Bitcoin Forum

Check out my negative feedback from Core Dev Greg Maxwell and Blockstream shill Lauda.

I've been here 4 years -- I've helped noobs, squashed scammers...I wrote some helpful tools in the electrum section.  I've lent large amounts of Bitcoins  and even donated money to people in need.  All this is documented.

These people don't like that I support bigger blocks.  Honestly I should be allowed to debate my preferences for scaling solution even if you don't agree.

So, if you are on trusted feedback, please leave some positive greenies.

It sounds as though you expected any less in a censorship driven forum.
You're not supposed to have an opinion in any Blockstream hub, unless it suits them.

Hello,

Sir, the only Flaw I see with what they've done is that they failed to add a reference. And if you have the right to debate your preference, they(people who gave you feedback,red and green) also have the right to their opinion about your behavior. You have been an asset of this community and a red tag won't change that.

And thank you for your contributions to the community.

This is often heard from people who are going attempt to scam later. This does not sound good, at all. :-\ I suggest that you remove it.

Quoted for reference (https://archive.fo/rNqfX#selection-531.62-531.85). Defamation at its finest..

QFR

If people choose not to trust you based on your political beliefs then they are free to do so. They are also free to show this through the trust system on Bitcointalk.

The best way to go about removing it is either ask them nicely, rather than insulting them, or contact the people that put them on DT2 to have them removed. Asking for trust won't help at all.

I did ask Greg very politely and got a hateful reply. 

Why?? fyookballs was funny with the avatar O.0\ he looks really harmless to me. if there are people in DT list from both sides of the argument then I don't see any strict censorship. if you do this to all of Wu's ninjas then he might release the dragon.

Very politely is too much(and redundant).
And you just proved him right by starting this thread.


Fyookballs, if you intend to do this I will recommend you doing it now. AFAIK there is a waiting list in Lauda's inbox.

The Dragon and the Tiger(YinYang). Lauda's cat. :p

I feel a reference link is needed, even if a summation needs to be created.

I just want to add, for anyone reading this -- that I had positive green trust for years (thanks to reasonable people like Vod) before Greg decided it would
be a good idea to abuse the trust system.  He hates the fact that I write articles exposing his lies and schemes.

You know this Lauda, which makes my point about you being a shill proven correct once again.

Nice try to paint me as a possible scammer when everyone who's been around here a long time
knows I'm one of the least likely people to scam.
 
Since you call my character into question, i'll mention specifically:

- I lent long time member Arklan 0.5 BTC , no interest no collateral when he was out of work
- I lent Dobbs 0.5 BTC, no interest no collateral when his wallet was hacked a week before his wedding
- I GAVE BurtW's daughter 0.5 BTC (gave not lent) after DHS thugs robbed her piggybank.

See, that's the kind of person I am.  I try to help people. 

You, Lauda, are the kind of sleaze that aligns yourself with Greg Maxwell,
a proven liar  (https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6cmtff/2_more_blatant_lies_from_blockstream_cto_greg/) and you shill constantly for Blockstream, truly the Monsanto of Bitcoin.

The negative trust from you guys doesn't bother me at all - I look at it as proof I'm doing something right.  It's just another tool for me to expose you.
 

No your are not a scammer, the feedback from lauda is really irrelevant in terms of what he tried to depict Jonald as. Its a matter of shame that Lauda does it so many times.

One thing i would like to share for power abusers not targeting anyone: In life if you become so arrogant then people who are hurt with your act will start looking out for you in real and the consequences you know...Moreover the matter here is reputation and Bitcoin ($$$$). Think many time how much a person can go to purse his intention.

Privacy over Internet is a Myth My friend, just google yourself.

I would suggest that you make it known and public that blazed is the one effectively allowing this kind of ratings as he is the reason why lauda (an extortionist) is in the DT network.

Once the above has been addressed m, I would advise doing the same thing with theymos regarding nullc.

Lauda is absolutely not someone who should be in any position of power and/or discretion as he has proven himself to lack any kind of ethics and/or morals. I would absolutely not trust him nor would I advise others doing the same.

Lauda is allowed to have his own opinion, however using his position of power to attempt to silence and/or discredit those who disagree with him and speak out against him is absolutely not okay.

I guess we could arrange that. Albeit the repetitive, unproven defamatory statements are one of the main motivators behind his ratings. There are no "politics". There is a simple way to correct his error(s), but of course the user would rather create trouble than tranquility. This can be noticed by occasional spiking in thread creation. The defamation he continues to do in this very thread.

1) I have absolutely no idea why Gmaxwell left you his rating.
2) My rating is absolutely not related to your dispute with Gmaxwell, nor to any kind of "political reasons".
3) You have proven nothing besides the continuation of your defamatory attempts.
4) The very same disruption that I've mentioned, you persist in causing.

It doesn't sound like you're the same person. Then again, some may suspect this account to be sold (which may or may not be true).

Absolute lie.

Whether a scammer trusts someone or not is of vital importance. Absolutely pathetic statements. ::)

Which is not something that I have done. Ironically, the exact same thing what you're describing now was done by you to tspacepilot (when he first exposed you IIRC). ::)

---

The sole reason for which mister Quickseller wants me out of DT is because that would void a unknown number of my ratings on scammers and various types of account trafficking. Of which the latter are his business. This includes, but is not limited to, selling DT accounts to scammers.

feel free to find an old address, i'll likely be able to sign a message, not that I need to prove anything.

the only thing that's changed is the blocksize debate.  I was honest and/or clear thinking enough to see the truth and you aren't apparently.  The funny thing is, almost everyone outside of this forum and r/bitcoin thinks core is full of crap.  Yet, you persist with supporting their indefensible positions and ludicrous arguments.   If pointing that out counts in your mind as 'defamation' then guilty as charged. lol

I'm pretty sure i could go back and find a dozen posts where you tried to argue blocks weren't full , aren't getting full...as they clearly were...now that fees have exploded, instead of acknowledging that people like me were right all along, the narrative shifts to "well we need segwit" etc.... its such an obvious ruse and you are willingly going along with it for whatever reason.  Maybe you've been brainwashed, maybe you worship Greg, maybe you're just choosing to be sinister... I really don't know or care...but I do know Blockstream/Core is full of crap, they do not have Bitcoin's best interest in mind, and they are liars.

We could do that; not that it's necessary. Try this one: 1Fr2qUpHkyyuxmz5APz7ViCp2rM8zRU5ho (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=580826.msg6347876#msg6347876) or 1KcofPMDKQyR87MYxkHFcqf6vJzXPJyxV2 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=594989.msg6674512#msg6674512).

Yeah.. no. The supermajority of users is with status-quo on any non-BU "community". All long-standing names on IRC et. al. support them and the node count of (emphasis on) aged nodes reflects that.

Repetitively attempting to smear my name with the usage of 'shill', more specifically a "Blockstream shill" has nothing to with what you just wrote. If you can provide proof for these claims, then go ahead. If not, then yes, you are guilty.

They were not full.

I have not claimed such a thing and if it looks that I have, then those few posts got out of control.

You were most certainly not right in anything.

"You" (just like everyone else) wanted a *solution* to scaling. Solution is provided. Now you claim it is a "narrative shift"? :D

There is no such thing as "Blockstream/Core".

Oh you DO ..do you ?

What like the one you left me for being a pedophile for admitting i downloaded porn on RARBG like millions of others ?

You guys dog piled in after (donator) Kluge + his puppet sent me a death threat with a brand new puppet account. (titled SpoetnikIsFucked)
I have been harassed for years by you all who don't like my "FUD" so you simply make shit up and trash my rating.

Interesting point here is VOD had flipped out on me before when i posted a topic about File Sharing in off topic.. he is anti-piracy and went off on me over it. (HIS REF LINK FOR BEING A PEDO IN MY RATING)

Like being on Welfare you claimed ? (i think a rumor whispered in his ear he used to neg me with)
How could you prove i was or was not ?
You can't ..but negged me anyway.  ::)

And the funny part is..
He had never said a word to me in a bad way over the years until..
I cracked a joke insulting people from where he's from (Alberta Canada)

He then went ape shit and kept showing up in the Altcoin section stiring the pot and trying to get me to DOXX myself by answering questions about where i work etc.. (so he have more to troll on me with)
And surprise surprise Lauda Popped up defending his troll commentary every time simultaneously.
The two of you did that in Alt / main for 2 whole months.. trolling around holding hands.. immune to a ban.

I kept asking how he can get away with it and he called me a whiner.
Me ? I would have been banned !
Neither of those two have spent any time in the ALT section at least since mid 2013 roughly.
They showed up to harras me then left again.

He only accused me of being a pedo when i said you wanna troll me and start shit ?
And i said how about YOUR Pedo report online ? (that is actually very real)
THEN.. and ONLY THEN did he neg me accusing me of the same thing AFTER the FACT.
http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Martin-Lawrence/Select-StateProvince/Martin-Lawrence-vodmlawrence-pedo-bitcoin-St-Albert-Edmonton-St-Albert-Alberta-1158255

So.. yeah..
I always find it funny how the little crusaders here are the worst violators.
Lauda booted off staff and VOD being a rampant troll etc etc..
All of you abusing the living shit out of the Trust rating system as an attack tool, simply to retaliate at others "you don't like"

My trust is fine.
I have had a flawless record trading and even had a positive rating backing it up until Kluge threatened me with a hitman (http://pastebin.com/sDV6rWiB) and the Monero assholes came after me etc etc.
I have never been caught being "dishonest" ..ever !

Problem is a few of you are shallow worthless little losers and your lives revolve around this place.. and playing moderator.
And being on DT is your big jerk-off wank fest.

Me ? I'd never get on DT because i have always been outspoken.
Which gets you negged hard.

Want a good rating.. suck a lot of cock.. simple.
Me ? Not happening LOL
Fuck you stupid losers.. like a give a fuck what a bunch of douche bags on the internet think of me.

Every neg i get is simply a permanent excuse to rail on about their stupidity.
It affords me the chance to shine the spot-light on their idiocy.
And i enjoy it  ;D

Do it more pricks ahhahaha  ;D

@OP
You just realized NOW these are all hypocrite losers ?  :o

Aww won't you all be Bitcointalk-friends with me ? I'm lonely and have no friends  :'(

I was banned, albeit not for what you claim that I did.

I find it highly disappointing of myself that I even considered helping you correct your trust rating. It seems that I should be less inclined to help individuals around here.

30 day ban is up,  :D

@Lauda, I was going to try and reason with you about the False Negative Feedback you left me.
But after seeing this topic , there is no point. You will never learn.

Theymos sits on his hands and does absolutely nothing
while you continue to abuse his pathetically designed trust system.

So I will probably just say to hell with btctalk and use other forums, since this design is abusive and stupid and mistreats others with no probably cause.

I just leave you a goodbye poem, as you are no longer worth my time.
A Parting Farewell Poem for Lauda (Since you like Phillp K. Dick so much.)

Blazed, you gave Lauda the Power to abuse a Trust System
Abuse it she does day or night , even in the Grey of twilight.

Many fools believe Lauda is on a holy mission ,
to those fools she is like a Laudanum that dulls their pathetic senses.

The Genderfluid idiots, an Alex/Alexis follow Lauda because they are too stupid to think for themselves.
@Lauda, for you and you alone, in this poem is a hidden meaning, do you see, do you understand,
that in the Great Scheme of things your petty machinations(False Trust Ratings) and pretense of being a man,
that the collusions of the mods / Theymos minions have Never Deterred my Opinion.

You are an abuser of Theymos False Design , and have used it to have others Ban anothers time.
But as your march toward your corrupt signature destination continues, every step leads your False Reputation to disintegration.
So as this poem designed just for you concludes, it's hidden meaning Shines Through.

Goodbye Lauda, Enjoy destroying everything Theymos worked for.

Kiklo has Left the Building!

 8)

I do not.

Blazr is a DT account held by Quickseller. It has nothing to do with this.

Fixed that for you. Goodbye.

Quite recently, you were claiming that Lauda and Theymos are the same person.  What changed?

You said that ages ago.  Have you really?
How interesting that you said "other forums", instead of naming one.  That's because there aren't any really good Bitcoin forums or places for discussion.  Bitcoin.com is weak and Reddit is much worse than here.

Apparently, according to him, my rating even got him banned! ::)

We also know a certain someone that once said he'd leave Bitcointalk but never did. I'll give you a small hint, he is really quick at selling.

Reddit is very useless due to simple manipulation (e.g. vote brigading). Don't you dare mention Bitcoin Core in a positive tone on Bitcoin.com. :D

Yes it is not necessary and there is no reason for anyone to think I've sold my account.   In fact, i'm a little tired of these silly argument by assertions.

But since I offered, the first address is signed with a message "jf-6-11-2017"

HGcmK97jOH6XtCOT0wIYKYxtXu7C7RdXZKu6WtnpjZWNNRHl1ic+VlmengWVAn3S9QRd8UYRKRXsaHISWMlLorY=

A few users here have been getting carried away trying to be Bitcointalk cops.
Going over-board posting negative ratings.
Stretching the reasons for them to extreme levels.
And why are a handful of users taking it upon themselves to be the vigilante ?

@OP
I don't think what they did to you was fair.
It's getting a bit stupid these days with the excuses for a neg rating.

It's now more a chicks i don't like you or i "feel" you are suspicious rating system for DT members.
If it's questionable like my ratings i got then they should be added as feedback instead.
Instead what was see is pricks running around ruining a ton of peoples trust rating based on suspicion etc.

Myself i had a bunch of stunts pulled on me in a similar way.
I did fuck all but i had a guys out to get me and they were going to make damn sure to come up with some reason to neg me.. simply to attack me and ruin my rating.

It had nothing to do with me being caught doing something dishonest.
All it's about is cocky arrogant pricks using the Trust System as an attack tool here.
I can thoroughly debunk any claim of me if needed to.. and have.. of course it make no difference though.

Come to terms with the fact that this place is full of cowardly little assholes.

Sometimes I wonder if Blazed is himself a scammer or he is indeed a hidden criminal because there is no reason why blazed would keep an extortionist and abusive guy who gives red trust because of some stupid reasons which are but not limited to : late repayment of loan, not agreeing ot lauda, etc

well, I would personally not participate in anything started/managed by blazed and urge everyone to do the same, maybe then he realize.

It does not look like it is likely that your account is sold as the message verifies. Regardless, my rating stands until you stop smearing my name ('false information' is often arguable anyways).

There isn't a single argument by assertion. Why are you making up things now?

Enlighten me about the difference between 'ratings' and 'feedback'.

In combination with the attempted slander and this, you may only dig a deeper hole for yourself.

Yep, verified that.

---

---

It makes far more sense to me that negative trust from DT members would be limited to suspicious trade deals specifically, because anything else is subject to bias.

That's not to say that DT members shouldn't be able to do this, but that it would be misleading for them to have a red tag next to their name for something that wasn't trade-related.

But since this is the forum we're on, you need to think yourself about how you could have avoided the rating.

Some of your threads are quite misleading about what you're talking about - for example, there was a thread claiming that Adam Back wanted $100 fees, when in fact he just suggesting that people would be willing to pay that much but directly said he would prefer the fees to be much lower.  You also started a thread claiming that Luke Jr wanted people to use fiat, when in fact he was pointing out how ridiculous the alternatives to Bitcoin are (the exact opposite).

It's clear that Lauda would have done this a very long time ago if it was solely about your opinion rather than you acting in this misleading way.

There's nothing misleading at all about those threads, and they link directly to the source so you can see what Adam or Luke said.  This is nothing compared to all the BS and lies coming from people like Greg (see the link earlier in this thread for proof). 
 

Absolute garbage. One does not gain anything for the majority of the ratings left. All you get is butthurt, whining and an occasional thank you for tagging a scammer or preventing a scam.

---

Adam Back:"I bet they would pay $100/tx for digital gold..... still be really good if fees were much lower"
Jonald: "Adam Back of Blockstream thinks you should pay $100 fees (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1957342.msg19440000#msg19440000)"

??? ??? ???

Classic fallacy of relative privation (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as).

I refuse to believe that a free and sane mind could spread such misinformation and claim that there is nothing misleading about what they're preaching.

Yet again, absolute garbage. Who are you referring to, me or in general? Plenty of DT members:
1) Don't care about signature campaigns.
2) Don't offer escrow services.

Definitely. However, you're completely mistaken with DT. 99% of the ratings, including this one, does not benefit the person who left it.

You are replying to me. ::)

ACE is not a classic signature campaign. You are confused. None of this benefits me at all.

I suggest you stop writing nonsense.

1) No insults were thrown.
2) You have no logical point.

---

Now mind telling us the following: 1) Who is your main account. 2) How many of your accounts are of the following: a) Banned via SMAS. b) Neg. rated for whatever reason. c) Farmed accounts. This may shed some light.

---

Update: Nevermind. Now, I see it. You're a shill from the ZEIT shitcoin. ::) ::)

Correction: "You think that..." whatever you've just written. The comparison itself is fallacious and backed up by vapor.

Absolutely false.

I thought kiklo said he left Bitcointalk? ::)

Are you trying to smear our name without actually having or providing proof of anything? The escrow team did not exist 20 days ago. ::)

Go back to your ZEIT shitcoin cesspit, troll.

---

Most definitely, mr. ZEIT shill.

Right, lets clear something up here. CET was only just recently started, and has absolutely nothing to do with DT users leaving ratings.

Please provide me with some proof that I have personally left a rating to profit off of, and in your own words - blocking competition. This really is not the case.

I have just started escrowing, before this I have been an active Collectibles trader for quite some time. I still trade. I always will.

My DT status has nothing to do with any of this though. I leave ratings on scammers and untrustworthy people to protect members of this forum. If I find I made a mistake with a rating, I remove it happily. I am always up for discussion about ratings I leave. Just need to shoot me a PM. I am not here to ruin others' accounts, trash their reputation, or anything of the sort. I actually feel that I am doing a service to the forum, unpaid, for making other people aware with the ratings I leave.

Once again though, this has nothing to do with the escrow team.

Now, kindly provide some proof, or get off your high horse.

Please explain.  I'm genuinely interested.
You know perfectly well that the majority of people you're trying to convince here are:

-Stuck in an echo chamber (many users favouring Core are as well, but this does not contradict my point);
-Spammers;
-Users with a poor grasp of interpretation and/or the English language.

@Nagadota

Yes,the level of idiocy here is epic. 

To answer your question:  When Adam Back tweets something ridiculous, how he worded it is not the point.
Who cares whether he should users SHOULD pay $100 fees vs or he thinks they WOULD pay it...it's all the
same nonsense.

Then you have clowns trying to nitpick it and saying when I post a thread about that, its deceptive because I didn't phrase
it exactly like the tweet... so I'm the deceptive one?  Adam Back and Blockstream are the kings of deception. 

It's so far gone into the zone of ridiculousness, I don't know what to say.

 

I guess I phrased that poorly.  I was talking about the people that you're trying to bring on to your side in your threads - people that would not read into it enough to consider the distinction between your argument and what the quote/other argument actually is.  However I do think that it's applicable to both sides.
He said he would prefer for the fees to be "much lower".  I consider it to be an attack on doomsday/"flippening" predictions for BTC rather than support for those fees, rather than suggesting that users should pay that much.

The distinction between "could" and "should" might sound minor but in reality it's far more significant.
Projection is not helping.

Blockstream's plan is to make fees very high and then save us with their sidechain, LN, etc "solutions". 

This is obvious.

This is not the first time that Lauda has left negative ratings for people for political reasons.

Several months ago, Lauda gave a negative rating to franky1 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=65837) that was clearly a political rating (source (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1397579.msg17014863#msg17014863)), however it was removed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1397579.msg17015331#msg17015331) after being called out about it (archive (http://archive.is/IxFon#selection-2041.0-2049.102) for both). The difference in this case is that Lauda is not the only one to have given this person a negative rating for political purposes.

I think your concern is that jonald_fyookball's threads/posts are less neutral than you would like, however this is the nature of political discourse. I think you would be hard pressed to find a neutral article regarding President Trump on Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC, and it is fairly common for all of those major news outlets to editorialize stories they pass off as news.

As I mentioned previously, I think that jonald_fyookball should make it more public that it is Blazed who is effectively causing negative ratings to be given for political purposes via Lauda. 

No.

No.

Time to move out of the basement snowflake?

I'm sorry, but there is proof linked in that quote (at least the original).

It seems that AztekPhoenix is right in that you are unable to respond to criticism (at least in this thread, but really in general) without resorting to personal attacks (that are honestly more or less baseless).

Actually your definition of "scammer" is more broad than what pretty much anyone else within the community has, and appears to include anyone who disagrees with you (at least this is what appears to be the case based on recent trends, and your history of leaving negative ratings for things that happened a very long time ago that you had been long aware of). The majority of your ratings do not appear to be in line with what the rest of the community would consider to be a "scammer" and you respond to concerns about your ratings with trolling.

No. Unless I have clearly stated the reason behind my rating(s), all you can do is speculate (assuming you are neutral, which you are not). Unless of course, you want to claim that you can read my mind. ::)

Absolutely untrue. Trying to mislead new readers?

Can you *prove* that I was "long aware of" any of these things? If not, speculation again.

Ambiguous claim. I'm certain that almost all of my ratings are in line, and quite a lot of them were backed up later on either for the same reason or after the person had exposed themselves (see Margon as your closest example).

@quickseller, good idea (blazed) --  i will get around to that.

more important things are going on today :)

You can try that, yes. A certain someone tried it a lot of times, but ultimately it does not work.

Do you, by any chance, mean the planned attack by BITMAIN? I've just neg. rated them.

Red trust for political reasons? Must be Donald Trump giving you negative trust.

 a fork is an attack is Bitmain is doing it, but its not if its led by puke junior.

right?

Luke Jr is a developer, not a miner.

I fail to see why anyone should support a single private company creating a new chain.  If they want to "ignore short-term economic incentives" to mine on their new chain, they will end up with >51% hashrate and the chain will be susceptible to 51% attacks from BITMAIN.  This is blindingly obvious, because most pools will not ignore economic incentives.

Community has been asking for big blocks for years and how bitcon was always supposed to scale back to the original whitepaper.  Honesty requires accounting for that context and not making it sound like a 'private company is just creating a new chain'. 

Other pools already signaling for big blocks will undoubtedly mine the big block chain.

Segwit will collapse.

Definitely not a private chain. ::)
Source: https://blog.bitmain.com/en/uahf-contingency-plan-uasf-bip148/

You can keep trying to spread misinformation but that won't change the fact that Jihancoin is the altcoin. :-*

I question this.  I don't think there's strong enough evidence to prove that the community supports one side or another (feel free to try and prove me wrong - the only resources I have so far are F2Pool and ViaBTC's polls).  There was a lot of questioning about the "temporary" 1MB limit several years ago, but I don't know if this holds true today.
I think honesty requires accounting for whether this is genuinely a community movement or a private company's power grab.  The origin of UAHF is BITMAIN's blog post - is that really not a problem to you?
By this logic, all pools signalling for SegWit will mine the UASF chain, and I doubt this will happen.  Even if they did, BITMAIN would have a disturbing amount of hashrate on the new chain.

And for neutrality's sake:

I think this is pretty childish sentiment.  A chain split is not an altcoin, and that doesn't matter whether it's UASF, UAHF or just a hard fork.  The majority chain is Bitcoin, and the rest are "forks of Bitcoin", nothing more.

No. That's not what Bitcoin is, otherwise a few power players get to decide what Bitcoin is and change however they want it. Bitcoin is supposed to empower the users by giving them sovereignty and being resistant to change. It is not, in any way or form, a proof-of-proxy coin. Anyhow, this is not the place for this discussion. Either way, the rating is not "political" and is well deserved. The user even continued to spread false information.

it doesn't hold true if you buy into Blockstream propaganda, I suppose.

Christ, this is boring.  At least I mentioned the ViaBTC and F2Pool's polls, while you haven't mentioned any information whatsoever except for generic comments about "propaganda".  I'm waiting for your response, I'm not anyone's enemy.  Chill.

A fork doesn't become an altcoin because of this.  It just becomes something unfavourable which Bitcoin has become.  If Bitcoin needs to be resistant to change, would UASF be an altcoin too?  Or is your view based around the fact that BITMAIN is dictating this UAHF?

IMO at this point any fork would be a few private companies dictating the decision, just a few more in UASF's case than in UAHF.
Got it, I'd better leave the thread now.  It's not going anywhere so jonald should probably lock it.

Not sure what you don't understand.  This is very simple.

Bitcoin was always supposed to scale on chain with bigger blocks.  Go read early satoshi writings, or my letter to the miners.  It's all there.

Segwit was literally made up to solve a problem that didn't exist.  No one asked for it..it was created by core devs, mostly by Pieter W. and Gmax  (both of whom work for Blockstream).

There was a lot of "hardforks are bad" rhertoric and Segwit soft fork was supposed to be the savior. 

If you don't believe me, that's fine, but there's nothing else to explain. 

I now see both Lauda and Gmax left negative feedback for Bitmain...

What a coincidence, geez.

nah, this isn't political at all.

This looks like an argument of your own rather than a reference proving that the "community has been asking for big blocks for years".

It's not there, you've argued that people used to agree with a large block size a long time ago, which is true, but you've provided no recent evidence about "the community".

Or does the "community" only consist of people you like?
There is.  All you need to do is answer what I actually said instead of some hypothetical statement.
Can you show that it holds true today?

Of course it isn't. If it were political, I would have given them a negative rating as soon as they were intentionally blocking Segwit. The rating is well deserved and arguably even late.

Even Adam Back said in 2015 we should be having bigger blocks.

"Questioning" the 1mb limit isn't the right word -- its totally clear that the limit is ludicrous.  Go to r/btc , the uncensored bitcoin redit,
and you'll find nearly everyone agrees.

Stop playing dumb.

Uncensored or not, r/btc (as with every other Bitcoin subreddit it seems) is a hive mind of anti-segwit big blocks. Just like this, for somewhat fair analysis, r/bitcoin is also a hive mind for pro-segwit pro-blockstream.

Telling someone to go to r/btc to find that big blocks are good is like telling someone to go to an alcoholics anonymous meeting to find drinking is bad.

---

Either way this topic has gotten very off it's original track. I don't think that people's opinions of the bitcoin scaling scenario is relevant to whether Lauda was in line leaving their feedback.

Agree 100%.  Hashpower is the least spoofable method and that's how Bitcoin works. 

Yes, they both very clearly gave the negative ratings to Bitmain, a company that although does not accept deposits/pre-orders, has been entrusted with tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars worth of obligations at a time and has followed through, for political reasons.

---

---

The merits of jonald_fyookball's opinions are irrelevant to this thread. What is clear here is that he has certain opinions and is being discredited for having those opinions. 

Let's not go off spreading false knowledge that miners dictate the system. :)

The amount of money that an entity handles is completely irrelevant. If it was relevant, then you'd need to stop throwing my name in the dirt, hypocrite.

He has not been given any rating for any kind of "opinions of his own". He has been given one primarily due to his constant lies, most likely from his script.

I believe that both jonald_fyookball and Lauda have frequently posted manipulative or misleading posts and threads.  However as a member of Default Trust, Lauda should have a responsibility to upkeep normal discussion by keeping the discussion (or lack thereof) to the thread where it occurs, and not giving negative trust to their opponents.  Jonald does not have this responsibility because he is not given extra power.

Lauda is a member of Default Trust who gives negative trust to many potential scammers every day, and is one of the best at monitoring the forum in this way.  However when being this active, biases become very clear after a while, and Lauda needs to recognise those biases by removing the negative trust on jonald_fyookball and on BITMAIN.

Not removing that trust would be detrimental to discussions on the whole forum, especially when Lauda considers doing things like blocking people with negative trust from posting their views in relevant places (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1966169.msg19600352#msg19600352).

---

Lauda can make points about Quickseller's hypocrisy all they want, and they make some level of sense.  But they don't actually contradict his point, they just show further biases.

Lauda has falsely accused more than the two mentioned.

My self included and many others included ,
the only way to totally removed her lies is to remove blazed from default trust.
That removes Lauda and some of her hidden alt accounts in 1 shot.
But theymos is too frighten to mess with Lauda , so doubtfull anything happens.

Maybe she has a sex tape, she is blackmailing him with.
She is an known extortionist.

 8)

It sounds a lot like this is more evidence that Lauda is leaving negative trust against those who do not share similar opinions with him in an effort to censor their opinions and viewpoints.

http://archive.is/WCuOi#selection-5963.151-5963.249

Or just find one other DT1 member to remove Lauda from their trust list. Since HostFat has done it already, Lauda's DT score is 0. If it goes below that, they are no longer on DT2.

I highly disagree. I'd welcome a PM pointing out such posts.

No. There is no bias. Both ratings are perfectly valid.

Correct, as many of those accounts are actually shill/bought accounts.

Completely wrong. QS aims to imply that holding/processing a lot of money means that you're trustworthy, whilst trying to smear my name (someone is also holding/processing a lot of money; obviously not the same amount as BITMAIN).

That would only make sense IF I had stated something like that, and then proceed to leave ratings to "censor" (this isn't censorship in any way or form) these people. Scammers like you truly live in in their delusions.

Maybe those ratings are valid in the mind of a self righteous psychopath ,
but to the rest of us , they appear as petty attacks from someone that lost the debates.


According to a delusional self proclaimed psychopath.
Have you had a psych test recently, maybe you should schedule one, as your meds have not worked for the past few months.



That about sums it up right there.

 8)

This is an amusingly weak excuse.  Facts are:

1. Lauda left what several people consider to be unwarranted negative feedback for both myself and Bitmain
2. Lauda then suggested users participate in a polling thread regarding bitcoin scaling , excluding those with negative feedback.

People, draw your own conclusions.


 

That is not a fact, it is an opinion. Both of your ratings are not only warranted, but are going to stick.

I have always, in almost every poll (that I posted an opinion on) suggested that accounts of low ranks and those with negative ratings should not be allowed to vote. My policy pre and post DT system has not changed. Are you now going to tell me I have anticipated becoming a DT member long before I did, thus worked on making my opinion consistent over time? ::)

---

You keep proving my rating to be true.

You're clearly also an idiot if you cannot understand the phrase "what several people consider to be".  Several people: myself, quickseller, and kiklo have stated it clearly.
This makes my statement a fact.

Three people, all with negative ratings and each with at least 1 negative rating from me agree that my ratings are unwarranted? How convenient, 1 scammer and 2 clowns creating a circle-jerk. ::)

FTFY   :D


 8)

FYI:
Once Blazed is removed from default trust , will you still act this petty?

FYI2:
I think you missed the point aside from you and the 1 or 2 butt monkeys that follow you , no one else has ever given us negative trust ratings, and we been around for a long time.
In other words , you are Lying!

FYI3:
How many members have you removed as competition for your bullshit escrow service with blazed.
By red taging them, and how many members that are a part of default trusts have you red tagged.
Since you are such a bully , I doubt you have ever red tagged anyone that could red tag you back.

Having looked through your posts from the last few weeks I've decided that I was wrong.  However, I still think that your posts are excessively blunt rather than using normal justification (e.g. saying "outright lie" a lot, arguably arguments by assertion or at least unnecessarily adding assertions).
BITMAIN is a private company, suggesting something bad.  While UAHF would be BITMAIN-dominated, it's something which would require wider economic support to become relevant, and it shouldn't therefore be considered a direct "attack" on Bitcoin - just BITMAIN going off and doing something dumb.  A negative rating there is about opinion more than any thing else.

In jonald's case, he makes misleading posts which people often make in the context of an argument and an ongoing heated debate.  To discredit his username personally because of this I think is abuse of your power.
This is impossible to judge unless those bought accounts have been proven with evidence of addresses.  You can't reasonably say that jonald_fyookball is a bought account as he has signed a message here, and you can't reasonably say that he is a "shill account" as he has a clear trading history and activity for things other than support of big blocks.
It does make you trustworthy if it's suggesting that you held a lot of money without scamming people.  Holding money without scamming people is not the same as holding money.
It's not censorship in that it doesn't prevent them from posting their views elsewhere, but it is a means of manipulating people's views about what the Bitcoin community wants or why they want it. 

Jonald does this by making unjustified statements about what the community believes, but this is different as he is not in a position of power.

Correct. This is primarily due to (being burnt out due to) rebutting the nonsense from the likes of jonald and franky countless number of times, and yet they keep persisting. It's important to not let newbie readers get deceived by false prophets.

You may think that it is not justified, but someone else may think that it is. As long as isn't overwhelming support for one side, then it is perfectly valid.

Disagreed. He has not made them solely in context of any arguments, but has done so also by creation of his own misleading threads (look through a few posts back).

Read my post again. I was merely pointing out something that I had observed over the years. It has nothing to do with jonald. I did not use the wording "all of those".

Well then (the distinction was rather intuitive), if QS thinks that holding a lot of money without scamming people makes one trustworthy then he should stop smearing my name. Otherwise, this makes him a hypocrite as I've pointed out in an earlier statement of mine which you've falsely labeled as "show further biases".


Therefore, it is not censorship.

Lauda is a Lying Self Important Asshole that will negative rate anyone on just a disagreement of opinion.

Blazed and the others DT members are enablers of Lauda's actions , since they could remove Lauda and actually self-police their own members, which they should.

With Power comes responsibly , all DT trust members have shirked their responsibility and refused to police Lauda, they are all as liable as Lauda is, for they are enabling Lauda.

The Default Trust System is Corrupt , Theymos refuses to fix it.

NO ONE WITH GREEN TRUST CAN BE TRUSTED!!!  


 8)

Did you know Theymos also moderates r/bitcoin ?

Not surprised the same guy is trying to control information in more than one place
so they can try and direct the evolution of BTC and alts for his and his gang of DT members personal gain.
Theymos lack of showing up to answer for his crap design, points to his guilt.


 8)

I think theymos "engineers" things to keep the drama down to a minimum.
But he seems to be reasonable but not when you two post shit like that.

For example he long ago had "Bitcoin Scrypt" banned here.. forbidden.
Via some negotiation with BitcoinEXpress he changed his mind on it.

I think rebuilding the trust system now is a lost cause.. it's too late guys.
What is done is done.

Oh and notice how there is a little crew of white knights here "concerned" about things ?
For example you will see Lauda & VOD run around negging anyone or anything not bolted down..
Yet Mark from GOX and Vern from Cryptsy and the hundreds of idiots who were connected walk scott free.

I have a trust rating twice as bad as Mark Krapeles from GOX for example.

Steal a half billion dollars in Bitcoin and you are ignored.
Admit you download porn via Torrents and VOD here negs you calling you a pedo. (See my Trust)
Yeah.. they suuuuuuuure got their priorities in order  :D

I think they wander around the streets pointing at people chanting..
YOU, your negged.
You.. NEGGED !
You dog ! ..negged.
Bird in the tree.. neeeeeeeeegged.  :D

I think Theymos is afraid of Lauda because, she has a sex tape on him.

Theymos build a broken trust system, which your avatar proves beyond a shadow of a doubt is broken.
And Theymos sits on his ass about it.

If he actually gave a damn about this piece of shit call btctalk.

He put a little work into fixing it's problem, instead of hiding behind keeping the drama down.

Lauda is creating plenty of drama on a daily basis, he lets her run the place,
maybe we should call it laudatalk, the psychotic bitch view on bitcoin.

Blazed runs around claiming to be a saint, and goes into an escrow business with lauda and lauda goes around red tagging anyone that might be competition for them.
I guess once Blazed and Lauda run off with someone's money , that the others will then red tag them.
But here is the kicker, for all we know Blazed & Lauda might be the same person, just changing alts when they move to their next scam.

Yeah real genius design trust system you have here Theymos.
If your IQ is 70.   :P


 8)

That means you have been censored in this Blockstream forum. Me too.

Greg Maxwell is a notorious liar.

I looked at your negative trust -- surprise -- its Lauda! 

I clicked at the reference link there -- surprise -- its you talking about Bitmain and Theymos...

This isn't political or biased at all!

Lauda, I'm on jonald's "side" in the scaling debate as you already knew when you gave me + trust.

that never stopped us (me and lauda) working together against "real" untrustable accounts, like the 1000 farmed accounts i found. or the 100,000 hacked accounts i found unrefuted evidence of.

but with all the shite on bitcointalk, jonald is not, and has never been deceptive or untrustworthy, imho.
i posted with jonald years ago against neucoin. all we said has proven true.

Same as i said on the old "should Lauda be a mod" thread - your in every pie. Please chill out a bit.

I look forward to the opportunity of working with you again in the future Lauda. on something that matters.
In the meantime, please don't drag yourself down to theymos and Gmax censorship standards.