Bitcoin Forum

The recent red trust bartering between PN7/quickseller and Laura and friends, is only another demonstration of the mess red trust creates. A very short time before both sides were claiming the other was dangerous, escrow scammers, extortionist and they would not trust them as far as they could throw them.

We now witness the "forgiveness" mutually as suddenly red trust is no longer required by either side. This is now how trust works. You don't go from claiming how dangerous and scammy you believe each other are to trading red marks for mutual alerations and editing of threads presenting evidence you were sure about days before.

Time to remove the red trust system and rely upon flags. If you do not have clear objective evidence of scamming or strong evidence of attempted/ setting up scamming then the trust system need not be bothered with your personal grievances and personal squabbles.

Let me guess: your main account has negative feedback, but no Flags yet?

There's a lot wrong with the Trust system, but one example of 1 user changing something won't make it in my Top 10.

I hope this isn't Cryptohunter/The-One-Above-All back from his fantasy vacation.


Jay-z and Nas used to say the same things and now they're best pals. Beefs get squashed. I think this is just more proof that you can't really win with what you do here. People leave negative to attack others and complain about that. Then people decide to remove it and call a truce and people also complain about that. I think what they did is better than just letting the quarrelling escalate and the tit for tat battling go on forever. If theymos removed the trust system - or just negative - I can guarantee you people will also cry about that, especially all those that then go on to get scammed because there were no warnings in place.

Your speculation is incorrect and off topic.

Your comment demonstrates you do not have the forums best interests at heart. It further demonstrates you have no understanding of the intended purpose of a trust system.

It is a statement of truth. That if you do not have clear objective evidence of scamming or attempting to / setting up a scam, all other information is subjective personal noise that serves only to dilute and destroy the credibility of the trust score.

There are many other clear examples of red trust being given that are clearly for personal grievances. Those are more than enough reaason to abolish a system that provides no additional benefit.

I have seen no credible argument that demonstrates the old red trust system is now anything other than a tool for manipulation rather than to protect the members of our forum from being scammed.

The point being made by the poster directly above is not relevant. If you claim you are sure someone is dangerous and a scammer, forgiveness is not a factor. You don't mutually then both claim that other members do not deserve a warning now that those claiming you were a dangerous scammer decided to make a truce. If someone has scammed or been dangerous then it is impossible to reason they should have tags removed for recently playing ball.

This is exactly why subjective personal opions are not to be tolerated.

Those arguing against the requisite of objective evidence of scamming or strong evidence of attempting or setting up a scam need to present their argument.

Can't tell for sure without the royal "we". Let's see if he calls CH a "legend".


You've only been on this forum for about an hour. That's not enough time to see the beneficial uses of red trust. Feel free to look around and report back with proper arguments and evidence when you're ready.

It sure looks like it. I'm not taking any chances: I'm ignoring the troll before this turns into a 12 month drama again.

You would have a point, if theymos hadn't explicitly said on multiple occasions that he encourages forgiveness.


It is entirely possible to think someone has been dangerous in the past, and to also think that person has reformed and is unlikely to behave dangerously again in the future. If it weren't, then every crime should carry a life sentence since reformation is impossible in your worldview.

---

His posts are relatively to the point, there aren't any randomly capitalized words, and he has gone more than 2 posts without throwing out any childish insults. He's obviously an alt, but I don't think it's CH/TOAA on this occasion.

I have been reading this forum sporadically for 9 years. Recently I wish to prevent what I view as a move to discredit this forum. Personal vendettas accrued over years of petty squabbling is ruining this forum.

There is no argument possible. To prevent scamming, only prior scamming or strong evidence of attempting to or setting up a scam are relevant.

Other subjective indicators of possible scammer traits are infested with pretty squabbling and clear abuse.  They devalue the strong objective scoring that requires objective evidence.

This is an insoluble problem.

Additionally, it pollutes the forum with intense drama and bile.

The flags are here. The tagging system is of no further benefit.

The posting style looks like cryptohunter /toaa.
This text walls that we dont have missed.
And Yeah suchmoon is right about for just a few hours registered and complaining about the trust system the same as Ch and toaa has done.

Funny you should mention that, since it's the first thing I thought of upon reading OP's post.  Sounds very much like him, and we definitely don't need more of that drama, no matter what new account may be sparking it. 

I will immediately put OP on ignore just as a prophylactic measure--and I just read Lauda's peace treaty with Quickseller a few minutes ago.  For some reason I'd avoided opening that thread, but I'm glad they buried the hatchet.  I'm sure we're not all going to be on the same page about everything and there are going to be feuds, but trying to minimize those and patching old wounds is a good thing.  We'll see how it goes, I guess.

Yep, and I bet you that if OP keeps posting, those posts will keep getting longer and longer until it becomes obvious that CH/TOAA didn't go very far after all.

Many off topic posts preventing discussion of the specific points that my opening post seeks to address.

I am waiting for a member to present a credible opposition to my request. Sensible support is welcome.

Off topic speculation and personal attacks are to be reported and deleted from here onwards.

No system is perfect because there will always be people who are not happy about it. If the trust system was to be removed to day, very many scammers who were previously red tagged would be let lose and you don't want to see that happen.

Yes there are a few instances where it's being missed used because of personal egos and disagreements but you are ignoring the countless thousands of real scammers where the trust has correctly been used.
It's like suggesting scrapping the prison/jail system and releasing all the prisoners just because there was one case where someone was falsely convicted.

The number of actual scammers tagged isn't a valid metric of useful effects. It needs to be taken in the context of how many innocent users are abused using it, driving legitimate people away and increasing the con artist to legitimate user ratio. After all scammers simply return in seconds with a bought account. Legitimate users that spend the time to build a reputation just to have it be destroyed over petty shit simply leave and never come back.

Any real scammer would be eligible for a flag.
I don't agree with the accuracy of your analogy at all.

A better one would be not relying on a court of law because mob justice has previously taken care of plenty of criminals. Also killed a lot of innocent people along the way.

Objective evidence of scamming or attempted scamming and setting up a scam. Allowing other subjective data is crushing the value of the trust system to prevent scammers and creating a myriad of other issues.

The threat to free speech here is another huge consideration.

Delete it or present a sensible and credible case to keep it.

Removing long standing red tags in trade (I remove, you remove) does seem like a bit of an admission that the tags were probably just personal bullshit the entire time..

On the other hand, if a user has reformed from their past ways that warranted a warning, changing them to neutral or removing them could just be a sign that the user is no longer as high risk as he previously was..

Lot of attacks on the messenger and not the message here..

The first valuable reply by eddie13.

The specific cases I am refering to fall clearly into the first category. There is a long and detailed history of these members demonstrating both their sure belief the other is a dangerous scammer, and objective evidence that presents a strong case to support their assertions. There are long detailed history of quickseller stating lauda has attempted to extort, conducted dishonest escrowing on a large scale, and lauda has been certain quickseller is a dangerous self escrowing scammer, and claims he could not trust him as far as he could throw him.  Owlcatz has said the same for years. The same with owlcatz has been certain OGnasty is a scammer and visa versa. Now requesting OGnasty remove his red tags because he has decided to forgive OGnasty for being a dangerous scammer.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5224240.0

If you start the time with Lauda giving PN7 a red tag on the speculation that is quickseller's alt. Then all of a sudden quickseller retracting the pill accusation against lauda. Redacting a selection of his extortion case thread and removing the names of owlcatz after years. Then lauda suddenly forgiving PN7 and removing his red tags from quickseller and quickseller do the same for lauda. Then owlcatz doing the same and then asking quickseller to ask OGnasty to remove his red tags?

This is clear trust bartering and years of claiming they have solid evidence each other are dangerous scammers mutually just vanish.

This is not in the best interest of this forum. It is in the mutual best interests of those people playing around with the holes in the red tagging system.

Those certain for years each other are scammers and it is in the best interests of the forum to place a warning on their accounts suddenly forgive if they get something in return or request it.

Remove red tagging and rely on flags alone.
There is no benefit to red tags. The only persons here attempting to detail with off topic speculation are those that want to continue to enjoy the power the broken subjective red tagging system provides.

I will be reporting all off topic posts that seek to derail my threads in the future. If your post does not address the specific points I have detailed in my opening post then you are off topic.

If someone does not have victims to repay (or has repaid their victims), and have not repeated previous mistakes, why brand them for life? If branded for life, what incentives do they have to not repeat previous mistakes, or to further escalate a dispute with a person?


Perhaps some of what you describe was petty fighting among all involved, and some was involving things that happened long enough ago that it is appropriate to forgive past transgressions.

I am curious how many people would be aware of these types of changes to a thread, and out of those who would be aware, who would want to complain about something like this. ::)

ARE you curious? I would speculate perhaps those that pay attention, and don't like to see members retract/redact evidence of purported financially dangerous behaviors in return for their own red tags being removed.

Please be specific. Are you claiming that because an extortion attempt or scam fails and there are no persons to financially reimburse that no warning should be applied to their account if they remove a warning they have placed on your account(s) ?

That the entire purpose of the trust system is not to provide warning and increase the safety of the wider community against scammers, rather it is to ensure that those with red tags get along working nicely with one another and have more fun?

What incentive is there for senior accounts not to scam if a period of good behavior will result in a clean sheet. Or if you can simply act as a group to throw red around until you force others to remove their red on you?

What incentive is there to speak the truth or present evidence of wrong doing if I will have my account flagged red for doing so.  Then I may have to react it all and pretend it was all a big mistake and I promise never to do it again.

Do you perhaps have a good argument to retain red tags? or should we move to a fully objective system like the flags? best ask lauda first to check what you are permitted to say. I don't wish to see redacted posts here or suffer more of you begging forgiveness and promises not to repeat telling the truth ever again.

AKA the clown car, and the sad children's party magician Vod strategy.

Yes the one that CH is driving, you are in the shotgun and all of CH's alts are in the backseat. I have heard its a shitty ride to be honest, with all that Bukkake action in the back seat the back of your head must be covered in spunk.

anyway to OP why not just post from your main account? unless you want us all to believe you are a newbie who has scanned the forum for years and already decided what is best for this place?

All my opions (sic) are subjective and personal. Anything else would compromise my morality. If you don't agree with me, then you can use discussion to attempt to change my opinion, or just put me on ignore. I agree that trust shouldn't be a weapon, but most of those weaponising it seem to be those wielding broken swords, after they have been exposed.

He is clearly referring to subjective and personal opinions when leaving trust ratings, not general discussion.

I wouldn't go as far to say it's ruining the forum and their are bigger issues here than beefs, but isn't it then better that people are trying to put their petty squabbling behind them? I only hope more people will put their disagreements aside and move on. People should have never been using the feedback system to wage these battles in the first place though but I still think people should be able to use the feedback system to comment on trustworthiness but neutrals are often much better unless there is strong suspicion or evidence of bad behaviour.


I think there's a fair few similarities but obviously too early to tell right now and could just be coincidences. I think if CH/TOAA was going to re-appear on a new account though he'd likely try hide the fact as best as he could.


It's pretty obvious that's what they were fueled by. It's hard to look objectively at this when the people involved really disliked each other and were just looking for things to try drag the other party down and that's what this was but I'm glad they've called a truce. Threads like this though just seem to be trying to stoke up more drama for something that should just be buried.

So, you could have said "I had already spent the coin, TF said I could keep it but we said I returned it to keep Vod quiet.   Sorry, but I am changing."

Instead you are propagating your lie.   :( 

I wish your actions spoke louder than your empty words.

Petty squabbles would not reach to scamming, attempted extortion, and such behaviors. These types of behaviors should not be buried for the sake of more cordial relationships between members that have been adamant for years and standing behind their evidence presented to the board.

The red trust removal bartering is disturbing.

The specific individuals prior scamming actions are not as concerning as the trust system being used as a tool for leverage and manipulation, to prevent and discourage people speaking out.

Red tags serve no additional purpose. They are the Achilles heel of this forum going forward. Let's get them removed.

Members still appear to be approaching this from a what-is-best-for-red-trusted-scammers pov. We should be approaching this from the what is best for protecting honest members from financially dangerous individuals.

If they were not serious, as you are suggesting, and were using the trust system for their own personal vendettas then again they were abusing the trust system, devaluing and misleading honest members. This is yet another reason to remove the subjectivity that permits this abuse and leverage / manipulation.

Having looked at both sets of claims. Both seem compelling but quickseller's actions look far less dangerous and ruthless. Of course now that he is willing to sweep this under the carpet for his own selfish gain, the margin between them had narrowed.

Either way this is dishonest, self serving and dangerous for honest members. Red trust should be removed immediately. Only those that enjoy having this abusive weapon are pushing to retain it.

There is no member producing a valid reason to retain Red tagging now that we have the flags, so let's have it removed.

Well, I actually have a pretty strong suspicion, but I will keep that to myself now. I don't think many people are in a position to notice a chance in a thread that has not been posted in for 3 months.

If someone is likely to repeat the attempt, a warning would remain appropriate. If there is good reason to believe they won't try again, I don't see a good reason to continue branding the person.

I don't think he is CH. But I also didn't initially think TOAA was CH but I turned out to be wrong about that. Maybe theymos will eventually have to say something to the effect of:

How would a member go about determining the exact probability of a someone who was willing to try such a ruthless extortion attempt, a very dirty looking escrow, and scamming, not trying something similar in the future?
How do repeat offenders suddenly become trustworthy to the point where the wider community benefits from warnings being removed?


How could a warning being removed for such a member ever be in the best interests of honest members of this forum?

How do you explain the improbable change of heart of both you and lauda after years at exactly the same time?

Do you and primenumber7 actually believe that people here don't notice how the red trust removal bartering and redacted pill and extortion thread adaprions went down?

This cryptohunter / tooa point is irrelevant. It is being used as some kind of deflection by those that feel uncomfortable being placed under scrutiny. Don't focus on this point here. Create your own thread if those members are of interest to you.

There can be little doubt that your desperation to preserve your sig on PN7 has forced you to sellout to a scammer/ extortionist,  that you know posed a financial risk to this forum and continues to do so.

It is good to see that since owlcatz told you to try to influence OGnasty to remove his red tags, in another red trust Removal trade that OGnasty has not been willing to sell out as you have done. Presumably this is due to OGnasty not being desperate to be permitted into the sig spamming crew by those that control those positions.

Oh please. Its obviously cryptohunter, refreshed from their "vacation."

The constant posting in Meta and Reputation.
The obvious dislike of Lauda, TMAN and suchmoon.
The 6th grader nicknames.
The long-winded spiels about the trust system and forum injustices.

Though I am happy they haven't tried to shit down my neck thus far let's not pretend this might not be cryptohunter.

As for the subject at hand: red trust has already been removed. Its now orange trust.

Can't remove the negative sign. Can't get people to always leave negatives only for scammers.

I think the recent Default Trust changes are a good idea, however I do think the merit requirements for voting need to be upped at a rate proportional to that being introduced into the system.

OK trust or dare, I've said all I need to say. I won't be negging you just as I didn't neg PN7. Have at it so long as you can remain un-cunty.

Just put the disgusting cunt on ignore dude. Life is better when that negativity is blocked outs

I do wonder about the users mental state after all this behaviour

Re https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5224780.msg53831608#msg53831608

I can use my good judgement to see if I believe they will reoffend or attempt a similar negative scheme again. Based on my good judgment, I don’t think Lauda will try a similar scheme in the future.

You are free to disagree with me if you choose. If you are who I think you are, you don’t like to criticize people with a lot of influence, at least not from your primary account. If you disagree, you are free to leave Lauda a negative rating for his previous misdeeds.

Let’s be honest though, I don’t think you actually care about warning the community about Lauda. My rating was not on the first page of Laudas trust wall, and probably wasn’t on the second. I think it would be unlikely for anyone unaware of his past to ever see my rating.

I.E. "Stop saying things I don't like or I will use the trust system against you to force you into silence."

Complete removal of negative tags would be less than fair to users like me, and most others, that have gone their entire histories here NOT raising any cause for a red warning.. Similar to canceling student debt isn't fair to all those who have no student debt, or have paid it..
A long standing perfectly clean account (like mine) having no history of mischief or "financially motivated wrongdoing" is hard earned and only accomplished with great care and great etiquette, which the vast majority of red tagged accounts have breached in some way shape or form..

On the other hand, I might be in favor of removing the negative tag feature, and rolling them all into neutrals, and from then on relying solely on the Flag system with it's higher standards (maybe even increasing those standards also), because these negative ratings are all too often abused for persona grudges and used with far too low of standards..

Do you have any idea how many likely valuable members I have seen ran off this forum by red-tag addicts for at many times simple mistakes or etiquette infractions? Tons!!
Running off all these likely valuable future members over such petty shit over the years has almost certainly been a detriment to this community and likely even pushed many out of Cryptocurrency entirely.. Going back to the point of how difficult it has been for users to maintain perfectly clean accounts over the past years, not making any mistakes, and having the education of etiquette to even know what mistakes not to make..

Far too much of a "safe space" mentality has also been created..
Tagging ALL sold accounts in attempt to keep everyone safe from possibly being scammed by a sold account?
Like you are actually going to stop users vulnerable to being scammed from being scammed.. They'll just go buy an ICO and be scammed by that..
Probably a better chance of being scammed by an ICO than by a sold account, but they all don't get automatic red tags, lol.. And they scam in the $$ Millions ($Billions?)
Hardly anyone would consider all of the digital value in this community has been basically burned by tagging all those accounts (akin to burning Bitcoins), and all the likely valuable users that have been ran out of here tagging ALL of their accounts because one of them has been found to be purchased so they could, heaven forbid, earn some crypto posting..
"Account buyers are not to be trusted" - OMG thank you sooo much for padding the walls incase I bump my elbow!!
Poor decision IMO..

Liberal use of red tags has probably cost this community the loss of more valuable users than scammers have..
Users tend to come back or not leave after getting themselves scammed, they learn from it.. Users that have been ran off over the possible chance of scam probably aren't coming back.. Users that have been ran off because they didn't know what not to do, are probably not coming back..


A lot of the reason I am so hard on DT taggers is that I have seen them destroy hundreds and hundreds of accounts over a lot of petty shit over the years and have ran those users out of here, so they damn well better not be hypocrites!

But oh no!! What's this? The good outweighs the bad? So they are just allowed to be hypocrites?
Can't run them out of here with red tags because they have ran so many users out of here with red tags? Or because they do business? Can't hold them to their own inflicted standards?
Nah..

The trust system should not have been so liberalized in the first place, reserved only for truly bad and dangerous users..
Maybe it should just be completely removed..

We get it, you worked hard to build a new account PN7 and lauda put a red tag on it jeopardizing your new sig revenue. So your ' good judgement ' to apologize and retract the pill accusations, redact and soften the extortion thread and now start claiming lauda is not a danger to the community all happens as his ' good judgement ' removed your red tags from PN7 and quickseller. Which happens at the same time owlcatz ' good judgement' to remove your tags and your good judgement to remove owlcatz name from the extortion thread. After years of certainty each other are among the most dangerous scammers here all of a sudden and at the very same time your ' good judgements' all benefit each other.

That's a great story.

Those using theymos ' forgive and de-esculate' instructions are taking this out of context, a proven scammer does not need to de-esculate with their tagger. There is no forgiveness for trying to extort or scam another member.

Theymos was obviously talking about the petty individual squabbles that the tagging system is abused with.
There is no way to argue the safety of the forum is increased by the removal of warnings on repeat scammers and offenders.
You have cut a deal with lauda and remain forever now his bitch.
Let's stick with Ch toaa, I don't wish for this to turn into who's alt is it and detail the true purpose of this thread.

There remains no sign of a single valid reply or reason to retain the flagging system is there?
So there is no good reason to keep it and clearly it is abused and manipulated to crush free speech and also leveraged by scammers to ensure they can not be correctly branded as scammers. it can be used to punish persons speaking the truth about scammers.
Theymos where are you? why have you retained this mess of a tagging system and appear to have lowered the responsibilty to leave tags? are you sleeping at the wheel or intending to drive us all over the cliff edge ?

Move to the flag system, and give clear guidance that even the thought crimes yellow flag must only be given / supported when there is clear and strong evidence of direct financial risk.

Owlcatz, based on evidence and testimony I have reviewed, played a minor role in the extortion scheme. Even though in a conspiracy, the crimes of one are the crimes of all, I believe it is appropriate to remove his name from the thread. If you disagree, or if you disagree with removing the tag against Lauda, you are free to add one yourself.

I don’t think moving to a flag system exclusively would solve the trust system problems. The flag system, and the smaller impact of negative ratings make it so an individual cannot unilaterally ruin a persons reputation.

There is still the problem of mob justice and the lack of accountability in the trust system. The excuse of many has frequently been that xx is a net benefit to the trust system and this is why a controversial rating can be overlooked. I don’t think this should be an acceptable answer, especially if the controversial rating in question is actually many ratings regarding many distinct situations. Over time people have been tagged, and when they had no realistic chance of defending themselves nor remediating their reputation after a mistake, they would rage quit, sometimes with a scam attempt that was either not serious or had no reasonable chance of succeeding. There are many guilty of doing this and more that defended this.

Many people have made mistakes in the past, and I would not suggest a permanent scarlet letter for most people that engaged in the above, especially if they are trying to be a benefit to the trust system. I have seen some people improve their behavior on a limited basis, even if I still disagree with their past behavior and some of their current ratings. 

This. I have grown to agree with this excuse being improper for overlooking something. An occasions or two perhaps, but over many distinct situations no. OP's suggestion doesn't do much, red trust has barely any effect nowadays. I'm also sorry that you're being attacked over this, but as some others have pointed out: Wage war - you get attacked for it, make peace - you get attacked for it. Nothing one does is correct. :-\

There are multiple people that are guilty of this and these add up.

This empowers some other people to just go crazy with ratings that really don’t have any basis in fact or reality and act in bad faith when someone tries to talk about it.

People should have the right to express their opinion on if someone is a scammer or a high risk to deal with. If these opinions are not in line with the community as a whole, they shouldn’t be on DT, or they should leave ratings not in line with community consensus from an alt not on DT.

*Barely has any effect on people like you who do little to no trading here anyway. Why should you give a fuck when other people are paying the cost?

I have just left QS a positive trust, all this peace and love shit has got to me. I dont know if its my inner hippy, or the fact I want to engage in the QS, Lauda, TMAN sexual 3 way.. anyway - giving him a chance, not that it matters with 22000 negs against him, but if a few more people remove negs (I in no way at all fucking advise to change trust lists, until the reformed character has really proved his worth) but a small piece from TMAN is sent.

peace and love from the middle east you fucko's

If you are willing to play a minor role in trying to extort another member of the forum, and then for years support those that played a major role in that extortion, and one that performed a very dirty looking escrow. Then it is quite foolish to say that it increases the safety of other members to remove those warnings. This is nonsense.

What you had previously done was nothing near as bad as trying to ruthlessly extort a member. I had always thought with the self escrowing that the person duped lost nothing compared to using any other escrow and you could do so placing him at no greater risk because you knew you would uphold your end. It was sneaky but nothing like threatening people and attempting to extort large amounts of money from them.

This deal you have cut is obscene and anyone can see how it went down.

Leaving this aside since specific examples are not of prime interest to me.

Let me say that your post makes no sense to anyone who has been here for years and know things really work.

I will present some inviolable truths.

* the vast majority want to earn with sigs
* red tags can jeopardize or prevent earning with a sig and trading
* red tags or threat thereof can prevent people from enjoying freedom of speech and create echo chambers
* lack of freedom of speech prevents powerful scammers being outed and taken down
* If you do not have objective evidence to present of scamming and no strong objective corroborating evidence that clearly demonstrates attempting to scam or setting up a scam. There is no reason to damage their account
* allowing people to leave red tags on others without requiring objective. evidence leaves it dude open to abuse and manipulation which again leads to crushing of free speech, powerful scammers getting a free pass, innocent members incorrectly tagged and a general devaluing of the ratings and increase risk.

Those are insoluble problems without moving to the flagging system. People will only be able to ruin your account if it deserves to be ruined.

The only persons wishing to retain tagging are those that either can not grasp those inviolable truths or wish to keep abusing the trust system for their own ends.

Move to an objective standards based trust system that only targets scammers that are clearly a direct financial threat, and cut back on the individual swuabbles. This would be optimal in terms of retaining free speech and providing a sensible and accurate warning system for those posing a financial threat.

Your points for retaining the tagging system are invalid. That is not an opinion, the  net benefit of removal is crystal clear.

When can we see tagging removed. This subjective damaging nonsense has surely had it's time. All the problems that existed with it have been increased since reducing the threshold to anything goes. Could you design something to crush free
speech with greater efficiency. You can for any reason you like take away a persons sig and trading potential.  What a stupid design.

What a coincidence,  lauda decided QS deal was a go, owlcatz and tman are right there like with the extortion. Not that you'd know that now because QS has redacted his name. I guess that correlation being hidden from view makes everyone far more safe. Thanks QS.

Imagine the probability of after years with people adamant each other were scammers. Then all in a small space in time with no deals cut and using only their idividual ' good judgement ' poof it's all gone and was all just one big mistskr. Rather than red trust they should have positive trust. They shot through neutral and are certainly to be trusted. This is a very useful trust system.

This is pretty funny... You never had a single positive review in your trust list since 2017. You tried to get one by taking a loan from DarkStar_ in 2016 (around $4-10) to get a positive review, but it did't work coz lenders are giving neutral trust for loans. After that, you sold something  (there is no reference) to RealHummer and received positive review for god knows what. Finally U used OG escrow for selling for buying some cheap staff to yourself or for your alt account and he granted you with a positive review.(there is no reference) Also you were involved in some scams together with a scam master Jim Basko (All his social accounts are abandoned)  Of course you called  Unbreakablecoin a failed project (You was a head of their twitter campaign and a team member) Do you know how much money so called failed projects stole from gullible investors? Hundreds of millions. I do not know why suchmoon is supporting you in any case. My problem is that I know names. Almost all of them and yours too. I will not publish them because I don't want to dox anyone.

Still not one solid argument for retaining red tags and still no rebuttal of the negative impact and danger subjective tagging brings to the community.  That's agreed then.

I received a message from a mod saying he edited my post because I mentioned the real name of suchmoon. Yes I know the real names of   many users. I lived in Russia and in Moscow if you know the right person in the federal security Service (FSB) you can get any name or address of anyone just for some money. But as I understand mentioning the real names is restricted on this "decentralized and free speech" forum. My friend once tried to mention theymos real name and was banned immediately. Crypto and especially this forum became the heaven for scammers. "Scams are non moderated" https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0 that is written in rules. Great. Don't u think that it looks like  "concealing a crime?" or something? Everyone sober or not window licker (mentally sick) knew that bitconnect was a ponzi, but nobody banned the thread due to "Scams are non moderated" end some greedy idiots lost millions of dollars. Bitconnect was just a small part of uncountable scams that forced some gullible investors loosing their hard earned money. I heard that a lot of ppl committed suicides. lost their homes and borrowed money. Now look into your soul and think about that ppl. It was so easy to ban all scammers and lock their threads. Or maybe peoples lives or leaving them homeless is nothing comparing to "Scams are non moderated"? I'm not accusing anyone or something. God will judge us all an the basis what we did in our live. I am not giving or selling any information about real names of users, so don't waste your time sending me pm's. I will ignore all of them.

Guess I messed this for a little bit..


What a load of horse shit.. Your account research on me sucks.. I shouldn't even respond to line items..

My deal with OG was for this.. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1578532.0 in 2016
spectre1989   2016-08-19   Reference   I bought a loaded Casascius physical coin from him and got it across an ocean just fine.. Thank you..
Used OG as escrow then and he didn't give me any rating for it at all for almost 2 years!! And then he randomly left one.. Maybe he saw me around enough by then or something..
Your timeline is off..

Check the ref for RealHummer in my sent rating .... .. . https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2135991.0 You didn't read any of those?
He bought a coin worth around $2k at the time and chose not to use escrow.. Are you calling him my alt? I think you would make yourself look foolish claiming that..

Check the ref for the darkstar deal in my sent rating  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1579735.0
Read the thread, it's good stuff ;) I had all my BTC in polo lending and just bought that Cas (was illiquid) but wanted to make some trades so took a small loan.. Killed it on UNB of all things, lol.. IIRC I about tripled that loan and paid it back early..
I didn't even ask Darkstar, I asked anyone and DS was the fastest.. Maybe he is my alt too?

I'm not JB and I don't think I have done any twittering about UNB ever.. That I can recall.. I have done very little twittering at all ever..
I have no guilt/regret about anything UNB related other than not having more balls trading it than I did..

Doxing me publicly would not impress me with your skills at all.. It would just be a dick move.. A few users here have/had my complete dox that I have bought things from.. I'm not all anonymous..
And what are you gonna do? Post shit on other sites I use or something and make me look like an Alfa for having haters chasing me across the internet?
If you've looked me up you know you aren't coming to my house..


I'm not afraid of some russians..
The russians probably have me on a list for talking shit about russia.. Fine..
Can you get me my whole russian record? That would be interesting to see.. Maybe they have my whole US record and everything? Maybe even my browsing history? Did you see how good my credit score is?
Fuck em.. I hope they enjoy themselves reading about me..

Theymos's real name is not hard to find at all.. SM's dox is out there I think, if it's correct..

I don't think this person is mooseprong.. English is too good..
I see some telltails in this posts language that look familiar but I don't care enough to look into it too much..
Wonder who might be pissed at me..

Lame..
Try harder..


This is true.. I looked and it was infact caught and archived..
Posting a "dox" outside of investigations.. Tisk Tisk

U were involved in that scam. Please don't call it a "failed project" That is an excuse of many scammers and we heard that shit a lot. And I don't give a shit about your trust rating, trading or anything else, I am talking about facts.


I know who u r.


I already announced that I wan't dox anyone here or on another website, even for money. That's out of my morality and very dangerous.


Your bank credit score is good. But the amounts are not too impressive. But do not let your bank (s) know that u r dealing with crypto, coz in that case all your credit history will be blacklisted and u'll receive zero credit from them in the future. Eddie, I wish you a good health and everything good to you and your family. Just stop defending scammers and be rude to forum members. Also stop to be narcissistic "A long standing perfectly clean account (like mine) having no history of mischief or "financially motivated wrongdoing" is hard earned and only accomplished with great care and great etiquette, That's my advise. And stop talking bad things about Russians and especially about Russian criminals that are searching for the lost money. They are not good guys. Even I am afraid of such ppl. God bless u. Excuse for my bad English.

@mprep is the best moderator here. He will never delete your post without explanation why he is doing so. This forum must be  proud of such people.


Nobody will escape God’s judgment (That's about my previous post regarding bitconnetc and other scams. Unfortunately I did not had a power to stop them.)

Yeah don't flatter yourself. I takes years of hard work to earn multiple trollpuppeting enemies. This is likely your best buddy mosspringles, although I'm not sure why he's so blatantly exposing his account-selling alt.

Stay quite, that's my advise. If I will need a dentist service I will contact u. U might give me an address of a good dentist.

My advice would be to avoid following Quickseller into his doxing rabbit holes. He makes most of that shit up.

Who the f. is Quickseller? I am not interested. I even don't know his real name. (I don't need it) I already said that I wan't dox anyone and I wan't start writing about silk road ad who set it up. There were some Russian dudes involved, but they are free now. WHY? If u have 
enough money there is no problem... But not in US or EU. Ross Ulbricht was sentenced to life in prison without parole for running the Silk Road. Will I be banned if I will publish real names + facts including transactions + money laundering facts and so on...? The answer is yes. So u college buddies just stay quite and I will b 2. I do not want 2 b involved in this shit and nobody wants to join Ross Ulbricht in his "Hotel" I am a believer of god and I hate bad ppl. Yea.. and suchmoon.. Take care about your family and stop be addicted to this forum that let many ppl homeless. (A lot of them committed a suicide.. God bless us all.