Bitcoin Forum

User Satofan44 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3704391) gave me a neutral feedback stating spammer a while back over a post^[1] who is now currently included into DT2 by @joker_josue[DT1], which I believe isn't necessary to do and incorrect use of Trust system especially for a post which I gave pretty good explanation to himself why TX on LN will become untraceable in the reported thread itself ^[2] and he didn't respond any further. While ABCbits asked an explanation which I gave in the respective discussion ^[3]. We keep saying bitcointalk is a friendly community but someone thought you post something wrong (Which I don't) instead of correcting it just decided to give a tag for that.

1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5546439.msg65473997#msg65473997
2. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5482297.msg65482294#msg65482294
3. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5546439.msg65486191#msg65486191

Why I am creating this thread?

So I am seeking what community members think about this matter especially joker_josue who thought this judgment is correct and added him into his trust list.

First I'm not really a technical person, so I don't really understand and know which one is right or wrong.

But the funny thing is he reported two users, but he only gave tag to you. :P

I mean, if you tag someone because of spreading incorrect information, why the other one didn't get it too? :D

It feels like there's something wrong, he should either tag both of you or not tagging at all. Let's see what he will do.

All I can add is I stopped reading your post right here:
Neutral feedback isn't that important, and I've never used "Munn" (did you mean Muun Wallet?) or "Speed", but what you wrote here matches the feedback:

Did you send a message to Satofan before creating this thread and try to resolve the situation without escalation? If not, you might consider doing that now. Ultimately it's a neutral trust so it's not a huge deal since neutral trust doesn't really hurt anyone. You're going to see conflicting opinions as far as whether  a user can basically post their opinion in the form of a neutral trust on your profile. Some are for and some are against. Some will tell you to get "thicker skin"  and move on.

I suggest that if you disagree with his opinion and you guys cannot come to a mutual agreement that you ignore him and if you need to ~ him on your trust list.

I think he meant to send the BTC from Muun wallet to Speed wallet using lightning network. The OP of the thread posted this:


According to what I have read about lightning network in the past, it can be used to block the trace, but if someone sent certain amount of bitcoin on-chain to a wallet, open a channel, sent the coin to to another lightning wallet and close the channel on the other wallet, maybe it can be traced if it happened within a short period of time, the amount used to open and close the channel might be used for the tracing, I think. We have seen government trace monero transaction before, I guess it has to do with tracing of the amount and not an error about monero transaction anonymity at all.

I do not know about Speed wallet, I downloaded it, I input one of my useless email but it then asked me of my full name, country and state. I stopped immediately because it might even asked me to get verified but which I do not know about. People should have told the OP on the thread about how such wallet is bad for privacy. I guess it is a custodial wallet entirely. Using wallet like sending from Muun to Phoenix would have been better.

If wallets like Muun, Phoenix, Zeus, Lightning Electrum are used for it and the user does not send the full amount but divided it into different lightning wallets, it will be hard to trace.


@Bitcoin Smith, just settle this with Satofan44 through PM amicably. If he says lightning network transaction can be traced led to the neutral trust, I do not think it is worth it.

It is because he seems to be agreeing there's different level of centralization (or he didn't want to engage with same level because the other user is already in DT and I am not).

---

What about now, :)

---

No I didn't, with the few interactions I had he seems to be dismissive of what I am trying to say. Maybe I will try doing that if he didn't respond here.

It's probably safe to assume you didn't send Sato a pm regarding this thread then either, so I sent a pm to the user and asked them to have a look at this thread.

However this ends up being resolved, it looks like a respected member of the community disagrees and finds the feedback legitimate. You might make sure what you are saying is 100% accurate if you are responding in topics like that. It's not like the gambling board where spam is tolerated and speculation runs wild.

That's would have been better. I still can't really comment on breaking the link between funds, as I don't really know the inner workings of LN (nodes). I know bits and pieces, but that's not enough. And I think that's kinda the point: we've seen many people posting incorrect information on the tech board, usually trying to earn Merit or they're just after those signature earnings. Either way, it's better not to have the wrong information on the tech boards.

Speculative dramatization is not helpful. I am very busy and my activity is sporadic. I essentially almost never read this section. I didn't know I was included in DT2? I didn't even know much about this system before seeing this topic. At this point I would like to say thank you to the user yahoo62278. Had he not sent me a DM about this thread, it is very likely that I would not have seen it for some time.  :)

I've looked into the situation again. The reason why I didn't leave a tag on dkbit98 is because of this post.

After reading this and knowing that the user has received many merits, I decided to give them a chance to explain themselves and expected a profound answer. The answer never came. As I was busy with Lightning, I practically forgot about this. I have also left him a Tag now.

---

---

As for the feedback, there is no chance that I will remove it. The only correct thing to do is to discuss things that you have (real) knowledge in, everything else should be ignored until you have gained sufficient understanding of the topic for you to be able to make statements about it. You're welcome to participate by asking questions, but that's the extent of it. As soon as you start making unfounded statements you have started doing harm. Educating people and getting them to use Bitcoin is hard enough, and it is made even more difficult by the vast amount of misinformation about nearly every aspect of Bitcoin circulating on the internet.

That is also a point of the issue. You can't comment so simply on these things because the reality is very complex and nuanced. A lot of users are just repeating surface information that they've seen somewhere else. Usually it is not based on theoretical research or empirical knowledge, and as such is almost always wrong. Some posts will be wrong in the details, others will be completely wrong but the point is the same. One should not comment on it. I am in complete agreement with the last sentence.

This image comes to mind:
https://mikereinold.com/wp-content/uploads/30855822_216244462303493_3621691821861634048_n.jpg

I feel like I'm somewhere on the green line where I realize the amount of things I don't know only keeps increasing.

If we see a newbie, we can easily know the person is a newbie. I hope you understood this irony.

You are only misusing the trust feedback if you can not quote someone and correct the person. If I met people like you in this forum like if o_e_l_e_o is someone like you, I do not think I will stay so long like this on this forum because of how bad you are handling trust feedback. They were better and not like this and he prefer to correct people instead except if the person is just worth the feedback.

Lightning network is not centralized just as the bitcoin network is not centralized, but there are some people that are using centralized wallets and exchanges which is what is related to centralization about lightning networks as most people are using bitcoin lightning centralized wallets and that can not be regarded as the lightning network.

About the chain analysis, I researched about it now and I saw this online:


I need to get the tool but I do not know where I can get it. I just want to see it because all I know about lightning network transaction before was that it is hard to trace. The transactions are not to be publicly seen.

I must still say again that giving dkbit98 such neutral feedback is not right. Quote and correct him instead and further the discussion.

Saying that LN is centralized because many people use it wrongly is a lie. There is nothing to discuss here. I have given more than enough time. Why do you care so much about dkbit98? Is he your account or are you related in some way?


I don't know o_e_l_e_o so this part makes little sense to me. I didn't ask to get included in any trust system and I am not the one who frequently posts lies like dkbit98 and the original author of this thread. The users need to take responsibility for their actions. If you can't contribute productively, don't contribute. This is why it is not good to get involved in this section, many users prefer to waste time on nonsense instead of doing productive things. Feel free to remove me from this trust system if my feedback is in any way wrong, I do not care about this. The reference and feedback will stay and I will continue to tag other users from that section that post spam or lies.

---

---

That is it from me on this topic unless a more sensible post comes that warrants my attention. I have made things equal by tagging both users.

If we want to split hairs and pick apart everything people say, then satofan44 could also be given neutral or possibly even negative feedback for defending shady scam exchange ChangeNOW.

ChangeNOW isn’t just over complying with regulations, they outright scam people by selectively enforcing KYC and then ghosting users who actually provide their personal information in hopes of recovering their funds. It’s just one of various fronts used by Evercode Lab to scam people.

Resorting to immediately tagging people over an opinion that we feel is misleading or incorrect isn’t the best approach. It’s better to counter with facts and hope that people will become better informed.

From my own of judgement or the way I senses people should behave over here when a case like this arises is to either first settle the whole issues internally, like sending them pm before creating post about it here. Again, for the person who gave the neutral tag; well, I think it's also important to correct someone on their comments post, and tell the reason what they said is wrong and possibly they should reference the correct words where its clearly explain the whole thing to the wrong poster. When such person has refused to take correction maybe after 1-2 post or always sounding to be correct then a neutral tag should be implemented on their profile so that corrections can be taken. I think we need to have patient when using the DT power because that is not a guaranteed way of doing things or exercising their powers.

He's right -- you are a spammer and you write like you have multiple accounts here. Your very first posts are about merits, recently-woken up accounts & the trust system. There's no way this is your only account. So you are splitting your brain between multiple accounts, writing lord knows how many posts each week between them, which means your posts are bound to use less than 100% of your own intelligence.

Just stick to posting cricket match summaries & stop trying to inject posts in topics you don't really understand.


The first sentence is usually the correct way to go about it, refraining from leaving tags for a single & mild offense. With the 2nd sentence: Satofan44 didn't know he was on DT or had "DT power." But he should know that his ratings are now seen by default on the forum.

¹These are things people don't usually understand from this forum and I don't do it for any reason, trying to jump into what I don't know due to trying to complete my post quota. I would rather stick to the area which I am more conversant with than going the section which I don't know, and again I don't try to force myself with what I don't comprehend in other to just get involved in their discussions.
Though, I am not DT but I have been studying the purpose of DT system even when I am made a DT I wouldn't for any reason go violating the system.

²So serious? Then how would they know they are made DT, for instance I am using BPIP on my web and it displays everyone who is DT on the forum and their Default Level (1 or 2) and you think he wouldn't have any idea of that, again was thinking that the telegram bot also conveyed information about DTs, that is when someone is added won't they get notified on the bot?

Yeah well he probably doesn't use either one of those things. Most people don't.

I understand where you are coming from and the danger wrong information could cause in the technical board.
But there are times that what we believe was right could be wrong
I have being there and have learnt from it because someone pointed it out and corrected me.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5546273.msg65474126#msg65474126
Did face similar issue here where the OP insisted that LN was centralized.
I knew they had their reason even if it maybe wrong but a tag for such a lil bit much
Maybe consistent sharing of false information could be justified.

Okay, thank you for your feedback.
Now that he is mad DT, to me it would be better he removed the tag and learn more about how to DT systems. In my opinion, before adding anyone on our trust-list it would be better such person(s) understand how the system are being used before adding them to avoid personal sentiments or self interest to destroy someone account without any properly using their power rightfully.

That's the responsibility of the DT1-user who added Satofan44 to DT2. I assume he wanted to see this feedback by default, but that shouldn't be a reason to remove said feedback.

Well, does that mean that op deserved the given feedback from your own judgement?
If yes! then do you know if they tried exchanging pm to resolved it internally, and they both didn't aligned?
To me, I don't see any reason to be given such feedback as I believe that op can be corrected. I could remembered then, during my little beginning over here there where some things I was feel so right on my own view, but after sometimes someone had to correct me and that was how I changed and stops making arguments on things I had no or little knowledge on, instead I would read people comments to kwon what they are saying before even giving my contribution or opinion.

Like I said, he was claiming LN-transactions happen offline. That's not true, which makes the feedback factually correct.

OP hasn't even bothered to correct his post, even after he realized it was wrong.

Everything is simple.

If you think @OP gave incorrect feedback, put him on your distrust list.
If you think @OP gave correct feedback, do nothing/put him on your trust list.

Since I see you include an user in your distrust list, so you already know how to do it.

Good!
Like I know, nobody is above correction and anyone who has refused to take correction is not also willing to learn or increase their knowledge bank.
Very bad of him or her, and nobody is an island of knowledge so if claiming to be too right on his knowledge then is entirely wrong.
Thank you sir.

Yet another lie posted without reading the topic. Take a hint from the topic title "Users who spread false/fake/unhelpful information on technical board (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5482297.0)".  I am not defending anyone in particular, I am discussing the topic (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5547900.0) and trying to understand what is going on. Being emotional and making logically fallacious statements does not advance your position. If you have been scammed by someone, that does not change the fact that I was not scammed by the same someone. If on the other hand someone thinks that LN is centralized, that does not change the fact that it is not centralized and that their statement is a lie.

For me that is strong proof that he is just a spammer. I've seen many posts that try to come off genuine but the details don't make any sense. Sometimes it is the sentence structure other times it is the content.  :-X In my view someone who isn't a spammer will try to stay away from any board or topic where they can't contribute. For example, I only read a few boards that are interesting to me or that have topics in which I have knowledge in. I try to ignore the remaining parts of the forum.

Neither did he sent me a message, respond to the report in the thread where it was made, nor did he correct his post. He didn't even accept responsibility at all and has instead shifted the blame for his actions onto me. Does this not tell you enough?  :-\

You did the next good thing which is what the OP ought to have done before going ahead to create this thread. This is one way to escalate a situation which could have been handled easily and quietly with a pm.. I don’t know where OP tend to have had a conversation with the user and found that, a pm would have been up to no good but then, users might be a lot more understanding and you can spill some details in the pm that you wouldn’t want to let out in the open. That’s why it’s a pm, except when it’s needed for some evidence to an escalated situation.

That's new low, now community don't see the difference between terminology mixup and in what context it's been told but I think that's not the reason why he tagged, it is because I said the trail breaks with LN and he said NO, it doesn't but he is someone who explain things in detailed didn't gave me anything much other than this.

---

I didn't edit the post but in the following replies on the same thread I explained why I think it is untraceable.


If what I said is false information then the guide which received hundreds of merit have wrong information too or I am reading things differently? Well anyways to prove it technically I only used "almost impossible" ≠ "impossible" which is not anything but agreeing with Sato's opinion of there are ways it can be done but I don't want to hide under that, I even responded to him that I am happy to learn if you say how it's done and change what I have told.

---

So now you even started to tell lies? I responded in the reported thread itself [1],[2]

1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5482297.msg65482294#msg65482294
2. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5482297.msg65483077#msg65483077

In both replies I explicitly asked why I am wrong and I am happy to learn if I wrong here.


I didn't send a PM regarding this because I thought we can't come into any mutual agreement. I am not sure what I can discuss further, do you think the tag isn't necessary if I edit the post?

It could be that he wanted to say off-chain and not offline.
Or does he mean that there are offline LN wallets?

Some people have this ego that makes them not to easily admit that they are wrong.

Whoops, my bad. I don't remember that post. I retract that part of my statement in the previous post as it is wrong.

The answer is in the same post that you quoted and cut off.

Worse, there is also a summarized and less technical answer in a previous post which you did not read before writing your useless spam post.

You are just a very lazy spammer.

---

---

Please stop wasting everyone's time, you are clearly wrong and are not interested in learning much or taking responsibility.

^So you now decided to retaliate with a negative? For pointing out I responded to you!

Others suggested not to give any suggestion unless I am 100% sure if it's technical query so I crossed out the post now.

Do most people behave like this around here, a question perhaps to some seniors like LoyceV and nutildah?

I'll watch whether some of the seniors have time to provide more historical context on member behavior but other than that I am now completely done with you. I have proven my point that you are just a low effort spammer that does not read anything at all and refuses to accept any responsibility. This level of discourse is for people who go to high school or even younger than that, stop wasting my time.

You are the one who don't want to accept any explanation, you act like if you post something wrong then I will call you spammer and dismiss everything further and using red for calling out spam isn't even right way of using the trust system. You may want to learn more about trust system since you are on DT

LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5191802.0)

The red tag is trust abuse and should be removed immediately. You should not be painted for being ignorant on a subject.

@satofan44 please use the trust system correctly. The neutral was fine, but the red tag is not.

Let him do whatever he wants.
Everyone has the freedom. Now it is up to the community if they will promote him to the DT network. The feedback on your profile was neutral, and you shouldn't bother too much about it. The user Satofan44 joined the forum less than 60 days ago. I don't think he understands how the feedback system works. He has already left five feedback, and three of them are negative. In my opinion, all three are incorrect uses of the feedback system. Moreover, the user has not built his custom trust list yet. While I agree that his technical knowledge is good, I think it's too early to bring someone on the DT network. If he continues like this, it would backfire, and he would get kicked out of the DT network. Just my two cents!

Is this a centralized or decentralized system? I am not allowed to give a negative tag to people who I don't trust? Who do I tag instead because of this spammer, the manager that enables this user to defraud the company that is funding the signature campaign? What will happen to me if I don't remove it? These are very weird structures for a forum that is dedicated to Bitcoin and decentralization..

If you do not trust someone,
Go to your profile, and then click on trust >> Trust settings >> Put a ~ and their username. In this case, it would be ~Bitcoin Smith and update it. If you trust someone, do the same process, but without a ~. That's how you do it.

There are a lot more things to consider. However, some people utilize their Trust list and their DT power as a weapon. Don't be like them. Use the system correctly.

You should read the beginner's guide, which was mentioned by Bitcoin Smith earlier.

That thread does not help, these statements are contradictory.

Of course I would not trust the author of this thread with anything. This part of the thread indicates that negative trust is appropriate, other parts of that thread and statements by other members here indicate the contrary. So which one is it? Is a person able to decide what constitutes trustworthiness themselves or do they have to obey a preset list of trustworthiness rules that are imposed by others? If I am not allowed to tag him, explain why and help also with the following question if possible.

Less decentralized, of course anyone is allowed to give a negative tag, just like what you do. But, if people think you're leaving an incorrect tag, other users are allowed to distrust you too. So, be wise with your action.

It's a different context.

Putting someone on distrust is either the user include/exclude an user you don't agree or the user leave inappropriate tag.

Neutral feedback is enough, if he really don't trust the user, he can consider to ignore the account.

To make it simple, trustworthiness in this case are mostly talking about money. When someone spread incorrect information, it has no relation with money, hence it doesn't deserve to get red tag.

yahoo62278 used the word "abuse", thereby this does not indicate to me that it is allowed. It is not clear to me who does the allowing and how could it then possibly be decentralized at all? Where can I see a list of "allowed tags"?

How so? I do not trust anyone who is spamming and would never engage with such a person in any monetary transaction. They are cheating both the reader's time and in this case also the campaign finances. Does this mean that there has to be a monetary transaction before the negative tag is given? If a campaign manager is willingly employing spammers he is thereby cheating the sponsor of the campaign and that has relation to money. If it were how you said, then tagging the manager is more appropriate than the user who is writing the spamming  ???

Well, I don't usually visit this forum section. I have a lot of things to do and little time for drama. But, I came here because I was mentioned by the OP.
Let's take it one step at a time.




First of all, I don't understand why my trust list was questioned on this matter. The trust list should have a comprehensive view of what you understand about a user's mindset, based on your own interest in that user (or the way they interact with others). You don't have to be aware of every drama involving a given user in order to add them to the trust list or not.

If I went into detail about all the dramas that may involve the users on my list, I would do nothing more than read post after post (on subjects that I had the slightest interest in). In the end, I would either remove or add many to my list (or maybe I wouldn't even have a list). Either way, things need to be balanced and everyone has their own criteria for adding/removing people from their list.

In turn, I don't think it was the fact that the mentioned user was on my trusted list that made him special. Just as someone can be in, they can also be out.

So, honestly, I don't understand why I was "called" to this case. I hate to see confusion here on the forum, I think that despite being a large community, we end up being few in comparison to the "outside world". We should try to get along as much as possible.



But, coming, I will try to give my opinion, with the greatest impartiality possible, and with the objective that in the end everything will be fine.

It seems the confusion started here:

The story began on June 11th. According to @Bitcoin Smith, he explained himself poorly in the post he made and because of this poor explanation, he generated a complaint (July 13th) found in link 2.

Well, if someone expresses themselves poorly, especially if English is not their main language, and they use translation tools, this can clearly happen. This is something that can even happen to me, my specialty is not English, and sometimes I can explain myself badly (translation tools sometimes don't help with this). I would like to take this opportunity to apologize if something I may be saying here is misinterpreted.

I don't know what @Bitcoin Smith and @Satofan44 said during those two days, nor the debate that was held on the subject from the beginning of the confusion until today. I don't know if this was an isolated case or a set of cases, in the eyes of @Satofan44 on the part of the OP. These things only both of them can say.

It was on the 14th that the neutral tag came into being, which, as many have said, has a very moderate weight. My recommendation regarding neutral tags is to ignore them or try to clarify things further in private (always avoid going public). Negative tags are different, first try to resolve them in private, and then eventually in public.

In turn, the negative label only appeared after this topic. These are different things. I don't know if there was a private attempt to resolve the issue, but regardless of that the point is that it has now become public.

That said, I think both sides are overreacting. Perhaps a calm, thoughtful and cordial conversation in private might help to minimize this.


So he left these final words for both parties involved:

@Bitcoin Smith
I understand your drama. I was also once accused of spamming. It happens when we are misinterpreted. You initially only received a neutral label, I immediately received a negative one. Anyway, I don't want to bring up dramas here, it's a resolved issue that has already passed. People show what they really are through their attitude, even when faced with these challenges. If you are not what the tag says you are, keep working here on the forum and showing that you are different. Maybe when things calm down, talk about the matter again with the user in question. Talking in the heat of the moment doesn't solve anything.  ;)

@Satofan44
Don't try to act on impulse, maintain a good balance in your analysis, which you have shown to have to date. Keep it up. Don't let someone who was bothered by your neutral tag make you act on impulse and anger, that's not good. Sometimes neutrality is enough to keep you alert, even for you to do a future analysis. Having patience is also good. I trust your judgment, so do it well so you don't disappoint.  ;)


_{Less drama, as I have work to do, it was 1 less hour dedicated to projects, which I believe will soon be useful for the entire community.}  :P

I concede, cooperation with you on other topics is very valuable compared to chasing down a single spammer. There are countless around here. Negative retracted, neutral stays. Sorry to have wasted your time, your can get back to more important matters.  :) I am actually quite surprised that it is not the norm to tag spammers with a negative rating if you are part of DefaultTrust. That is not a good incentive and it shows in most sections.

---

---

I'd still like clarification for some seniors on several previously posted questions when they have time.

I don't understand how campaign managers hiring spammers is trustworthy behavior and how you not allowed to evaluate someone's trustworthiness on this matter. Has this been the status quo for a long time here so that people want it to stay that way? Can you at least give them neutral ratings or is that considered wrong too?

Over time you will see that it is more effective to report spam posts to the moderator than to tag them.

If someone is giving a negative tag and reversing themselves often, they might not be fit to be on the DT for long.
Feedback is for trade as trade is for feedback. Every other reasons are secondary and dismisable.

If people begins to receive negative tags for being ignorant on a subject or for disagreeing in a subject, the forum will be filled with negative tags and this waters down the effect of the negative tag.

The thinking behind why you shouldn't do this is that matters which can be solved with moderation shouldn't be part of the trust system. So if you see comments that are clearly spam, you should just report them to moderators. Enough positive reports for spamming will lead to an account being permanently or at least temporarily banned. Also, just because somebody is a spammer, it doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't be trustworthy as far as trading with them is concerned, so trust ratings for this should be neutral at worst.


I'm not sure I follow the logic on why hiring spammers would make a campaign manager untrustworthy. If spammers are resulting in positive results for a campaign, that means the manager is doing their job, as far as the client is concerned. Some campaigns do concentrate on quantity over quality, and as a forum participant, I can't help but feel that enabling spammers leads to an overall reduction in quality of the forum, which could end up driving web traffic away from the site, so yes the two dynamics are constantly at odds with each other.

I'm not sure what you're asking. I see no negative feedback (anymore?), and until I was mentioned again (several times), I had given up on this thread. As I said in post #3:

This is NOT how you're supposed to use the Trust list:

You too ;)

I wouldn't trust 99.99% of the users here with money. But that doesn't mean I'll leave all of them negative feedback.
Maybe this helps:

That's kinda part of being on DT1, although in this case it's a waste of time over neutral feedback.

That's what The Pharmacist (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=487418) was doing years ago, and it's (probably) part of the reason theymos introduced the Merit system. Spam should be reported to Mods to be deleted. If negative feedback is abused, it loses it's meaning for the real scammers.

---

---

@Satofan44: a bit of unsolicited advice: don't get sucked into The Bitcointalk Drama. Something tells me you enjoy the technical side of the forum much more.

Not everyone creates a thread to complain about the feedback they receive. Since Bitcoin Smith created this thread, I would like to ask, what about the other feedback that is left by Satofan44? He removed the latest feedback because everyone says that is abuse. What about the other two negative feedback he left?



I think the color of the feedback should be changed to neutral. The wordings are probably correct, but they do not deserve a negative feedback for it.

It's more appropriate to change the color, but I don't see the point/effect after that.

BADecker would still have 3 red tags, while sharenet914 has no value given to the forum and likely won't back to this forum.

So I don't take his other tags seriously, in other words it's still fine.

So what, mate?
You shouldn't tag someone incorrectly just because they already have some tags or they are not active anymore. Your logic is like, a dozen people throw their trash bag in the pond, and if I refrain from throwing my trash bag, it doesn't change much. Because some people have already thrown the trash bag, and there are no fish in the pond. How does that sound, mate?

In my opinion, it doesn't really matter what others did. Listen to your heart and do what you think is good. If you know that it is not good, please don't do it. If I know I am doing something wrong, why would I do it?

Perhaps it would be wiser to first focus on getting senior members to remove such ratings than to ask a DT newbie to behave better than them since day 0?  :) For the remaining posts, I gave merit as I agree and thank them for their responses. I don't want to waste any more time of other people by continuing those discussions in this topic.

I don't usually participate in drama too, Sorry for calling you out in the middle of something, I had to only when things went out of control. Your balanced response helped to shift the tone on this matter. Just like you said we all are here to learn and contribute to the community in any way possible which is my only intention though. But the spammer tag will definitely affect the credibility of my posts whether it is in mild dark or red which is why I wanted this to be addressed and this over for one post where I said transactions on LN can't be tracked while the reality is there are way to track even via LN. That can be corrected instead of giving a tag. :)

Just like you said, l will just keep doing what I am intended to do and let's see if Sato decides to change it after a while. Thanks again for stepping in! :-*

---

I don't want to stir things any further but if Sato wants to look for the spammers then I suggest him to visit threads like Push-up, Buy-HODL and few others where most of the users just keep repeating the same thing again and again and again that is literally pointless to say after hundreds of pages but with the hope of getting some merits and ranking up.

But seriously don't. :)

When I saw the way Satofan44 was handling his trust feedback, I saw him as a good poster that is doing the opposite of good posting if it trust feedback and he is not worthy to be a DT member. As this thread builds up, he continued to let us know that. He is no more a DT member which is good.

I saw it coming and I said it above. If Satofan44 will follow LoyceV advice and focus on the technical side of the forum until he learns how the trust system works, he will be more beneficial to the community.

Until he learns? Are you thinking he is a newbie? A newbie can easily be known on this forum. AlthoughI have noticed on this forum that people do not mind if someone is an alt so far the person is exceptionally posting good.

I also noticed people will post that it is just a neutral feedback but not saying that it is a neutral feedback but heavy like a negative feedback. There are some neutral feedbacks that are absolutely negative feedbacks if read.

Good decision. Your ignorance just kicked you off the DT network. That escalated too quickly. The wisest would be to hear what the community says. Probably you are too experienced with technical things, but you have a lot to learn about the forum. As I said before, don't look at what some random people do. You should focus on what most people do. If some people say you are bad, don't count on that. But if most people say you are bad, I think you should work on that. Most people in this thread opposed your tagging behaviour, and you got some DT exclusions quickly, which kicked you out of the DT network. I strongly believe you have a lot of potential to grow. Just be humble instead of being aggressive.

Defending spam is good, I got it already. You don't have to make it so obvious.

I don't care about your useless trust system I have previously indicated this, stop posting spam. Let the centralized system be handled by people who like centralized systems. I left a new feedback to see what would happen, and those that reacted made the error by showing themselves. A pattern of entrenched and corrupt interests makes itself quickly visible.

---

---

Perhaps it is time to lock this thread to avoid further signature spam, your case is resolved.

Your assumptions weren’t even completely wrong, you just used the wrong terminology. Many of the ways in which your privacy can get leaked on lightning can be mitigated through the use of Taproot channels, wrapped invoices and blinded paths. These privacy improvements hadn’t been adopted when the research paper cited by satofan was written. Tagging someone and calling them a spammer is really blowing things out of proportion.

It's like that for me too
when I see the things I can do and learn, I'm always amazed and the further I go, the deeper I go, the bigger the list of things to learn becomes
I never reached a point where I was like, okay I know everything

In any case, I hope this gets resolved amicably.

I don't care about your feedback either. Ironically, you claim not to care about the useless trust system, yet you are using it to tag people. LOL. You should be ashamed of yourself and delete all the feedback you left, and participate in the forum where you like most. As for your new feedback, nothing will happen. Because you are out of the DT network, your feedback on their profile won't show by default. So, let your arrogance keep you satisfied, you little boy. I see you consider criticism as spam. If you cannot take criticism, you should not write in the reputation board. Good luck!

Thanks for confirming this. Since you don't care about it, I don't like to see your trust feedback by default.  I would rather see someone else's feedback who cares about this, or at least give a better alternative.