Bitcoin Forum

Hey bitcoin talk,
I kept silent seeing some of you wish a Farewell for Laura after her thread announcing that she will never exist again or reopen her account.
Never mind Lauda, I've seen you fight crime and spam around here for years and I wish you a good future whenever or wherever you will exist, lol.
Now, back to the real deal, I am not against any of the members here at our beloved Bitcoin talk forums but listen up, is this a good way to wish a Farewell for a highly trusted member of the community just like Lauda? You just aim to destroy the trust of her account ?
I am asking Cyrus or any of the highly trusted members here to take a look about this matter, there's thousands of cheaters and ALTs right there trying to raise the trust of their accounts, I am writing these words after taking a look at Bitvest's signature campaign and especially the member "Joepen" if I am pronouncing his username right, he was evading a ban by using an alt and using it to join that signature, he was given a delay till today to fix his rank and then when today comes, boom I went to his account and foundout that some guys have tagged Lauda also to take her trust down and to make these little cheaters evade from the negative trust.
Well I am giving you guys just a simple example and I know that some of you might have some fights with Lauda but do you think that tagging her account because it is closed is a right choice? Are you with Bitcoin and decentralization or you are here to play and ruin the trust of people?
I can't stay silent watching all these scammers and cunts that bitcoin talk is full of evade from the negative trust. These guys who gave a negative trust to Lauda's account shall be ashamed of their selves, stop playing with the trust system here, it's against the rules.
I am letting this subject to the community,
Thanks for your time.

What are you talking about? The tags clearly make sense, as their credentials have been compromised. The account cannot be trusted from that point onward.

Imagine I decide to publish my private key as a renunciation of my identity, cryptographic or otherwise. The entity known as 'actmyname' on Bitcointalk would not be trustable.

Well, if taking a close look at the age of that account you will find out that the ones who destroying the trust of Lauda saying "farewell" and stuffs like that could influence on the negative trust given to lots of cheaters turning them into neutral trust. That could let the members evade from these tags, you can wish her a bright future without harming her account right? Or am I wrong ?
About the edit of your post and the last two lines, it's right yes, but she won't open her account and she did an announcement that thousands have seen, it's enough I think. Giving her a negative trust is a abuse I think because it will reflect on the trust of scammers being tagged in the past which means that alot of cheaters around here would get access to their accounts tagged by Lauda, her negative trust will become neutral and hooray! They will come here again scamming, bumping threads, shilling and I am expecting alot of these accounts to get some positive fake feedbacks that will bring these accounts "back to life".
Lauda posted an announcement which I think is enough. And I am sure that the account pass and username are well secured and nobody would trust such a big account after that announcement.
Your words are logical, but in the other side, some of these neg trusts, I consider them as an abuse and I know that you got what I mean.

Negative trust has no impact on sent feedback. You are thinking of trust exclusions. The only implication someone could gather from the trust rating of Lauda would be if they were too conceited to look up the comments of negatives and automatically assumed, "scammer rating = invalid rating".

And if someone is going to use the trust system improperly or not use it at all, thereby getting scammed because of it, isn't that what we expect? You can't prevent scams without the victim's compliance.

All I am trying to say is that she did nothing wrong to get these negative trusts, they seem like an abuse of trust. Scamming someone includes their agreement right. But I am talking about all the tagged accounts, also, she went off and it's not a good way to say good bye to such a legend.
Can you tag satoshi cuz he leaved?
Anybody can open his account and use it if they got access to the forum database right ? Can you tag satoshi just because he went off ?
All I am trying to say is that the announcement is enough.

Assume we reset everything trust-wise from the Lauda debacle and that a few years pass. New members come and go and some users may be ignorant of the thread. If we have nothing but double-digit positive trust and a few neutrals (in the case of mentioning the thread), the likelihood of a Lauda impersonator socially engineering someone (doesn't necessarily have to be via Bitcointalk, though username impersonation comes to mind) is much higher.

The negative feedback brings so much more awareness to the account in the event that something did happen.

Account was banned like satoshi.

I think trusting/distrusting the account Lauda matters a bit. If you are trusting the account then you are supporting the tags she lefts for the scammers, also some controversial tags and if you are distrusting then of-course you are distrusting the judgement of the account.

But leaving positive/negative does not matter anymore. At this point even if real Lauda claims that she is back and sign a message with the compromised key then still there are no proof that it is real Lauda. So, I do not see any problem of sending negative trust.

The established truth here is that - we all know the user and we all already have an impression about the account good or bad, hate or love. Nothing matters now.

theymos banned/locked lauda's account to prevent anyone from accessing his account in the future.
Tagging Lauda's account is really not going to protect anyone from anything, IMO

And what we are trying to say is that those trusts look, but are not negative.  They are simply pointing out the account is dead.

Our feedback lets newbies know they should not trust the account should it reawaken, but they can still trust the feedback the account left.

Ding ding!  OP, that's the best and most concise answer to your question and if I'm not mistaken Lauda either asked for the negs or anticipated them at least.  And, as been pointed out, negative trust isn't like excluding Lauda from your trust list.  Many of Lauda's feedbacks are accurate and should still stand, so there's no need for any DT members to now exclude him from their trust lists.  Giving a warning negative doesn't affect any of that.

isn't lauda's account permanently banned by theymos? is there any possibility a parma banned account can be hacked and start posting and scamming people?
her bitcointalk account have no chance to be hacked and used for scam or impersonating.

I am more concerned about  her Telegram account. if that got compromised then that could be used for scamming as that is not banned.

Edit: She removed his telegram account too.

It's not necessary to own the same account to impersonate the user.

Let me toss a few scenarios and see what sticks. There's always a way to fool someone:

1. 'Lａuda' registers on the forum, the username is not recognized as fake and the user links to the original account via a PM to other, ignorant users as an attempt to scam. Users see green trust, automatically trust.
2. Lauda impersonators on other platforms message Newbies, link to original account as proof, use whatever means of social engineering to trick user into believing they are the original Lauda.

---

You could simply leave some neutrals, but I think the idea of marking an account that is 100% inoperable with a red trust should be done at least once.

How many of you pay attention to the neutral trust of an account rather than the negative trust?

The scenarios you describe are applicable to any forum member with positive trust. It would probably be more likely to happen to a more active user because the Lauda account will show as last active as of a long time ago.

I would rather have everyone check the trust ratings of all members they transact with as well as verify who they're talking to.

It's not as if it's an equivalency where all users thereby deserve negative trust to invite more awareness, although theymos should definitely do some trust feedback backlink on first-time PMs. The difference between Lauda and active users is that they can respond. It's a unique situation, bearing in mind the only other candidate we have to offer is satoshi, whoever they are. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

When I PM another user on Bitcointalk to confirm the transaction as a Newbie, they can respond saying, "what in the hell are you talking about?" What does Lauda do in this scenario? (PMs are blocked, afaik)
If the difference is nil and there is even a miniscule difference in consequence, isn't the choice obvious? At least in the current state, I no reason to touch the trust ratings (positive or negative).

A banned user can still log-in.

IIRC the Lauda account's sign-in has been disabled in much the same way as Satoshi and more recently the debacle with Bruno's main account (not the already banned one people seem to have forgotten about) which *should* have had sign-in disabled once Bruno fell silent and funeral notices started to appear.

Perhaps a tombstone icon and some sort of note placed on a UID if/when theymos disables sign-in on a user profile?

How often do we expect this to happen?  We don't want to destroy a decade long reputation of free speech here with rumors Theymos is disabling accounts unfairly...

From what Lauda typed, it will be impossible for someone else to login from that account.  No need for official recognition someone has left the forum.

PeasantKing or faucetscrounger

Who gives one fuck what you think? What the fuck have you achieved here?

Maybe someone reviewed the evidence that lauda was a confirmed scammer?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5231720.0

Have a read then stfu.
Now fuck off back to begging and getting crumbs from faucets.

If you still want to eat some scammer ass. I'll pass the word around.

Now when you can debunk the evidence in the link that clearly and undeniably demonstrates lauda was a scammer.
Then I may consider letting you slurp from my ever giving faucet.

Lauda should have way more red.

Also that dumb fuck primenumber7 aka QS was the primary proponent for lauda having red tags until he cut a deal after lauda punked his weasel ass on this forum.

Every time I see that weasel cunt here blathering on about how lauda shouldn't have red I cant believe any sponsor would pay such as slimy cunt. Actually I should ask them to explain why soon.

Happy new year scumbags.

Atriz? Lauda on this alt now? Are these not the 50 merits traders that got busted ? Alts or whatever?

Please don't do that - you'll probably give him a raise. :/ 

Well maybe I'll test that out soon no sponsor likes a

Why does X sponsor scammers and weasels thread bumped and discussed as long as people and friends feel is necessary

You would think so, but the price is so high I think most manager's requirements have drooped just a little.  If Quickseller and OG can get banner campaigns, I doubt one sponsor will want to lose advertising to another just over scamming accusations.  :/

Again, anyone who were to visit Lauda's profile would see that he last logged into his account in October 2020. The time between the current date and the last logged in time should set off red flags to trading partners (even if it was the 'real' person behind the account).

We have also seen that the ability to respond to a PM is not a sufficient safeguard against these types of attacks. Someone was recently able to scam using (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5303500.0) The Pharmacist's name/reputation by impersonating him. A scammer could go a step further and study a person's posting patterns to conclude their sleeping patterns and/or times in which they are unlikely to respond to any PMs they receive.

If I understand correctly, the OP is worried about the tags Lauda left to all the scammers. He believes that if someone leaves her negative reviews, then these reviews may thereby affect the negative reviews left by Lauda to scammers.

But OP, you have been on the forum for a very long time but did not understand the whole story.
Lauda is trusted by several DT members, her feedback, regardless of her presence on the forum, will be displayed in red to anyone she has left a negative trust. Everything will remain the same.
Therefore, you, as a real honest person :), can also add Lauda's name to your trust list.
https://loyce.club/trust/2021-01-02_Sat_05.06h/101872.html

 And someday, perhaps by becoming a DT, you will also be able to influence Lauda's reviews.


You just urgently need to study this topic https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5191802.0

In addition to leaving the forum for good, Lauda also deleted his Telegram account, (as it turned out). To prevent anyone from being tempted to use this username for fraudulent purposes, I have re-registered this username, (let someone quote this post).

• I registered a new account, set a @GrumpyKitty (https://t.me/GrumpyKitty) and threw away the sim card.
• I have set the maximum privacy settings (for calls, chats, etc.).
• The account will be automatically deleted in at least a year, (I have set the maximum time range).
• I set an additional password and logged out.

Quoting (https://loyce.club/archive/posts/5602/56020708.html):

---

---

I left a neutral tag. Since theymos banned Lauda the same way as satoshi (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5282911.msg55409865#msg55409865), there is no risk of abusing the account. The sheer number of tags should be enough to get anyone's attention now anyway.

False sense of security, protectionalism, yada yada..

Not only that, certain users duplicated Lauda's distrust list, so if they then we're to actually review those negatives and find they no longer were correct we would then have an issue with a DT2 user's negative showing up which would give the impression that a user being accused has a red mark against their name which as it turns out is false.

(And that doesn't include the dozens of hysterical negative trust feedbacks Lauda left towards the end).

What does this mean?   Will the name be registerable again in a year?

«By default, Telegram gives you 6 months of inactivity before deleting your account, to help the company conserve disk space on its servers. This means that if you don't log into your Telegram account during that period of time, your whole account will be wiped away ... groups, messages, contacts ... »

I have not been active in the telegram for a long time, but at least before there were just such rules ... Account deletion can happen much later, I remember cases when the @username remained active and for two years (not deleted). So the settings that I have set will allow for at least a year not to worry about someone taking over Lauda's @username.

Would it have been possible to have converted the username into that of a bot? Just a simple single-response, "this bot is not active" (or the like), and it's not in any danger.

I hope the privacy settings were set appropriately, since theoretically someone could "time" the deletion of the GrumpyKitten account to begin a malicious takeover.

It seems to me that connecting a bot is too much ... Calculating the time for deleting an account is not so easy (as I said, a reset can happen much later). Unless of course you devote a lot of time to this issue, including monitoring, etc. There is another way to get the @GrumpyKitty name, but it is highly unlikely that anyone will succeed, (provided that you prove that you own the same username on at least two of these services: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram).

As described below, I believe that I was inadvertently responsible for this.  I intended to settle it with DTs via PM, but didn’t get around to it.  I request that everyone who has red-tagged Lauda for the purpose of warning that she’s gone should agree to neutralize negative feedback.

Because the Lauda account is permanently disabled from login, to use it for posts or PMs requires obtaining administrative-level access to undo whatever theymos did.  If a hacker were to obtain such access, he could simply delete all negative feedback from the trust database; therefore, the red tags are completely useless for their stated purpose of warning people that this account should never make new posts or PMs.

Such a hacker could also post as Satoshi.  In this aspect, why should Lauda’s account be treated to a different standard than Satoshi’s?  —Or should we all now red-tag Satoshi’s account, for no reason but to warn people not to trust new posts or PMs from uid=3?

---

Unfortunately, I started the trend:  I was the first to red-tag Lauda’s account.  I did it because she asked me to, at a time more than seven hours before theymos arrived on her goodbye thread.  Or to be more precise:  I asked her if I should tag her account, and she said yes.

From my perspective, it was a very bad moment.  The question of my tag on Lauda’s account was low in my priorities, and would be for some time.

Lauda herself obviously had no way of knowing with certainty how theymos would handle this; and it is no secret that she was still online when I tagged her account, because she sent merit to this (albeit not specifically to this^*):

Merited by Lauda (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872) (5)

(I will now edit that post, which is hereto unedited.)

By the time that theymos replied, Lauda was long gone.


At that point, I saw my tag as an historical artifact.  I couldn’t ask Lauda if she wanted me to untag her account.  But I didn’t think that it was too important, because I am not in DT; and anyone who trust-includes me must be savvy enough to know to ignore my tag on Lauda.  Thus rather than deleting anything, I countered my own tag with new positive trust feedback, so that Lauda is +2/-1 from me.

This is my current feedback to Lauda, excluding some neutral notes:


I will now neutralize my red tag (d=271846).

---

* After I sent her 50 merits, and she thus had 25 sMerits, Lauda sent 5 merits each to the first four replies on her thread.  This happened to include two of mine.  She then sent her last 5 sMerits to Satoshi’s last post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2228.msg29479#msg29479), and disappeared.

The account's banned just like Sathosi's. There's no valid password for logging in to account Lauda.