Bitcoin Forum

There is no fancy long proofs and links needed. It's clear to see that these 3 members are decaying and deteroriating the forum extremely fast, yet nothing is being done. It's absolutely disgusting. My activity here is dropping more and more as I see this happen.

Victims of this, I sincerely feel bad for you. Even the most trusted are being abused and shoved to the ground for doing nothing. Rest in peace Bitcointalk, 2016 is the year it's going to all fall apart. It's a huge shame nothing has been done.

Funny how things can change in 13 days, right?

Yup, you were doing so well. It's real funny how you went from being a helpful scam buster to a damaging poison that can't be stopped. You feel all good of yourself cause you finally made it to DT3 or 2 or whatever, that's cool. Nobody fucking asked you to patrol the forum policing and nosing into everybody's business and tagging people nobody asked you to tag.

I disagree.  I think Mexxer-2 and Lutpin are definitely being more aggressive--and some of their feedback has been questionable--but your claim that they're destroying this forum is just exaggeration.  Don't know about EduaMobi, I don't see him doing anything different.  It'd be nice if you linked examples, though they have so many posts between them that it's hard to keep track of them all. 

I got scammed by TimSweat just the other day and Mexxer and Lutpin were the only ones who painted him red (and it's unfortunate, I really trusted the guy).  So they both did right by me.

Only reason I can think of for Ecua being thrown in the mix is this thread he recenty started -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1375545.0

---

Please, don't use that anymore.

Ah yes, I forgot he started that.  I posted in that thread, fully supporting the movement to curtail the sales of carded cards.  I would have even joined the hate league, but my word doesn't carry much weight around here.  If you ever have use for a bitter, nasty comment-poster in spite of that, please keep me in mind.

You guys are way better at scam-finding and busting than I'll ever be.

Edit:  Sorry, I liked HATE LEAGUE.

EM seems to be much more mature then the other two and I would say that he is contributing positively to the community. He seems to not like people selling what is clearly stolen gift cards (who would like these people -- except other people involved in fraud), but instead of unanimously starting to leave negative trust for a bunch of sellers, he solicited feedback, input and advice from the community on when to leave negative trust for gift card sellers. This is evidence that he is not adopting policies on negative ratings based on his own personal feelings but rather based on the community norms.

I believe that the other two have good intentions but maybe they got power hungry (this was suggested above), and they seem to develop their policies of negative ratings as they go. I fear that they may get to the point that if they wanted to, they could adopt policies that would apply specifically to their enemies and/or critics. Imo the best basis for a negative rating is when someone actually stole money from someone and/or clearly attempted to steal money from someone. I believe they are greatly expanding above this threshold and this is dangerous.

I agree they're doing great work by kicking scammer's ass but sometimes i think they giving red trust where a neutral was enough.

Every scammer should get negative trust but one innocent shouldn't get negative trust.It's like they doing what they think.Never mind don't really want to waste my time here.

Innocent till proven guilty and not guilty till you explain how you got the giftcards. Lets be very clear about this issue with carders.

Any conversation requesting details is harassment once it is followed up with neg rep. Refusal to acknowledge is a sign of guilt. This is pretty much my only issue. One that does not seem to bother the group of __________《whatever name is now》!

Also saw a post that signaled account sales would be next. So where does it end?

Sorry I can not support this behavior.
Did not see a need for another thread though.

Don't know where it ends, but I hear arguments from both sides of this issue that make sense to me.  Some from people I can't fucking stand, too.  So I'm not commenting on Lutpin or Mexxer-2, I'm done. 

I definitely think account sales need to be clipped and I like some of the work being done to eliminate carded gift cards.  I'm tired of that shit.

What if i dont like your AVATAR ,what should i do ? can i ask theymos to remove it ? or can i force NSA to completely remove that image from Google and also hack the forum to remove your Avatar ?

There are so many things we don't like and we cant change them,it doesn't gives you the right to do anything with them just because they are doing something which is not agreed by some thugs who make rules for a place which is much bigger than your house, A.K.A Government.

Who would Like ? Some might and some might not.However, I dont see a reason to like and dislike everything we see,like your 'Avatar' ,I dont like it but i dont dislike it either,it's just your sense of humor or your style and i dont have to pay attention to it unless your Avatar is scamming people or making them lose their money to you some how or is affecting people in some other aspects.

Exactly.we cant start harassing everyone cause we dont like them or feel shady loll.

There is not one single user that got -ved because of complaining or speaking it out. If you call bullshit post a link to proof it, or just shut the fuck up. Dont make look you self like an idiot... whoops, you already did  ::)

Uhuh, so was I supposed to create another thread when such shady activities were brought into light by him? Also you're confusing "feelings" with "opinions". He has pretty much stated that the ones he has tagged will stay that way until they provide proof, I don't find my ratings to be any different(exception being anonymous as I am not entirely sure if he's selling illegal GCs, considering the reasonable discount).
Also since my arguments sound simplistic/immature , here's cryptodevil

Don't get me confused with y'self  ;) .
If you're talking about my "Policy for the most common negs" , I feel they're as reasonable , if not more than reasonable , than the ones implemented by Vod or pretty much any members who tags newbs who ask for loans with no collateral.

Also show me an example of when I have "adopt policies that would apply specifically to their enemies and/or critics"

Who say's they are reasonable ? Why do you think the other members should care about your policies anyway.Point is,your  policies are causing abuse in the favor of polices of other individuals.I wonder if everyone in this world thought like you, we would be short of sensible and intelligent people on this planet.

Situation 1 : Hi My Name is Daniel and I will kill anyone who tries to eat fudge without chocolate sauce.I'm a cop and I can diligently use guns to do so.Beware respect my policies,I don't care if you like chocolate or not .Eat or die.

^^That stupid you sound when you say policies.

Feel its time to put you on ignore until you come up with actual arguments than real life implications.

However,I need to fall down to your level to explain things because you certainly don't understand scenarios without real life implications.I think I'm done conveying what was suppose to be done way before.Its time that I use my powers as well.

Let's see how many more days you enjoy your privileges .

Cool, been waiting

i will now be aware about this incident.

since AFAIK they are tagging well before you tell me, i will watch if the DT users like mexxer-2 is explicitly abusing the DT.

sorry mesmer, negging users (even newbie) without anything went wrong or scam attempt in case, is not what majority can agree with. really, apologize for bad way to state about your problem or not true. :(

No. From what I've analyzed there are two possible cases for you to think this:
1) You don't know how the system works.
2) You're among the people who got a deserved negative rating.
Make this easier by educating yourself and working towards a removal of the rating (if you have one) instead of wasting everyone's time.

sorry, lauda. i am not just a kid anymore, even you don't calling me as gullible, once i saw your post, i found that you are indirectly calling me as gullible. even though i don't know how the system works, you are supposed to provide me a simple guide to me, instead of my problem. furthermore trust system in this forum is to ensure not getting the people from being the next victim of those scammers or criminals.

if you could not think about the probable risk for the bitcoin forum, such as DT users started to vandalize the forum hypothetically; which i have even started to think about this so as to give proposal to admins as advice preventing from the moderation fails. then, i am drown because i don't understand what you really wish regarding bitcoin forum.

if i am still not going right this time, then please do not reply with a bad way which could lead to a flame war (this shade is come from a gameplay forum in my early years).

edit: watching DT users doesn't mean i really wish to watch them, just a reaction to this thread.

No.
I'm not supposed to do anything. You're the one who is supposed to read the rules and guidelines ( (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0#post_faq)which contains information about the trust systemT). You still have to use the search function to find out more though.

If they abuse their position, they are going to get removed.

not sure, but this would happen one day, so i will always keep in mind.
i have read throughout the rules and guidelines before i can reply to you: nothing about DT mentioned in it.
furthermore, please do not be selectively answering my point. just like others.

i will consider what i have talked about as false to prevent further probable flame war, but why did your attitude this way is too rough? i replied using a more friendly, but you are using a irony way.

mexxer, sorry if i did anything bad to you, i just wanna ensure the bitcoin forum has a good standing system.
got it lutpin.

Try searching for "Q: What is Trust and how does it work?", it will have all the answers you need.

You don't have to add the DefaultTrust to your trust list (DT depth 1 is a group of people who theymos picked -> those people (e.g.) blazed trust some other people and they are on depth 2 -> Ratings left by people on depth 1 and depth 2 are visible by default and affect your trust rating; this is a simple explanation). Here's another thread about trust: Marketplace trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=211858.0).

No. This posting habit is effective.

I'm strict. However, I'm not using irony here. I'm giving you advice.

Big cats aren't.  :P

Being that this is a forum, I am allowed to talk or are you censoring this now?

The reply you gave makes no sense, does not even relate to what I said. . Do not see any posts where I state people are getting negative rep for speaking out! Not going to respond to the color of the response.
Early on it was stated the group would neg rep people that did not answer pm or give a good answer. What you are saying I am wrong about is not what I am talking about.

Is this not abuse? Even memers like Quickseller are understanding the situation, clearly something needs to be done. Lauda, don't be a bystander and let people get victimized day by day.

You do realize that QS isn't a trusted member anymore (no offence QS, I dislike what you did in the escrow situation)? You can't use one opinion to tell right from wrong anyways.

This does not fall under my jurisdiction nor do I care much (I don't see obvious abuse yet). There are more urgent matters that need attending.

Don't push it.

On this list of "victimized" users, please make a valid case as to why one of them should be trusted.  Any one will do.

I don't know anything about the 3 users but I've seen mexxer chasing scammers since 4 months continuously. He has been a member since 2014 but he started his scam/spam busting late last year and same goes for Lutpin. It seems both users did this to earn a DT position which is not bad in any way but this is because the forum works in this way and the DT craze just ruins everything. I haven't seen them leaving trust ratings randomly and most ratings seem accurate which is good in a way. The recent carded gift cards has caused too much negativity in this forum and I can see many reputed users also calling out against this but everyone needs to understand that the ratings do not imply that the user is trustworthy or not but it's about selling ILLEGAL goods on this forum which not only causes harm to the users buying such cards but makes this forum look like a place where any illegal activities can take place.

I just hope this doesn't make the sale of gift cards stop on this forum.

there are legit sellers out there. yes its bad if a legit one is hit on a spree but if they explain stuff, negs will be removed. no one can explain a 80% discount.

buying GCs in bulk to get a discount simply doesnt work.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=152514

Ecua and mexxer both tried to use him as a push-off pad to make them seem more trusted. In reality, I'd trust kashis more than either of the two hooligans. He's done huge BTC deals, and is clearly trusted. Which is to me a joke that they didn't remove the red trusts as a whole. Just look at the guy's untrusted feedback.

Absolutely ridiculous OgNasty. Ridiculous. And I'm not even affected by this.

if it was legit and totally fine it wouldnt have been a problem. by stopping the service he admitted he just dont know the sources, imho he stated that. less risk for everyone.

He's a good guy with no hesitation towards trafficking in cracked accounts.

Just an example how useless members like mexxer-2 are...

He neg reps people like he is handing out sandwiches but in a thread with a real scam he added a reply: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1379371.0
Yet nobody bothers to neg rep the scammer...

You are all a bunch of useless power horny trust abusers who don't even to bother to READ before you give neg trust, nothing more, nothing less.

So one of the times when I have a look at what the situation is about , talk with the people involved, I'm not using my power appropriately?
Feel free to point out what is wrong in my post

You are useless and a trust abuser... simple. I'm not gonna spend any more word or time on you.
I really hate people like you with every bone in my body, YOU are the opposite of what bitcoin was intended for... no policing by a useless government...

You have a point, but this is a forum with rules.  And governments exist, with laws, and it's not wise for this forum to allow members to break them.

We cannot say anything that will turn them, they prey on the weak that are not strong enough to defend themselves, if you guys want them removed you can pm blazed

Also EcuaMobi shouldnt be a part of this, was he also a hateleague member?

Of course OgNasty doesn't respond to an answer that he knows he can't take. RIP. Even OgNasty is becoming corrupt.

Rest in peace Bitcointalk, you've done well.

You might need to google the meaning of the word "corrupt". What a joke. OgNasty is among the most trusted users here. Just because he dont write what you like to read he is now a bad guy. Please dont stop posting, it keeps a smile on my face.

Read my request again.  You failed on your first attempt.

I think you are approaching the question wrong. There are three potential status of a person/account when engaging in a trade:

1) the person can be trusted with the amount in question and it is safe to send first to this person. This most likely means that this person has some level of positive trust and trading history.
2) the person is not safe to send first to because there is a limited amount of information about their character, most likely because they have not engage in many/any trades in the past. If you use someone in category 1 (preferably strongly so) to act as an escrow/middleman then you most likely will be safe trading with this person because funds will not be sent to them prior to goods/services being received.
3) the person is a scammer. There is a good chance that a scam attempt will be made against you even if you agree to use a middleman/escrow. It is probably a good idea not to even try to do business with this person and if you do you will likely waste your time.

Person 3 is the only person who should receive negative trust. Person 1 is who you are asking for examples of that received negative trust. However person 2 should not receive negative trust even if he does not have a strong trading history.  


That person previously had negative trust from everyone mentioned in the OP but has since been removed. I would not personally trust him though.
 

Two scam accusations against this Hero member now, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1379681.0

Still no neg rep from ANY DT1 or 2... this proves CLEARLY that the system doesn't work with the trust abusers currently in DT1 and 2.

Enough said.

Well I'm following the opinion of you trolls, can't speak for others

Of course... if you point them out, you are a troll  ::)
You can't seem to win with these people, they seem to live in their own default DT world... congrats admin, mods and dt default trust members... you are all on the way to destroy this forum

@OgNasty

Yet another person fucked over by your scamming behaviours. Wasting people's time and money and trust on this forum that they've worked hard to earn.

Shame on you. How are Lutpin and mexxer-2 still on DT? OgNasty I think everybody is disappointed with you.

Psst, little info: We're on the trust list of Blazed and OgNasty has nothing to do with us being on DT.
If you want to spread FUD, at least address the right person.

lol you misread the post, he is disappointed because of OgNasty's stance against the hateleague's constant abuse

I am also disappointed

But how should OgN do anything about it?
Even if he was to exclude mexxer or me from his trust list, it would need a second DT1 member doing the same to kick us off DT2.

---

Quoting it for future reference.

Spread FUD? Haha you clearly know nothing of what you are talking about! Shutup peasant! Something terrible must of happened in your life for you to come out this way, completely against humanity and what is right. Damn you, evil soul! Why shall anyone even consider sharing power with your pathetic brain.

Leave the forum!

It has nothing to do with his trust list, it has to do with his showing of public support for u guys and your decisions

On this forum will soon revolution.  ;)

http://i64.tinypic.com/u3shw.jpg

As someone who has been negative trusted by Lupin and Mexxer and others for:

https://i.imgur.com/0yklkvK.png

I feel the punishment far exceeds the crime. My promotion of the scheme involved having in my personal text - 'Best Faucet - referral link' and posting positively of my experiences in the Coin Generator thread when they were positive - the site was paying out and I was on course to break even or make a profit (the point of gambling surely). The site was a very good faucet even for people who didn't put money in (approx. 0.0006 BTC per day for logging in and completing a captcha every so often) and the personal text achieved me a grand total of 0 referrals.

As soon as the site turned to scam - the admin disappeared and the site was unreachable I posted that it was as such and posted the amount I had lost (13 mBTC) and removed the personal text because it was incorrect.

Now I have 4 negative feedbacks for the same thing which has a triple punishment

1) it will exclude me from a sig campaigns if I was inclined to go for them,
2) I have lost BTC from the scam
3) forever my account will be deemed untrustworthy

All for stating my honest experiences of the site at the time of posting - nothing I said was a lie or an exaggeration.

The site owner who actually scammed and stole from people only has the one punishment with the account being forever trustworthy but they'll just buy another one.

Now I am not crying wahh wahh just showing what the affects of the Self-Appointed Ponzi Police - far better than the HateLeague imho - can have on a member, and I'm not going to debase myself by going to them and begging for the negative to be removed as some (Cryptodick) want people to do.
I have changed my default trust level to 0 and now the forum looks a lot nicer without the nasty red tags showing everywhere. If I need to check someone's trust I have to click on their profile and look that way - worth the hassle I feel.

A negative should be given if a member has actually lost BTC or goods from another, otherwise a neutral would be better served.

You tried to lure people to the site, with your reviews aswell as your personal text, that also was shown besides your posts outside of the investor-based games section.
The only reason that site was abled to pay very good "even [if you] didn't put money in" is, because of the coins they got/wanted to get from those who "invested".

And that wasn't already predictable? Tell me, did you really have no clue that was going to happen?

Nope.

---

Tell me more about this revolution.
I'm no student of history, but that's the Roman Army, right?
The Roman Empire always stroke me as conquerors and imperialists, not as revolutionists.
http://static3.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/Jon+snow+is+hot+_f02318af36307007b734834aad928c2f.gif

I think that's Spartacus but the picture doesn't really make it clear

You're right, it is. But, why am I spartacus and youwon is the roman army?
Wasn't he the one wanting to start a "revolution"?

Your personal text states different but i think you are at least 50% awsome as i am.

. . .from the money stolen from other users.

So you're claiming yourself to be trustworthy in the face of admitting you sought to profit from theft?

Interesting reasoning.

Guys, the whole fuckin world is a ponzi, why the fuck do you even care so much about ponzi's? There is no perfect world, you can call it theft if you run or play in a ponzi, but please explain me the difference with a casino? (And don't come bitchin about it is regulated, because not being regulated by anything or anyone else, is the whole point of bitcoin.)

Besides the crypto casinos (where most of them are at least provably fair) you can not just open one. There are rules. RTP, policies, explaining risks of gambleing in details, listing the odds etc etc. Ponzis and gambling are not the same.

If you like the fact btc is not regulated you should acknowledge the fact the trustsystem is mostly also not "regulated". What now?

I can (if i had the skills) make an online casino tomorrow with all those things. If I make a ponzi with all your socalled rules from a country where it is not illegal, is it illegal then? But okay, this forum has its rules, and if it states in its rules that ponzi's are forbidden, promoting them is forbidden,... Then yes, one might tag them, but I really think the whole spam parade in the section is kinda exaggerated...

And I'm sorry, don't quiet get your second phrase :p do you mean the trustsystem is, or is not regulated?

was typing from mobile, yes i mean its not regulated.

No you can't just open one tomorrow. At least not in western countrys. Sure Botswana might dont care but i guess you dont want to go there.

Hey, dimwit, try reading this: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1382239.msg14068566#msg14068566

It ain't about you and it ain't about your money. It is about your fucking trustworthiness, or lack of.

If you can't tell the difference between playing the odds at gambling and inciting other people to send money to a pyramid scheme in order for you to get a share of what is stolen from them, then you are going to spend most of your life wondering why you fail at everything.

The whole argument is we are protecting those that are unknowingly walking into a scam and yet you choose to respond to people you are supposedly protecting by insulting their intelligence. Might want to look at this bias as you are coming off like a jerk that just wants to play bully hiding behind a issue you can use to prop up ones self worth. Its not like we have ever seen people get invested in a view point and not able to see the other side on a forum.
If you are wanting to clean the forum up,take a look at yourself before you go swinging for the fences. Some of us write you off as not being to intelligent because of the focus on curse words. You and I know better,but maybe you should lead by example so the rest of the class can see how its done.

Tone complaint. Fuck off and present an actual rebuttal instead.

You are a joke of a leader just btw

I don't have a dog in this fight but you do come off as kind of a douche at times and did in this thread, definitely.  I do too, but I'm fine when people tell me this.  Complaining about tone is valid, especially when one could construe things as bullying when you're on DT.  DT people ought to be held to a higher standard--TECSHARE learned this the hard way, just as an aside.

So you defend a fallacious tone complaint (please, ffs, will you lot look up what logical fallacies are), by making a tone complaint?

Amazingly, however, you appear utterly incapable of acknowledging that, outside of tone complaints, slippery-slope, straw-man, red-herring, false equivalence, appeal to motive, reductio ad absurdem and 'Godwin', those who oppose the move to hold people to account for their dishonest behaviour, haven't actually presented a single fucking reasoned rebuttal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_and_Crooked_Thinking

Now, why don't you take a minute to think how fucking irritating it must be to have to constantly rebut the dishonest arguments of these scamming scumbags (because, let's be honest here, the only people who resent being held to account for their actions are those for whom being evidently dishonest is an inherent part of their psyche) repeatedly posting vapid nonsense complaints and refusing to offer up anything of actual substance.

Multiply those arseholes to the power of 'sock' and you might accept that having to do this over and over again, to the same dishonest scumbags, is pretty fucking tiresome. So, no, I won't accept your attempted defence of tone complaint.

Blah blah blah.  You assume you're educating me because you assume you're the only one who's heard of logical fallacies and you're not.  What you are is a dick and you've just proved that.  Again.

So you claim to know what a logical fallacy is but choose to employ them as the basis for your response anyway?

Intellectual honesty fail.

Maybe if you didn't confuse my argument with someone else's you'd realize I'm stating an opinion, which is that you're a dick and you are attempting to cow members here under what you think is the enormous weight of your intellect.  Unbecoming behavior for someone on default trust.  Also a bit delusional but that's another story.

LOL! Another fail!

You didn't state an opinion you asserted a subjective fact dressed as an ad hominem


Except it isn't, that's just you failing at honest argument, again. No reasoning, no evidence, baseless subjective conjecture.

Dude, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. That's the best advice I can give you at this time. But feel free to continue providing the stream of data points I am able to use to shred your use of subjective argument fallacies, especially on the basis that you claim to actually be fully aware of what they are yet still insist on employing them.

Especially for you
https://i.imgur.com/oCHuq7d.jpg

Lol this exactly.   He thinks I'm engaging in a forensics debate and he's not getting the message.  That's what most jreffers do, btw.  Nya nya, you committed a logical fallacy!!  Nya nya!!

Really? That it?

'Nobody likes you, go away' - Seriously? That is the crux of your rebuttal. Sad.

LOL.

Have we clensed the world of sin? Is eVol expunged from our ranks yet ugaise?

http://i60.tinypic.com/2upr4t0.jpg

Been craving to invest in a non-ponzi investor-based game, but understand some of them ain't entirely above-board.
So if you gentlemen could drop me a PM once you've subdued the criminals, that'd be great. Can't wait til it's finally safe for me to go and do some serious investing.
ty

I agree

Thanks for the insults, buddy.