Bitcoin Forum

I think what you are implying is what I will outright say. CanaryInTheMine has, by far more people on his trust list then anyone else on level 1 default trust. By my count he has 201 people on his trust list, compared to a combined 127  additional people on every one else's trust list on level 1 default trust. People that he has added to his trust list make up ~61% of people on default trust (level 2), yet he makes up only ~8% of level 1 default trust. I have also noticed that a very large amount of his "trusted" feedback is from people who have no trusted feedback (a "0" trust score); almost all of them said they risked BTC when trading with him. This leads me to believe that he commonly adds people to his trust list that participate in his group buys, or otherwise does business with him.

One very good example of this is the user  suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771). I do not know him personally, nor do I have anything against him, but I do know that I have seen him spamming over the summer while participating in a signature deal. On November 10th, suchmoon received trust feedback from him that says "got a prisma in a GB. thanks!!"; it is unclear when suchmoon was added to default trust. I would say that his actions are closer to a spammer then someone that should be on level 2 default trust. It appears (to me) that he was added to default trust because of his deal with CanaryInTheMine

I think that CanaryInTheMine should either greatly refine his trust list or be removed from level 1 default trust. I believe that he is severely misappropriating his trust. From what I can tell he is an honest person to trade with and do not think he is intentionally doing anything wrong, however the way he appears to be adding people to default trust is allowing people to essentially buy their way onto default trust.

If you ignore the controversies/disputes regarding Vod, then almost all of the disputes regarding trust involve someone who is on CanaryInTheMine's trust list.

Using various assumptions for the cost of electricity (between .06 and .08) and increases in difficulty (between 5% and 10%), getting added to default trust will cost between nothing and ~.5 BTC when buying from his most recent group buy (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=795609.0;all). Once a person is on default trust he can potentially give false feedback to other accounts that he controls which could then enable scams. You can forget about the pitfalls of the selling/trading of accounts, the way that people are being added to default trust, it would not be necessary to buy an account to try to scam.

---

The feedback left by Mabsark is inappropriate. It is clear (to me) that he gave such trust in order to cause the value of his AM1 shares to increase as potential investors will be scared from the trade with extreme caution rating and will eventually look to Havelock.

There are legitimate potential reasons not to not prove their legitimacy, for example doing so may reveal that a particular ASIC manufacturer is giving them a favorable price and once this is public larger competitors could also seek similar prices, but in larger quantities, which would mean they may not be able to secure additional mining capacity in a timely manner. Providing a mining address is worthless as this can easily be faked.

With the above being said, is it wise to invest in these contracts? No absolutely not, it is too risky for me, however others may have different risk tolerance.

---

I think that Mabsark's, puppets's and MrTeal's actions are likely violating securities laws by what I consider to be attempting to pump the price of AM1 on havelock.

---

@ puppet - you are not a scam buster. Having such label on your personal message is very misleading. It is similar to how `THEYM0S (with the apostrophe) has Administrator Hero Member on his personal text.

It doesn't take a genius to understand that I'm an ASICMiner shareholder.

So far I have no complaints.

Only thing pathetic here is how competitors are abusing trust system and giving negative feedback based on their assumptions. When they do something wrong then it's ok.
"I will give you negative feedback unless you give me info I want from you" - it's really fucked up Mabsark.

User in Question: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=15707 (Mabsark)


Standing of the User :-

1. He is in DefaultTrust.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust

2. He is an ASICMiner shareholder in HaveLock.


3. He has no trusted feedback so far.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=15707


His action that is causing problem: He has left -ve feedback on all the cloud mining companies those are currently paying or have shown no sign of non-payment...

i. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=397235

ii. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=390933

iii. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=379594

iv. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=366902

In his attempt to save HaveLock, where is investment is, he has also left -ve trust on the following profile...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=261927


My Point: Just like he has investment in ASICMiner through HaveLock, many of us have directly invested in these companies. I am not saying that all these companies will turn out to be successful, but the same is applicable for HaveLock too. There is more probability that this unregulated exchange will also go down like GLBSE. But, if a company does not want to reveal certain information, that does not allow him to leave -ve trust on that company. No one is forcing him to do business with this company and he is already blabbering in every thread for the same. If his whimsical attitude creates problem for these companies, then that would lead to financial loss for us. So, I would earnestly request to keep Mabsark out of DefaultTrust to make sure that these companies can do proper business on this forum.

let me get this straight... you don't like what and/or how Mabsark says/communicates? and therefore he should be removed from defaulttrust?
do I have this right?

I don't see him on Default Trust?

I can see him in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust. His trust is making profiles immediately red.

I see many he has added negative to yet most are not red.
BTW, I added DefaultTrust and same thing. Is he on your Trust list?

Not a one.
Maybe you trust someone who trusts him?

What is your Trust depth ?

So far I dont trust anyone.

Mabsark gave distrust to cloud mining / ponzi operators that take people's money while lying about nearly all aspects of their business. I suspect the list matches pretty well with the ones I scored as ponzi in the link in my signature;

Personally, I think thats a (very) good and logical thing to do. Anyone with a grain of common sense would distrust them, and its a good thing newbies are made aware they should exercise extreme caution when dealing with them.

The only reason spanish is upset, is that he makes his miserable life by spamming ref links to these scams.

Changing the level, he is on CanaryInTheMine's list. He would be the one you'd have to contact.

It is now almost known to everyone into cloud mining that U, [..] have HaveLock stocks and hence trolling the forum to push stock prices up.

Its pretty well known to anyone that knows me, that my only btc investment is a cold wallet (and casacius coins, though I dont see that as an investment).
I already challenged you to find one single post ever where I recommend anyone to buy anything havelock, BTW, accusing me of shilling for rather than against havelock is pretty hilarious after the blunder you made reading my latest post in their thread. You just cant stop lying can you?

Its pretty well known to anyone that knows me, that my only btc investment is a cold wallet (and casacius coins, though I dont see that as an investment).
I already challenged you to find one single post ever where I recommend anyone to buy anything havelock, BTW, accusing me of shilling for rather than against havelock is pretty hilarious after the blunder you made reading my latest post in their thread. You just cant stop lying can you?

Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

Stop eye washing. The thread u hold in your signature clearly pushes HaveLock stocks that u own.

With PB Mining just collapsing a lot of people have just lost a lot of money. The cloud mining companies that I've gave negative trust to have all refused to provide any evidence of their legitimacy, acting in the same way as PB did. People need to be warned of this before they get ripped off. It's pretty useless warning them afterwards.

If those companies are legitimate and provide evidence of that, then I'll remove those ratings like I said.

As for Riverboat, he was pretty much trying to extort Havelock into using his background checking service and lied about a conversation we had, as explained [urlhttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=887871.msg9795360]here[/url].

But I voice a valid concern, and have asked him to remove it but he refuses.

I know what happend you got postive trust all a sudden so thats the day it showed up, I appoligize. You should not concern yourself with what I say, its other peoples choice to trust what I say or not. I hope someone give you negative trust ;) Pretty sure its coming actually lol

I do not think you understand what the trust system is for, its for when people trade not talk. As talking is a right I could tell everyone the moon is going to fall into the earth tomorrow its up to them to either read it or not.

You are just taking advantage of the broken trust system to PUSH YOUR views on others which is wrong, any real person would just put someone on ignore if they did not want to read what they had to say.

I count 16 instances of negative trust  in your profile. Id say its pretty likely mabsark had valid concerns too.

<snip>

raskul and a few others have HaveLock stocks

My only outside investment has been (quite a lot of BTC) in PBMining early in 2014 and because of my losses, i'm prepared to investigate anything which purports to be a 'cloud mining operation'

This is a lie right here, all customers who got any contracts by July 2014 got paid out their investment and got some small profit. You on the other hand are promoting your own rigs for mining and this is the main reason why you don't like competition.

Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=73449
He has one trusted negative feedback (from Mabsark) and no untrusted feedback. Why is he in level 2?

Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=73449
He has one trusted negative feedback (from Mabsark) and no untrusted feedback. Why is he in level 2?

Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=73449
He has one trusted negative feedback (from Mabsark) and no untrusted feedback. Why is he in level 2?

Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=73449
He has one trusted negative feedback (from Mabsark) and no untrusted feedback. Why is he in level 2?

        Luke-Jr
        Miner-TE
        Noitev
        eleuthria
        luv2drnkbr
        Digigami
        gmaxwell
        E
        zapeta
        bitpop
        Mabsark
        redcomet
        ipxtreme
        Philj
        os2sam
        yxt
        knybe
        Trance104
        sveetsnelda
        conv3rsion
        tlr
        bitcoin-rigs.com
        Vod
        dtmcnamara
        notme
        FCTaiChi
        Mushroomized
        mainichi
        greeners
        dribbits
        echris1
        SaltySpitoon
        bitcoiner49er
        BadBear
        freshzive
        arklan
        glendall
        Pistachio
        tarrant_01
        tbcoin
        ElideN
        friedcat
        Bees Brothers
        Christoban
        Stale
        af_newbie
        eroxors
        camolist
        MrTeal
        cncguru
        Mendacium
        PsychoticBoy
        Dabs
        mem
        Namworld
        lky_svn
        420
        mr2dave
        DobZombie
        gektek
        johnny5
        dyingdreams
        Zillions
        phrog
        Domrada
        Mapuo
        philipma1957
        jborkl
        RicRock
        jmutch
        MonocleMan
        b!z
        CoinHoarder
        absinth
        mitty
        (^_^)
        der_troll
        soy
        super3
        iluvpcs
        batt01
        xstr8guy
        MJGrae
        mobile
        nubbins
        ThickAsThieves
        hephaist0s
        BitcoinValet
        Timzim103
        Rounder
        Nemo1024
        TheXev
        ibminer
        Mooshire
        Benny1985
        mrbrt
        hanti
        ssinc
        Kaega
        finlof
        True___Blue
        elchorizo
        fewerlaws
        bitterdog
        Swimmer63
        locksmith9
        Krellan
        Spendulus
        MikeMike
        statdude
        bluespaceant
        Hiroaki
        keeron
        Bigdaddyaz
        Polyatomic
        palmface
        flowdab
        SpaceCadet
        photon
        dwdoc
        xzempt
        jdany
        mackstuart
        bmoconno
        jdot007
        mrtg
        maxpower
        xjack
        CommanderVenus
        daddyfatsax
        Plesk
        helipotte
        aurel57
        gambitv
        boyohi
        LaserHorse
        joeventura
        slashopt
        drofdelm
        canth
        zackclark70
        cdogster
        DBOD
        addzz
        DefaultTrust
        DustMite
        pixl8tr
        namoom
        blblr
        Taugeran
        arc45
        smscotten
        Cilantro
        chadtn
        kinger1331
        guytechie
        rumlazy
        fractalbc
        fforforest
        KyrosKrane
        ZBC3
        rj11248
        bitdigger2013
        Damnsammit
        jaslo
        BorisAlt
        ASICSAUCE
        sidehack
        steelcave
        Rotorgeek
        buyer99
        daddyhutch
        digeros
        west17m
        Trillium
        ziggysisland
        devthedev
        ryhan
        zac2013
        atomriot
        metal_jacke1
        Apheration
        spacebob
        2byZi
        terrapinflyer
        BenTheRighteous
        gsr18
        Paddy
        Jennifer Smith
        J_Dubbs
        00Smurf
        ldh37
        thomslik
        argakiig
        ManeBjorn
        Ski72
        suchmoon
        Thai

If you look at hierarchical view of trust, it appears that both der_troll and Mabsark are listed under CanaryInTheMine, who is level 1 default.

hole trust system should be removed and go back to scammer tags...

Its just a stupid game at this point as we can all see.

Yeah, but Canary never left feedback for der_troll.
If Canary includes der_troll in his trust list, but doesn't leave a feedback for him, would that add him to the level 2 list?

Back to the 'centralized communist' system everyone hated? ;)

Yeah, but Canary never left feedback for der_troll.
If Canary includes der_troll in his trust list, but doesn't leave a feedback for him, would that add him to the level 2 list?

Edit: saw BadBear's post. It would seem so.

It worked and I found it to be more accurate then the current trust system that is more about kissing ass then it is facts

Back to the 'centralized communist' system everyone hated? ;)

No. There is no problem in the trust system. The root of the problem is DefaultTrust and that is to be abolished.

Details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=311527.0

No. There is no problem in the trust system. The root of the problem is DefaultTrust and that is to be abolished.

Details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=311527.0

i think the majority most likely agree with you on this.

Interestingly, the people on DefaultTrust do not. Because they are enjoying the undue advantage. If u are really trustworthy, then trust system would work great for you even without DefaultTrust, e.g. this guy => https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=143551. DefaultTrust is simply babysitting certain individuals as trustworthy.

May have worked for you, but you aren't the one who has to spend hours and hours daily on it, with nothing in return. I participated in that a lot, know what I got for it? Either a "Thanks!" or "Fuck off!", and trolled endlessly by those who disagreed.

Then the tagged would just make a new account and carry on.

Default trust is flawed, but otoh, consider if you weigh everyone's vote equally, that most scams here will beat you in numbers due to all the paid-for-via-signature campaign and referral shills. As a result every obvious ponzi with a lucrative profit sharing deal (ie referrals) will get high trust scores, and any wannabee scambuster like yours truly will be labeled a scammer.

Back to the 'centralized communist' system everyone hated? ;)

I actually personally agree to most of Mabsark's opinions here, especially given the recent light where PBMining imploded. Also, Mabsark's not in DefaultTrust, rather someone in DefaultTrust has trusted him.

...refused to provide any evidence of legitmacy...

From his left feedback I am glad that people are presumed guilty until proven innocent in our community

While I certainly think it would be foolish to "invest" in any of these cloud mining companies, I don't think evidence has been provided they are scamming.

Regardless of if they are a scam it is inappropriate to leave trust as he is a shareholder of ASUCminer (a competing service). Plus even though some companies have "proven" they are actually mining on behalf of their customers there is nothing to force them to continue to provide mining payouts.

the facts of the matter:

there are way too many people out there using bitcoin to commit fraud.

businesses do not get to be 'anonymous' - there are regulations in real life which must be adhered to.

those regulations should also be applied here, as a community, with bitcoin as the core asset to protect.

with the community coming together in this way, we can ensure that bitcoin is not used as a vehicle for fraud.

The first retort you make is to call badbear a registered business.
You are full of shit, goodbye.

Quickseller sells forum accounts.  The real demand for forum accounts comes from scammers (if its an old/trusted account) who want to pull off a confidence scam, and from signature campaign beggars, who thrive on scams. How any of these things are allowed here is completely beyond me, and completely kills this forum, but at least dont expect people who feast on this to like scammers being exposed for what they are; its bad for this kind of shitty business.

you are ignoring the facts that I presented.

you presented no facts. you classed badbear as a registered business. i stopped reading right there.

For the lack of a better word, the obvious puppet is obvious (lol)

I actually personally agree to most of Mabsark's opinions here, especially given the recent light where PBMining imploded.

You are also incorrect about the sale of accounts causing scams.

It reduces scams by putting value on an account so someone can choose to sell their account instead of scamming.

Since you do not believe in innocent until proven guilty, you were accused of owning ASICminer shares and bashing the competition in order to cause your shares to rise in value. You have denied this but have not proven that you do not own shares. Under your own logic you should be labeled a scammer until you can prove you do not own such shares.

Default trust doesn't give anyone on it an "advantage" its a huge responsibility. Being on the default trust list means you give others appropriate feedback, it doesnt mean that you are without a doubt trustworthy. How trustworthy someone is should be a huge consideration when adding someone to the default trust list, but its about who you can trust to leave accurate feedback for others.

If I add someone to my trust list who is a jackwagon, its my responsibility. That sure is a pretty good motivator not to mess up the default trust list. If I add someone to my trust list who I don't have complete faith in, and they add someone who is a jerk, once again I'm held responsible. I'm not going to stake my own reputation so a friend of a friend of a friend can go on a perceived power trip. They get cut, and the system corrects itself.

If you want a system without default trust, all you have to do is look at "untrusted" and "trusted" feedback with the same weight. I don't give trusted feedback any weight unless its from personally someone I trust. If I see Badbear is trusted by Dingus, Doofus, and Dingleoid and I dont trust them even though they are on the default trust list, I dont value their feedback anymore than untrusted feedback. If Badbear is trusted by someone I trust default trustlist or not, that carries the most amount of weight.

The trust should be removed in my opinion for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, his trust is a conflict of interest. If he owns shares of a competing cloud mining service then his trust will result in potential customers to not want to invest in the competition which will result in them buying the shares of the service he owns. This will result in his shares becoming more valuable. If he has a valid reason these users/companies should have negative trust then he should present evidence to someone else without this conflict.

der_troll -6: -1 / +0(0)   2014-12-11   0.00000000   Reference
Abuses Trust system by giving negative trust to all cloud mining services while promoting AMHash.

His trust is a conflict of interest. If he owns shares of a competing cloud mining service then his trust will result in potential customers to not want to invest in the competition which will result in them buying the shares of the service he owns. This will result in his shares becoming more valuable. If he has a valid reason these users/companies should have negative trust then he should present evidence to someone else without this conflict.

I didnt say that. Im saying your business thrives on scams, hence your incentive is not to prevent them.


Thats a ridiculous argument, selling the account is just outsourcing the scam to the highest bidder and to someone more capable and willing of pulling it off without risking jailtime myself.


I dont need to prove I dont own shares, even if I held shares that wouldnt invalidate my points or make me a scammer. You accused me of shilling and promoting certain specific offers, and that I can easily disprove, That proof is my 3000+ post history (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=65207;sa=showPosts) which contains nothing resembling what you and spanishmoron claim and an overwhelming amount of posts that prove the exact opposite.

1. Leaving -ve feedback on businesses that has not scammed anyone, but competing a company, where he is a shareholder.

2. Leaving -ve trust on people talking against HaveLock, because he is a shareholder over there.

3. Did not leave -ve trust on Hashie, though they were doing everything same the others are accused of, except that they started to resell the hash power of a company, where he is a shareholder.

Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

My take on the whole hashie thing is.... Friedcat knows what he is doing.

at the risk of further derailing this; friedcat does not know because he outsourced this to people who do not know what they are doing. Ive been talking to amhash about their partnership with hashie, and they simply do not understand they are unwittingly vouching for a scam and setting themselves up for a big problem. They do not know the identity of hashie operator either, just imagine the stupidity it requires to resell your products (and earned trust) through an anonymous almost-certain scammer who will later use his stolen trust to compete against you (the next "'gen 2" ponzi).

really hope you are wrong on this one.

at the risk of further derailing this; friedcat does not know because he outsourced this to people who do not know what they are doing. Ive been talking to amhash about their partnership with hashie, and they simply do not understand they are unwittingly vouching for a scam and setting themselves up for a big problem. They do not know the identity of hashie operator either, just imagine the stupidity it requires to resell your products (and earned trust) through an anonymous almost-certain scammer who will later use his stolen trust to compete against you (the next "'gen 2" ponzi).

1. I don't need to wait till they've ripped people off in order to leave negative feedback and my reasoning for doing so and conditions for removal are sound. When leaving negative feedback it quite clearly states:


- Same logic applies to HaveLock. Just like PB mining has fallen, BTCT & GLBSE has fallen too. So why did not you leave -ve feedback on HaveLock and on the companies trying to rip off people through HaveLock ? Just because U *think* they are good boy ?

2. I'm not a shareholder of Havelock.

- When I say someone is a shareholder of NYSE, it means he owns a stock that is traded on NYSE.

3. I didn't leave negative feedback for most cloud mining companies, just a select few.

- U r dodging my Q. I asked u about a specific company which has already scammed people by deleting the referral table from database.

picking and choosing whom to debate with

<!!!>

AFAICR, Ive only really been proven wrong about almost anything once in the past few years. I was wrong by 0.7% - thinking difficulty would not go down last week.
Its the only time I made a bet :).

What is your take about the situation described in the OP ? Mabsark is trusted by the DefaultTrust member CanaryInTheMine. Do u think any of the following acts done by Mabsark is correct ?

1. Leaving -ve feedback on businesses that has not scammed anyone, but competing a company, where he is a shareholder.

2. Leaving -ve trust on people talking against HaveLock, because he is a shareholder over there.

3. Did not leave -ve trust on Hashie, though they were doing everything same the others are accused of, except that they started to resell the hash power of a company, where he is a shareholder.

I'd rather not involve myself. What I can add constructively though, is if people think that what Mabsark has done is wrong, and Mabsark is not willing to change their feedback, you then ask CanaryInTheMine to reconsider their trust of Mabsark's. If Mabsark can't be trusted to give accurate feedback, the pressure is then on CanaryInTheMine to decide whether they want Mabsark's actions to represent them.

Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though.

THought Id post this here:

https://i.imgur.com/Q0aA1Vu.png

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=835239.msg9605837#msg9605837l

A few weeks later all he does is promote terabox scam and leave negative trust to scambusters.

That would explain it. Has someone already PMed Canary to ask him to remove the possibly sold account from his trust list?

I feel that you have made no mistake in posting this thread. You have simply usurped the realisation that the good people in this community are not prepared to sit back and watch new users and new adopters of bitcoin be scammed senseless by pyramid schemes.

You have probably done more good, than harm. Mabsark remains a trusted member of this community and you seem to have (proverbially) shot yourself in the foot by picking and choosing which arguments to debate.
regards,

Already took care of it when I saw account selling post. Thanks!

-snip-

If I add someone to my trust list who is a jackwagon, its my responsibility. That sure is a pretty good motivator not to mess up the default trust list. If I add someone to my trust list who I don't have complete faith in, and they add someone who is a jerk, once again I'm held responsible. I'm not going to stake my own reputation so a friend of a friend of a friend can go on a perceived power trip. They get cut, and the system corrects itself.

-snip-

With the above being said, is it wise to invest in these contracts? No absolutely not, it is too risky for me, however others may have different risk tolerance.

---

I think that Mabsark's, puppets's and MrTeal's actions are likely violating securities laws by what I consider to be attempting to pump the price of AM1 on havelock.

So, do you have some kind of proof I'm violating a security law? Or to lower the bar even further, can you at least point me to the law I'm violating?

Thanks much.

(4) If a dealer, broker, security-based swap dealer, major security-based swap participant, or other person selling or offering for sale or purchasing or offering to purchase the security, a security-based swap, or security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, to make, regarding any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, any security-based swap, or any security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of such security, such security-based swap, or such security-based swap agreement any statement which was at the time and in the light of the circumstances under which it was made, false or misleading with respect to any material fact, and which that person knew or had reasonable ground to believe was so false or misleading.

(5) For a consideration, received directly or indirectly from a broker, dealer, security-based swap dealer, major security-based swap participant, or other person selling or offering for sale or purchasing or offering to purchase the security, a security-based swap, or security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, to induce the purchase of any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, any security-based swap, or any security-based swap agreement with respect to such security by the circulation or dissemination of information to the effect that the price of any such security will or is likely to rise or fall because of the market operations of any 1 or more persons conducted for the purpose of raising or depressing the price of such security.

15 U.S. Code § 78i (a)(5)

and 15 U.S. Code § 78i (a)(5)These were found after a quick google search. A more through search and/or the use of a securities attorney would potentially reveal other/additional laws.

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78i

Swaps are financial contracts in which two counterparties agree to exchange or "swap" payments with each other as a result of such things as changes in a stock price, interest rate or commodity price.

With the above being said, is it wise to invest in these contracts? No absolutely not, it is too risky for me, however others may have different risk tolerance.

---

I think that Mabsark's, puppets's and MrTeal's actions are likely violating securities laws by what I consider to be attempting to pump the price of AM1 on havelock.

---

@ puppet - you are not a scam buster. Having such label on your personal message is very misleading. 

Mabsark negative trusting exclusively rivals does look as serving his own interest.

CanaryInTheMine is active and have taken action by removing der_troll and putting a new trust on Mabsark. Now the responsibility lies with him. If it feels to the other trusted members or Theymos that Mabsark is abusing his privilege then CanaryInTheMine will be held responsible and would likely lose his status.

I think the trust system works fine, would like to monitor this and see how it ends.

Everyone serves their own interests. That doesn't mean they can't serve the interests of others as well though. Stopping scams before they can rip people off is in the best interests of the whole community I'd say. Wouldn't you? Those companies I left negative feedback on are not rivals. They're scams. If they're not scams, then they'd be able to provide some form of evidence of legitimacy. They've been asked many times by many people and simply refuse to do so. If they do so, I will remove the feedback like I said. AMHashs's rivals are CEX.io, Hashnest, KNC Cloud and PetaMine. Do you see me leaving any negative feedback for those services?

May have worked for you, but you aren't the one who has to spend hours and hours daily on it, with nothing in return. I participated in that a lot, know what I got for it? Either a "Thanks!" or "Fuck off!", and trolled endlessly by those who disagreed.

Then the tagged would just make a new account and carry on.

This is just stupid, I was posting this in Off-topic and this account is still mine. I did not sell it or it was offered for sale, it was stupid off topic post...seems Canary did not bother to take a look where and why it was posted.

As a member that was on default trust, comment of selling your account should be taken seriously and with consequences, i doubt many would trust you after writing something so stupid.

It was a throwaway comment. He shouldn't be judged on the basis of that.

More importantly, his password hasn't changed after he made that comment so he hasn't sold it yet even if his intending to do so.

I would sell it for the right price, couple of bitcoins would do I guess :)

You have public evidence to support this, apart from their word?

regardless of it being in offtopic, it reads like he was willing to sell his account for the right price, being a couple of bitcoins.

You can give neutral feedback instead. Thats why its there.

Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

Accounts in default trust get sold all the time. For instance https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=890434.0

Anybody willing to buy a legendary, default trusted account will be doing so to scam.

To any potential buyers, there is a good chance that you will be easily caught so be careful.

November 20, 2014, 06:04:19 AM - malaimult - password changed

I would sell it for the right price, couple of bitcoins would do I guess :)

I'd rather not involve myself. What I can add constructively though, is if people think that what Mabsark has done is wrong, and Mabsark is not willing to change their feedback, you then ask CanaryInTheMine to reconsider their trust of Mabsark's. If Mabsark can't be trusted to give accurate feedback, the pressure is then on CanaryInTheMine to decide whether they want Mabsark's actions to represent them.

Mabsark negative trusting exclusively rivals does look as serving his own interest.

CanaryInTheMine is active and have taken action by removing der_troll and putting a new trust on Mabsark. Now the responsibility lies with him. If it feels to the other trusted members or Theymos that Mabsark is abusing his privilege then CanaryInTheMine will be held responsible and would likely lose his status.

I think the trust system works fine, would like to monitor this and see how it ends.

I would urge you to use the seclog tool with caution. Its extremely useful as a warning, but you shouldn't use it to try and connect anybody who has some opinion.

I didn't want to leave neutral feedback. Like I said earlier, when leaving negative feedback it states.


I'm using the system as intended.

The feedback left by der_troll is word for word what malaimult wrote in this thread one day prior to the feedback being left.
My guess is Der_troll and Malaimult are one int he same.

malaimult is not default trust. der_troll is. malaimult used his alt to leave feedback as his alt is on default trust but he is not. connecting the dots is fun speculation.

What is fun speculation for you may incorrectly ruin some one else's reputation. Hence I said you should judge carefully and be reasonably confident before making any kind of accusations.

I am not defending you or der_troll. Personally, I feel you've a vested interest, but I don't have conviction or the power to influence anything.

The feedback left by der_troll is word for word what malaimult wrote in this thread one day prior to the feedback being left.
My guess is Der_troll and Malaimult are one int he same.

this thread is becoming ridiculous.

I would sell it for the right price, couple of bitcoins would do I guess Smiley

My comment in off topic. Because of this Canary removed me from his trusted list. That post of mine was more a joke then anything serious, if serious then you would be able to find same kind of post in buying/selling accounts threads. As for the "right price", how many users here wouldn't sell it for the right price if they were offered 10-20BTC for their account? Yes there are ones that wouldn't but 95% members would accept this offer...but I'm a bad guy who needs to be removed from Canary default trust because of that comment. And as pointed by member here my password did not change and my account is still mine....

This is just ridiculous where this forum is heading.

malaimult is not default trust. der_troll is. malaimult used his alt to leave feedback as his alt is on default trust but he is not. connecting the dots is fun speculation.

this thread is becoming ridiculous.

My comment in off topic. Because of this Canary removed me from his trusted list. That post of mine was more a joke then anything serious, if serious then you would be able to find same kind of post in buying/selling accounts threads. As for the "right price", how many users here wouldn't sell it for the right price if they were offered 10-20BTC for their account? Yes there are ones that wouldn't but 95% members would accept this offer...

I would like also to add :

With this trust system it is so easy *abuse it* so I think we need new change , or better modify it completely. Because I've seen a lot of these type of threads ( it is always the same story).

What do you suggest as an alternative? I cannot think of a feedback system that is flawless or foolproof to abuse but if you can some up with one maybe it will be considered.

Because of this Canary removed me from his trusted list.

Im more curious how you ended up on canary's list in the first place.
A quick glance over your post history doesnt exactly answer that question.

Nah, I don't think so.

this thread is becoming ridiculous.

<snip>

Let the trust system moderate itself. Going around telling people who to remove from their trust under threat of themselves being removed is little more than a loophole to let Theymos personally dictate who gets to join his special little club, and anyone who doesn't obey his directive gets removed. That is not a community based distributed trust system, that is a centralized trust dictatorship, in many ways even worse than the old "scammer tag" days, because now everyone thinks it is distributed. This strategy of trying to moderate trust in any way is a failed one and will only lead to this community destroying itself from the inside out as trolls and scammers leverage it as a wedge against the core of the community.

People who are "accepted" by the owner of the forum should not be in any way promoted and be able to tag other people's profiles.
What matters now is not how many transactions the account is involved in or how many people left a trust rating but if these people are among the privileged.

If you have a better solution please speak up. As it is the current system is the most stable that we have had. Find a plan for forum trust that can't be exploited, or has a lower risk of being exploited, and I'm sure it will be adopted.

Every system can be exploited, just like the current one is. What I'd propose is:
Remove the default trust and make all comments equal. Rate the profile by the number of positive/negative votes.
Allow only 1 vote per account and don't allow newbies and jr. members to leave comments to prevent spam.

What I find strange at the moment are people leaving multiple trust ratings with the same purpose. Why doesn't the staff ban trust spammers or allow only 1 rating per person?

malaimult is not default trust. der_troll is. malaimult used his alt to leave feedback as his alt is on default trust but he is not. connecting the dots is fun speculation.

People with multiple accounts would then have greater weight. With your proposed system, you just make 100 accounts, age them, and then become very trusted, and start scamming, or ruin/build up other's trust.

-SNIP-

People with multiple accounts would then have greater weight. With your proposed system, you just make 100 accounts, age them, and then become very trusted, and start scamming, or ruin/build up other's trust. That would also give people a free pass to scam newbies and jr.members because they couldn't voice their opinions. As it is now, the trust system is not moderated. Allowing staff to alter trust in any way would leave it completely useless. Staff members could then be influenced to do shady things for others or themselves.

As it is now, the people on the default trust list have a vested interest in the forum. First Theymos, those he picked, and from there those that the 2nd layer has picked, etc. If someone does something wrong with the trust system while on the default trust list, it effects the person above them, discouraging abuse, and encouraging those in a position to add others to the trustlist to think carefully about who they add, and act quickly to fix any situation that comes about. If you don't like the default trust system, individuals can remove the Default Trust list from their own account preferences, and replace it with people they personally trust.

I see your point. You actually touched another vital one - multiple accounts, which IMO shouldn't be allowed. People with multiple accounts are already using them to push their opinions, scam signature campaigns and so on. Not allowing newbies and juniors to leave trust ratings wouldn't be a problem, because it would discourage the most obvious spammers, those too lazy to even write a couple of posts.

You're right that it could be abused by people with multiple accounts, but allowing 1 rating per user should be fairly easy. It would only require the software to block multiple ratings by the same user. You should really consider this, even if you're not planning to change the default trust in any way.

As for the people on default trust, I'm not completely sure if people are responsible with their ratings. Just take Mr. CanaryInTheMine. He gave positive trust to a lot of people, who participated in his group buy, so in a way by buying something from him they also bought trust. The trust list is also rarely moderated. Mark Karpeles was on the list for months after his exchange imploded.

I can't speak for others, but Canary added me to his trust list and I've never participated in one of his group buys. I'd suspect the majority of the people there are in a similar situation. There's no reason for Canary to add random group buy participants, as he doesn't have to trust them at all to take their money and send it to Fried cat.  They need to trust him.

I see your point. You actually touched another vital one - multiple accounts, which IMO shouldn't be allowed. People with multiple accounts are already using them to push their opinions, scam signature campaigns and so on. Not allowing newbies and juniors to leave trust ratings wouldn't be a problem, because it would discourage the most obvious spammers, those too lazy to even write a couple of posts.

You're right that it could be abused by people with multiple accounts, but allowing 1 rating per user should be fairly easy. It would only require the software to block multiple ratings by the same user. You should really consider this, even if you're not planning to change the default trust in any way.

As for the people on default trust, I'm not completely sure if people are responsible with their ratings. Just take Mr. CanaryInTheMine. He gave positive trust to a lot of people, who participated in his group buy, so in a way by buying something from him they also bought trust. The trust list is also rarely moderated. Mark Karpeles was on the list for months after his exchange imploded.


@malaimult I've seen some of these plants who bash certain mining companies while pushing their own through paid or unpaid signatures. A common practice these days ;)

If you look at his trusted trust you will see that he has many people that have left him positive feedback that have not themselves received any feedback from anyone. These people are on his trust list (meaning they are on default trust because of him). You should be able to reasonably conclude that he has put many people on his trust list because he has done business with him (and he unlikely risked anything because he has his customers send funds to him prior to him sending his product)

I see your point. You actually touched another vital one - multiple accounts, which IMO shouldn't be allowed. People with multiple accounts are already using them to push their opinions, scam signature campaigns and so on. Not allowing newbies and juniors to leave trust ratings wouldn't be a problem, because it would discourage the most obvious spammers, those too lazy to even write a couple of posts.

You're right that it could be abused by people with multiple accounts, but allowing 1 rating per user should be fairly easy. It would only require the software to block multiple ratings by the same user. You should really consider this, even if you're not planning to change the default trust in any way.

As for the people on default trust, I'm not completely sure if people are responsible with their ratings. Just take Mr. CanaryInTheMine. He gave positive trust to a lot of people, who participated in his group buy, so in a way by buying something from him they also bought trust. The trust list is also rarely moderated. Mark Karpeles was on the list for months after his exchange imploded.


@malaimult I've seen some of these plants who bash certain mining companies while pushing their own through paid or unpaid signatures. A common practice these days ;)

I don't claim he hasn't done business with them. I'm merely saying I wasn't part of his group buy and don't imagine all the others are either. He obviously didn't put everyone on his trust list from the group buys, he'd have hundreds if that was the case.

Having multiple accounts is something we can't enforce, so it would be irresponsible to say that its disallowed. The number next to someone's name is pretty irrelevant, if anyone is using the trust system solely by the green or red number, thats their fault. Its like Ebay feedback, before you buy a yacht from someone with 100 positive feedback for purchases, you should probably check and see what that feedback is for. Allowing people to leave more than one rating really isn't a big deal. I haven't seen any issue with people spamming feedback. Giving someone positive feedback does not mean that they are on the default trust list, I have done many deals with people, but if you check my sent feedback it accurately describes the transaction so that people can gauge what my feedback means for themselves. I have added four people to the default trustlist and left probably 50 different positive feedbacks. Mr. CanaryInTheMine gave positive feedback to people he had a positive transaction with, not a problem. That goes back to the point of reading what someone has gained feedback for and the Ebay example. If someone has 50 positive trust for buying things from group buys, that doesnt mean they are trustworthy to sell you something. The feedback system is a tool, there is no preventing it from people that use it wrong. The default trust system just means that someone in the line trusts that they will give others accurate feedback. If not, changes are made.

...Default trust isn't perfect and incorruptible, but a trust list run by someone else (and let's be real here, if default trust didn't exist, someone would make a "default" that everyone would end up using anyway) would be much more corruptible...

...This is why a distributed solution to this is the only solution. Will it ever be exploited? Yes probably, but so is the current system. At least a distributed system has the ability to react and shift reputation to individuals who deserve it and remove it from those who don't THEMSELVES...

This is quite an assumption to make. The forum itself is earning income and interacting with users of the forum. The moderators are paid, and that income comes from ads sold. There is a DIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST in keeping this trust list under control of the people who are the primary beneficiaries of this (mods, any paid staff).

Even assuming that you are all 100% honest at your word, that alone is enough to influence your actions drastically regarding how you moderate the default trust. This is why a distributed solution to this is the only solution. Will it ever be exploited? Yes probably, but so is the current system. At least a distributed system has the ability to react and shift reputation to individuals who deserve it and remove it from those who don't THEMSELVES, not from a central position of a small group of otherwise disinterested financial beneficiaries.

there should be limits as to how many people can be on your trust list if you are on level 1 default trust. This will prevent the privilege of being on default trust being given out as a "thank you" for your customers.

There should be different formula for calculating positive trust if multiple people give trust feedback that are not trusted by different people. For example if everyone that gives you positive trust are all trusted by badbear then each additional trust rating by someone on badbears list should count for less while someone on theymos' list would count for more. You should not be able to receive "green" trust unless you are trusted by people that are on at least two different trust lists.

Negative trust should cause a profile to turn "red" at first with one scam report but would go away after n time without a second scam report. This would prevent someone from being able to continue to scam but would prevent someone from abusing the trust system and would force scam reports to be community reviewed (and a 2nd person agreeing on default trust) after a scam accusation is opened (as it should be after giving negative trust)

Good suggestions , but  maybe   theymos can add the function "report"  near the feedback so we can easily report the "fake"  & *abused* feedback.

[it is only a suggestion]

When I look at the Hierarchical view of the default trust network, I see that he is roughly in the middle of his trust list, that appears to otherwise be in roughly the order that people were added in.

I think the main problem is that the trust system has given members that haven't proven themselves responsible enough the ability to mark someone's account with negative trust, and essentially ruin the account.

Any inaccuracies will eventually be fixed. I'm not going to allow the default trust network to contain inaccurate ratings for long.

I think what the staff is telling everyone here is, the key is to lie to them and everyone else and just PRETEND you think the individual you negative is a scammer rather than being honest of why the feedback was left for various other reasons  (like prominent people on the default trust do almost daily). Going around "scambusting" is a nice cover for throwing in a few personal enemies into the grinder as well. In the end the staff care about one thing, THEIR PAYCHECK, and they don't have any other interest while getting involved with disputes. Why should they care if you were ripped off, harassed, or otherwise slandered?

yep, we've dealt with inaccurate or blatant abuses before and will continue to do so as necessary.  most people are not evil and if they flip, we can resolve disputes.

I think the main problem is that the trust system has given members that haven't proven themselves responsible enough the ability to mark someone's account with negative trust, and essentially ruin the account. Even if 90% of the time the people are right, there's still a 10% rate that it will be abused. Given the weight that a trusted negative feedback carries (Warning: Trade With Extreme Caution!) it doesn't seem to me that the system would work in the long run as more and more people would start to gain this power, and it would become harder and harder to monitor and deal with.

I see a main problem is negative feedback is being given because of a personal view on things, and not having to do with scamming or potentially scamming. Even if 90% of everything is right, again it still opens up the chance for 10% abuse, which would be 1/10 times a reputable members account would be damaged. As the trust web grows it would be harder and harder to deal with this, and there's a lot of problems you could run into when removing it. In order for this to not happen I think it would be a good idea to keep the trust system in a monitored rate, where only people that have proven that their opinions are correct, that are willing to quickly correct something they did wrong, and that show the responsibility to not abuse the system and their power if something doesn't go their way or if they get mad are given the power to negative rep someone's account and have it show up on their main profile.


The Default Trust Members and people who carry the high feedback weight are like the Bitcoin Police. In a regular police force, a cop wouldn't be able to give a recommendation to someone and them become part of the team. Sure, the cop might personally know that person and know they're a good person, but they haven't gone through the process of being a cop. As more and more recommendations are given out, you'd eventually have citizens killing other citizens and making decisions that aren't really applicable to the law or what they are supposed to be doing. It would be hard to monitor because there would be so many people to deal with that finding the rights and wrongs would take more time than humanly possible. If the trust system isn't kept at a monitorable rate, pretty soon there will be newbies having more say in a situation than a reputable member who's been here for years (Which I believe is already close to what happened in Canaries case).

Canary is staking their reputation on the people they add. If there is an issue with the people they add, its on Canary to handle. Self interest is the best motivator to keep a corruptible system honest, and every system is corruptible.

I think you are mistaken here. There are no limits as to how many people he can add to his trust list (which puts them on default trust list). There is no limit as to how many accounts he can have.

There is nothing to stop him from making 1,000 accounts, putting them all on default trust list, giving each-other positive/green trust then giving him trust.

Being on default trust essentially makes it impossible to make it appear to an outsider that you have a bad reputation. His reputation may be negatively affected but only by people who regularly follow the politics of bitcointalk.org, for people who do not follow (probably most of the user base) will have no idea other then his trust rating that is available without clicking on any trust details.

He essentially is doing what I described in my 2nd paragraph, except with ~200 people as opposed to 1,000. From what I can tell many/most people who have green trust that are on his trust list have received trust feedback from others that are on his trust list alone; and have given him positive trust feedback as well

He would be removed from default trust. I just want to make sure we are still talking hypothetical, we can't prosecute a guy for something he could possibly do. Theymos could make 50 accounts, give himself fake trust, and then scam someone out of free dancing lessons, but I'm not asking to remove Theymos from default trust yet.

What is fun speculation for you may incorrectly ruin some one else's reputation. Hence I said you should judge carefully and be reasonably confident before making any kind of accusations.

Nah, I don't think so.

Well I don't really have an opinion on leaving those companies negative feedback because I know nothing of the circumstances, but what I want to know is, Mabsark, do you feel leaving retaliatory negative feedback to der_troll is appropriate considering yours carries so much more weight?

he left me this feedback:

http://s2.postimg.org/mypv4its9/Capture.jpg

^ true though.  :D

In the securities section, I have had 100% accuracy rate.  Even my opinions, once considered the fringes of pessimism, are now mainstream.  The negative feedback I received was my reward :-\

happy christmas.
IMHO, from what i've seen of your trolling... you have caused a lot of damage to some very legitimate securities; and your reward is, just.
tip: orchestrating hate campaigns does in no way make you a prophet.

Please name the "legitimate securities."

there have been a few threads i've seen you trolling in, feel free to go back over your own posts to enlighten yourself, i'm not your secretary.

You accuse me of starting "hate campaigns" against "legitimate securities."  Asked to validate your accusation, you demur with "I'm not your secretary."
Typical :-\

yup, i'm just your typical btc enthusiast, nothing special here. IMHO Mabsark called it rightly.

yup, i'm just your typical btc enthusiast, nothing special here. IMHO Mabsark called it rightly.

It's like this:  If you listened to the people who left me negative feedback, you are now poorer than you would have been, had you listened to me.
So yeah, I guess that makes you a typical BTC enthusiast.

...was mabsark invested in any of the securities that were behind any of the scams that were called out?

...
meanwhile...
It's actually like this:  The issue here is that you feel people are unable to make up their own minds. This is your own flaw, not Mabsark's. I have had a few discussions with Mabsark regarding a couple of issues and not once have I felt that he has tried to sway me one way or another.

There is a huge difference between discussing your opinion, and forcing your opinion on others. Where I have found Mabsark to be the former, you are the latter.
You sir are merely a troll who feeds on other's indecision.

Of course!  Several.  Why do you think he left me negative feedback?

Unless you feel I can crawl through the intertubes, I have not forced my opinion on anyone.  How can posting on a forum force anyone to do anything?

@Havelock; provasic; cbcm.co:  I warned you to hunt responsibly, now it's too late.  The noble Bitcoin Investor has been hunted into extinction  >:(

if you can document this then it seems that he has a history of using trust to further his own financial incentives. He is using trust to prevent securities that he ownes from declining in value.

heavy trolling: one thread example.

How does warning scammers securities issuers

you just can't help yourself, can you?

Not sure how this would work.  He was "invested" in NeoBee and Active Mining, but he can always claim that his feedback was unrelated to these "investments."

It shows there is a connection. There is no reference link in his feedback which alone is bad. Sure he can say anything that he wants but giving evidence is always necessary to support your arguement that his trust rating is unjust

...
LOL. I was invested in NEOBEE for a whole day and I sold my shares in ActM near the height of the share price in summer 2013. I then invested them into Labcoin and sold them off not long later too. I was also trading DMS around that time too. I used to trade securities all the time on BTC-TC and BitFunder. I don't pretend that I've never made mistakes. I'm not perfect.

Lambchops claims are complete nonsense though, as proven by the fact that the negative feedback was left over half a year to a year after the events under discussion. If you look through his posting history, it's nothing but trolling. If there was an Internet Troll of the Year award, this guy would get my nomination. If you ran such a poll on this forum, I have no doubt whatsoever that NotLampchop (or one of his older accounts) would win. I wouldn't be surprised if his accounts were the only nominees. The only reason he posts to this forum is because he loves winding people up.

At the time is was left they carried equal weight and I reached out to der_troll immediately via PM urging him to reread the thread and reconsider his decision. Until he responds to me, then yes, I do think it's appropriate.

Would it be appropriate for me to change that feedback just because der_troll's trust level changed though?

At the time is was left they carried equal weight and I reached out to der_troll immediately via PM urging him to reread the thread and reconsider his decision. Until he responds to me, then yes, I do think it's appropriate.

Would it be appropriate for me to change that feedback just because der_troll's trust level changed though?

Given that the topic of this thread is your feedback against those companies, and that it depends on circumstances changing (being able to prove they aren't a ponzi), I would think you would jump at the chance to show you are trustworthy and fair with your ratings, and that you do intend to change feedback as circumstances change. Being in default trust network doesn't mean everyone trusts you, just that the one person who put you on their list does.

-snip-


Any inaccuracies will eventually be fixed. I'm not going to allow the default trust network to contain inaccurate ratings for long.

You need to do more homework. I suggest looking at my sig for starters then reading Puppet's Cloudmining 101 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=878387.0) thread.

I've already proven that I'm willing to remove feedback by removing feedback from nexusmining. Like I said, I've reached out to der_troll who has simply ignored my PM's. I'm willing to remove that negative feedback, der_troll just has to be willing to do the same and get in touch with me.

Looks like you succeeded in using default trust in order to coerce someone else into removing their negative feedback against you. Good for you. That makes you and CanaryInTheMine look like upstanding people who definitely deserve to be in the default trust network, and certainly doesn't lend any credence to other claims that may or may not be true /s. 

I've already proven that I'm willing to remove feedback by removing feedback from nexusmining. Like I said, I've reached out to der_troll who has simply ignored my PM's. I'm willing to remove that negative feedback, der_troll just has to be willing to do the same and get in touch with me.

Looks like you succeeded in using default trust in order to coerce someone else into removing their negative feedback against you. Good for you. That makes you and CanaryInTheMine look like upstanding people who definitely deserve to be in the default trust network, and certainly doesn't lend any credence to other claims that may or may not be true /s. 

Funny how it is only coercion when it is one of your buddies. I warned you guys this would become a pattern, but you would rather pretend to be right than actually being right and running an impartial trust system.

These kinds of things do not happen overnight. IIRC it took several weeks for you to be removed from default trust list. If I had to guess, I would say that theymos is trying to figure out how to modify the trust system so that Canary can be removed but also so that there are not too few "trusted" people on the forum

Admitting that moderating the default trust system is a flawed and destructive system and ceasing the inquisition on those on the trust list would be a good start. If people get out of line, the community has the ability to swarm people with negatives. We do not need disinterested third parties moderating trust ratings in a manner that only protects their own income stream and does not serve the community that actually built the actual trust.

No, it is not appropriate to give someone negative trust for arbitrary reasons. The only reason why someone should receive negative trust is because they are scamming, they will scam or they are trying to scam. The only reason for positive trust is because of a positive trade experience with someone, or they otherwise trust them (positive trust is much more flexible as it does not carry as much weight). If your trust ratings are not accurate, then other people should not rely on your ratings to make a decision on if someone should be trusted or not.

What we have with canary is not only do we have trust essentially being given to himself (and his business associates) but we also have negative trust being given to his competitors when the only evidence of a scam is the lack of evidence they are operating in a legit manner. 

You can have all the moral dogmas you want, unless you also have a fair, accurate, and impartial system of enforcing that, then it is nothing more than a destructive blind ideology. If people are abusing the feedback system, others within that same system have the ability to call it out. We don't need a disinterested trust cartel dictating what should be done with their only concern being their own revenue stream from the forum.

Theymos does have a vested interest in making sure that trade on here is safe. If trading is not safe then people will not trade on here, and if people do not trade then they will not visit as much, then ad revenue will decline. The feedback that you gave was not feedback that was reflective on the receiving person's potential to scam in the future and as a result your feedback should not be relied on by others. I cannot think of anything more fair then to have you removed from default trust list. It would be unfair to allow you to remain on default trust list as at least one innocent user would be negatively affected by your inaccurate feedback rating.

The same is true for Canary, but to a larger degree. He is allowing (and encouraging) someone to leave feedback that is unsubstantiated on his competition and is giving himself positive feedback making him appear to be more trustworthy

You know what I think is unfair? Users who come here and deal with scammers and trolls for years and whom treat everyone fairly getting punished for not obeying commands because of "justice warriors" who go around all day looking for "wrongs" to right and the trolls that incite them. My rating was completely accurate, he was harassing me and that is exactly what I said in the rating and why I left it. If staff hadn't have stuck their nose into it he might have removed his slanderous posts and I would have deleted his trust rating, but they have no interest in restorative justice, only protecting their income stream. Instead they attacked me openly and gave this user the impression that the staff would some how "fix" his negative rating, so he had no incentive to cooperate with me, because in his mind, he was going to get what he wanted anyway. As a result I am off of the default trust list and Armis now has a permanent negative rating. They got what they wanted, neither I nor Armis did. This serves only the staff.

"Winding people up" is exactly what needs to happen when said people are getting fleeced.
Looking at the date, I remember why you've left me that vindictive feedback:  I interfered with your pimping of your AM "investment," which continues to tank to this day :)

@Quickseller: Mabsark leaving me negative trust is well within the forum rules.  The problem is not Mabsark, but the rules.  Attempting to grow a relevant trust system from a default trust seed is fundamentally, conceptually flawed.

Edit re. "feedback was left over half a year to a year after the events under discussion":

The chart starts on June 11th, when I got the vote of no confidence from Mabsark for suggesting that AM prices would tank:

http://s7.postimg.org/s7orsyy5n/Capture.jpg

So what about mine I asked nicely and even apploigized when I made a mistake?

Just noticed Mabsark removed the neg. rating he left me.

...

No I didn't. I'd only remove that feedback if theymos created a special "Forum's Biggest Troll" rank especially for you.

Ah, you were removed from default trust then?  Will neg rep you back, my apologies.

-snip-

Nice job, whoever's responsible.

From the looks of it, CanaryInTheMine removed Mabsark from default trust list. I do think this is a good start, but his trust list still does not appear to be significantly pruned and still contains a large number of people that probably should not be there.

-snip-
Any inaccuracies will eventually be fixed. I'm not going to allow the default trust network to contain inaccurate ratings for long.

-snip-
From the looks of it, CanaryInTheMine removed Mabsark from default trust list. I do think this is a good start, but his trust list still does not appear to be significantly pruned and still contains a large number of people that probably should not be there.

Let me get this straight. This person thought you were acting unfairly, he called you out on it, and you made it so his profile would be labeled as a scammer until he retracted his statements about you acting unfairly. Is this an accurate representation of what happened?

In other words, you want to be able to act unfairly and to allow no one to call you out on it.

If anything his trust rating should have been improved for calling out unfair business activity. What he was doing had nothing to do with him potentially scamming and therefore a negative trust rating is not warranted.

You seem to be complaining a lot about the fact that you were removed from default trust list, yet you fail to understand that your ratings given do not have anything to do with scamming or the ability to trust others and as a result are not accurate and should not be relied on

MrTeal (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=52355), another AM hash sympathizer on the trust list of CanaryInTheMine, is doing the same thing on TeraBox's trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=366902), what Mabshark (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=15707) was doing. I would like to know why CanaryInTheMine will not remove him from his list ?

Interestingly, neither of the proven scammers like Hashie, LTC gear or HashProfit has received -ve from this MrTeal or Mabshark !!!

Can you provide any kind of evidence I'm an AMhash sympathizer? I haven't owned a crypto share of anything since before GLBSE shut down. There's a great number of cloud mining Ponzis out there that I haven't given negative feedback to and some that I have, though it has nothing to do with trying to paint every possible Ponzi. When I left my feedback for PBmining and TeraBox, they still had neutral trust.
It's similar to my rating for blackarrow, AMT and hashcoins. All of those outfits had neutral (or positive in the case of BA) trust that shouldn't, so I provided my opinion of their legitimacy. I haven't posted negative trust for BFL or EMIC or MAT because those have been more than covered already.

If TeraBox can prove something resembling legitimacy I'd have no problem removing my trust rating on them. This probably has little to do with specific problems with my trust rating for TeraBox though, and more with you being pissed off that my involvement with PBmining meant you couldn't keep whoring your PBmining referral links around trying to bring new people into the scam.

If I remember correctly, you were wearing the signature of AM hash or AsicMiner or some of the friedcat led cloud mining eyewash game product a few days ago which are directly competing businesses like TeraBox.

Whom do you think of yourself that company should prove their legitimacy to you ? You ofcourse do have the right to leave -ve feedback on anyone you think is untrustworthy, just like I have the right to think that friedcat is playing a legitimacy game by remaining anonymous. But, if you can not publicly back up your claim with proof (I mean proof from you, not the person/company who is accused), then you DO NOT have the right to be associated with DefaultTrust. For any cloud mining company, your -ve is a conflict of interest.

The case of MrTeal is exactly the same as of Mabshark and MrTeal is again in the trust list of friedcat product's group buy leader CanaryInTheMine. We do not need another round of logic and explanation to prove the case of MrTeal. Either MrTeal be removed from trust list of CanaryInTheMine or CanaryInTheMine be demoted to depth 2 of DefaultTrust, so that the friedcat army can not create problem for upcoming cloud mining companies.

MrTeal (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=52355), another AM hash sympathizer on the trust list of CanaryInTheMine, is doing the same thing on TeraBox's trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=366902), what Mabshark (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=15707) was doing. I would like to know why CanaryInTheMine will not remove him from his list ?

Interestingly, neither of the proven scammers like Hashie, LTC gear or HashProfit has received -ve from this MrTeal or Mabshark !!!

I am requesting Canaryinthemine remove VOD from his trust list for his clear abuse of the default trust system, outlined here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0;all

He has changed the negative feedback to neutral, so now there is no need for removing him as he is a scam-buster and made right trust feedback almost all time.

   ~~MZ~~

Additionally this is not the first time he has done this to users

I have only seen 2 reports so far. Can you please give link(s) to thread/proof of any such thing he did?

   ~~MZ~~

You don't remember correctly. I haven't even had a signature in the last year. I've never owned an AM share (though I almost did get some in the IPO and was kicking myself that I didn't), nor have I purchased any AMHash. I had no account on Hashie or Havelock to buy or sell AM shares at all.

My being added to Canary's trust list had nothing to do with AM or Friedcat. He sent me almost 6 figures worth of non-AM product up front without escrow; I paid him for them at the prescribed time in full. Hence, trust added.

Again, you don't need another round of logic because every premise of your argument is false. I don't imagine I'll see an apology out of this as well when TeraBox goes tits up, but maybe you'll pleasantly surprise me.

Out of all the people that you are calling AMHash sympathisers (MrTeal, Puppet, Raskul and I), I am the only one who has ever had an AM signature. Raskul has a Spondoolies (a competitor of AM) signature and is a massive Spondoolies fan. Puppet isn't a fan of mining at all and advocates buying and holding, and MrTeal just told you his story.

How many times do you need be told that before it sinks in?

You skillfully skipped my actual Q. So, magnified for U.


Mabshark => AM hash

MrTeal => Asic Miner

Raskul => Spondoolies Tech

Jimmothy => HaveLock

Puppet => HaveLock

CanaryInTheMine => Anything friedcat goes fine with him.

All of the above has conflict of interest with direct selling cloud mining companies.

I am glad that i came here 1st, i was going to join Terabox, i will buy own miner other than cloud mining now, i have lost with others to scared to take them chances

Mabshark => AM hash

MrTeal => Asic Miner

Raskul => Spondoolies Tech

Jimmothy => HaveLock

Puppet => HaveLock

CanaryInTheMine => Anything friedcat goes fine with him.

All of the above has conflict of interest with direct selling cloud mining companies.

Its pretty well known to anyone that knows me, that my only btc investment is a cold wallet (and casacius coins, though I dont see that as an investment).
I already challenged you to find one single post ever where I recommend anyone to buy anything havelock, BTW, accusing me of shilling for rather than against havelock is pretty hilarious after the blunder you made reading my latest post in their thread. You just cant stop lying can you?

Where do you come up with these lists? For example...

Basically, because I've got an AMHash sig and criticised a cloud mining ponzi he invested in, everybody else who criticised the ponzis became a sockpuppet for AM - those Chinese scammers led by Havelock/Friedcat that are running the real ponzi.

In other words, he's stark raving bonkers.

Does lowest up-front cost and no maintenance fees sound to good to be true?
Does the cloud mining service try to hide their maintenance and trade fees until you've already bought a contract?
Does it refuse to provide proof that they even have any miners?
Are you concerned that the cloud mining service is actually a ponzi?

Well, now you can get cloud mining direct from ASICMiner, one of the earliest manufacturers of Bitcoin ASICs. There's no question about these guys actually having miners and they provide all the information you need to make an informed decision.

Cost: 1.2 mBTC per Gh/s
Maintenance fees: $0.00163 per Gh/s per day
Trading fees: 0.4% when selling

Official Forum Thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=833704.0)
Purchase from Havelock (https://www.havelockinvestments.com/fund.php?symbol=AMHASH3)

Mabsark wants you to buy this, because he is getting desperate about his Asicminer shares. But the offer is soo tempting that by his own words:


That said, I will agree that Amhash is far preferable over all the mining ponzi's like cloudmining.website, cloudminr.io, gaw, etc. Its arguably the least-worst cloud mining offer on the market. I still wouldnt chose it over coins in a cold wallet.

Canaryinthemine YET AGAIN has another abusive user on his trust list, allowing them to use the default trust as a weapon to silence their opposition.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=935984.0

REMOVE NUBBINS FROM YOUR DEFAULT TRUST LIST. If this isn't default trust abuse, I don't know what is.

Yet another default trust abuser on Canaryinthemine's trust list: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=951134.0

it pretty much isnt Canaryinthemine sole fault
he just needs to put in some effort to clear off his trust list which i believe he put them in their trust list from his previous group buy

I must say at least the good part of people going ape shit and having a meltdown on this forum because of their own action is that it can be funny/entertaining.

At least you can admit your constant harassment of users is not about "scambusting" but is about your own entertainment and gratification.

Now as FriedCat is missing with more than a million dollar (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=974058.0), can we expect CanaryInTheMine to be removed from DefaultTrust ? FriedCat is still seating happily in Canary's trust list. Or this time also Canary will get away just by removing him from the trust list like it happened for Mabshark ?

Well for starters, it is 100% certain that FC should be removed from CITM's list. Period.

I would say that CITM was effectively endorsing FC and ASICminer via his group buys so he should at least partially be held accountable for what happened, he probably shouldn't have to repay ~$1 million+ in stolen property but this should be a very black mark on his reputation.

I agree on the removal of FriedCat from anyone's lists until whatever is going on gets cleared up. I am lost on how he is to blame for that company being scammers though? He can not help that they did any of this.

Many members on Canary's trust list had given FC positive trust. Canary also was effectively endorsing FC when he was selling his miners and effectively said that he was going to send first for products being purchased with his customers money.

FC is also in PsychoticBoy and KWH.

   -MZ

Now as FriedCat is missing with more than a million dollar (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=974058.0), can we expect CanaryInTheMine to be removed from DefaultTrust ? FriedCat is still seating happily in Canary's trust list. Or this time also Canary will get away just by removing him from the trust list like it happened for Mabshark ?

Funny thing is, CITM doesn't show up in my trust network due to people in my trust list excluding him being > the people who include him.

the lost of FC or any malicious thing done by FC isnt the fault of CITM, CITM could remove him from his list , infact, CITM should do some task to sort out his trust list

Funny thing is, CITM doesn't show up in my trust network due to people in my trust list excluding him being > the people who include him.

pure people

It has been months that CITM was requested to do so by many people on this forum. His inaction clearly shows he does not want to do that (Well, I understand the intention, but as I dont have direct proof, I wont talk about it). Now babysitting FriedCat and many other people who are supporting AM hash & HaveLock even after a million dollar scam, must be rectified. So, the first step is to demote CITM to trust level 2. He'll still have the power to make people Green/Red. But, he wont have the power to give the power to scammers to make other people Green/Red. I think, DefaultTrust need to have pure people. Not the ones whose trusted ones are involved in million dollar scam (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=974058.0).


Everyone relying on the Default set by the forum is inheriting CITM trust. Is that good ?

it's fun though..... Amazed at the title change, remove CITM from deault trust..... madness.

That's where he was, he's now been removed. I'll lock this thread in a few days or when it stops being useful. Any follow on issues can have their own thread.

Any inaccuracies will eventually be fixed. I'm not going to allow the default trust network to contain inaccurate ratings for long.