paying regularly. So you may join belongs to such as managers. But us someone tagged because of likely scam project and he/she is managing same project then you should not join and likely you will get tag on such as case, for example obvious ponzi scheme (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5205727.0). So it should be decide case by case, not average.

Should we not check the project being promoted first before looking at the trust of the BM? It would be unfair to tag campaign participants run by a red-tagged BM when the project turns out to be legit. I'm not part of DT, just sharing my view. 

In addition to above comments:

Most of them are just a bunch of spammers that try to jump into any ^[literally] campaign that offers them to get their hands on a few pennies...

Yes but the trust system is not for spam prevention and spammers should not be tagged because this may be considered as an "abuse trust system".
But iif a person joins to a scammer (if BM already tagged as a scammer for eg) then I think that participant should by tagged as "a fan of working in the same campaign with scammers"

I think that such managers can very simply bypass this requirement. Thus, we will force managers who have a negative tag to use alternative accounts to conduct bounty. Now we see that the Manager has a negative tag, and each participant can make their own decision to participate in the bounty. Otherwise, we will know nothing about the Manager, except that he is leading his first bounty.

Did you forget that the default trust system was changed? So anyone who has a negative tag won't be marked as a scammer by default only there will be a warning if they have flags active against them.

Not really, but they have a chance of getting scammed if they join voluntarily after knowing that BM has a bad reputation then let him decide his own fate.

Currently, we have almost no influence on the bounty managers who accept users with negative feedback in their campaigns. In my opinion, a good solution would be to use flags for the manager as such abuse can be considered as a financial loss for honest campaigners.

There are many managers who have spit on the norms of the forum society. For them, money is more important than spamming the forum with one-day accounts. I think that DT members together should find a solution to limit abusive managers.

Are they running campaign for scam or legit project/service/whatever?  ;)

I asked a theoretical question. But let's imagine:
some BM had advertised a scam and he got tagged for that. The next time the same BM is started hiring people to another campaign for another project...

Let's imagine that no one knows about the new project: is it a scam again or not.

My opinion that all participants in that new campaign should be tagged as accomplices of this scammer.

I don't think they should be tagged until the above is proven, but yes the most probability of it is being a scam.

I disagree with you. Tagging campaign participants wouldn't be right thing. As you said, nobody knows is it scam or legit project.  It's just presumptions of things which happened in past. If there is no strong evidence that new project is scam, there is no reasong to tag participants.
And if we will start following this suggestion, probably half of forum should be tagged, especially if we tslk about people who are taking part in bounties. Probably even best managers have experience with scam projects, when not only participants were scammed, but also they scammed manager. So, in such case they all should be tagged?
IMO, it would be wrong use of trust system.

I think this is the most accurate question because we can see some evidence here compared to members in the DT network where they sometimes tag based on their own perception only.

If they are running the campaign properly and following the general rules that are accepting only quality participants, no thread bumping, escrowing payments with the right escrow etc then the participants should be safe. If a service trusts that manager, it's not a participant's fault. Having said that, if the manager is running a scam or promoting a scam service, and participants still apply then they should be tagged and it has done before.

That's a fallacy and not logical.

In my opinion it’s obvious that the fraudulent service will trusts any manager. Fraud services are not part of the forum community and that services and it doesn't matter what kind of reputation someone has here.
If the community does not take preventive actions, fraudulent companies will always feel like hosts in this forum.

Usually some concern DT members gave warning to participants and if they will not remove signature then they will be tag as they will become an accomplish in promoting a scam project. Also, the red tag should be incline with the project being promoted, otherwise, there is no reason to tag participants if the manager was tag for another reason.

Yeah, but will a reputed manager take upon to advertise such a service? Obviously they won't. The question here is not about the campaign manager but tagging the participants. Knowingly advertising a scam should be punishable by default regardless of their position.

So if BM already tagged but he started a new campaign - this is a big chance that there is a fraudulent service. Right?
Indeed, why should a normal service hire a fraudster?


If participants consciously go to work in the same campaign with a fraudster (to advertise a service that is probably also fraudulent) then should participants be tagged?

When it is proved that a new project is fraud and will be announced in the thread of the bounty, all new participants and those who continue to participate in the bounty should receive a negative tag.

Who should announce that a project is a scam?
Scams are not moderated in the forum. Any announcement regarding a scam is not official.

Look at this as a sample: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5184340.msg53109889#msg53109889

Exactly, that's the question that should be asked.  If a bounty manager has been tagged because he continued to run a bounty for a scam project, that would be one thing.  If he got tagged for account selling or something unrelated to the bounty that members are participating in, that's another story.

But in general, I don't think bounty hunters ought to get red-trusted just because the manager is.  That's basically guilt by association, which I'm not a fan of, nor have I tagged bounty hunters because of being in a situation like this.  You have to weigh the circumstances individually for each case, not just tag people across the board because things smell fishy.

Members of the forum have the right to give any other user negative or positive trust. It's their right and no one can force them to change their mind.
You can give negative trust to anyone you think is a scammer and anyone promoting a project you think is scammer. It's your right.
But in my opinion, generally it's not a good idea. It is never officially announced that a project is scam.
Assume that you believe that a project is a scam and I don't agree with you. What should I do? I don't know whether I should participate in that campaign or not. On the one hand, I don't think the project is a scam. On the other hand, I'm afraid I get negative trust from you.

Anyway, As I said, members of the forum have the right to give negative trust to any other user that they think are harmful to the forum.

Not yet because they are not trust any more for running project and waste your time and your working without get reward at the end campaign, I have seen many bounty campaign manager got red trust and they not become recommendation bounty manager for participating because they have experience with scammer bounty hunter before and they got red trust account.