Bitcoin Forum

Infamous member "Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย", a so called VIP Member of this board is openly abusing the trust rating system, out of hate, greed and ego problems.

Just see:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=181768


Please fix this (by removing this fraudentual rating) and remove his VIP status, as he is a shame to bitcoin.

The trust system is not moderated, and it has nothing to do with the VIP rank.

So you saying malicious and wrong trust ratings are allowed?

yep...go on leave me some bad trust just to test (you can delete later)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=98667

The staff will not get involved in any situation like this. If you need to resolve anything you should speak to the person who is leaving bad feedback and hopefully get it resolved. Otherwise, the staff cannot help. Although, informing people that someone is doing it without any reason is a good idea.

The trust feature isn't moderated for obvious reasons.

also fraudentual isn't a word.

Yup, this is exactly right.  The best way to handle this is to PM someone before posting a thread, did you do that OP?

Why is he allowed to abuse the system, that protects your users from scammers?

He kills trust in the ratings with his fake ratings.

why?

Goat is an immature idiot.  Just ignore his rating.  Everyone knows it is meaningless.

I am slightly okay with this but the way he worded it is wrong. Dogecoin is meant to hurt bitcoin not dogecoin users by making a mockery of it,  the comments left on the page clear it up however so this thread probably isn't even needed.

I think there needs to be a better trust system implemented. It's worthless at the moment.


Dogecoin is meant to hurt Bitcoin?

What do you purpose as a better trust system? If the trust system is used correctly then it's fine. When people request staff to get involved in the trust system and to moderate it, that's just silly. With quick research about the user who has given bad feedback to anyone. You will see if you can trust that. I don't trust someone because they have a few good trust ratings. I first search up those people who gave them trust. The trust system is there to help. Not to seal the deal. It's a guideline which when used correctly is very effective.

imho there is no need for a trust system on this forum, nobody should trust it anyway, there are already some well established escrow services which can be used for relatively small transactions.
As for goat you should ignore him, he post his lamborghini to show that "it's possible to buy stuff with bitcoin", no comment

Maybe there is no real need for a trust system. Although, a lot of people tend to use it and it works for them. It's not forced on you. It's something which you can use only if you want too. Even when people have bad ratings and I'm going to be trading with them. I don't assume they are a scammer straight away. I first research about the person who left them bad feedback. Take a look at the reference if they included any. Do forum searches on them. The trust system just makes it a lot easier.

But, you don't have to use it. I haven't used it in awhile.


I'm glad you said this. Remember the escrow's are people too. Maybe tend to think that they should be trusted to questions asked. However, there has been instances where the escrow runs off. Even "established" and trusted ones. Remember you have to choose wisely when using a escrow. Search up their history to see if they have been in any dodgy deals.

Maybe you can only leave trust after both parties have agreed to do a deal. It's silly being able to leave trust for anyone anytime. Can you go on ebay and leave everybody negative feedback without even trading with them?

The system is also flawed because a newb can scam a load of other newbs and the trust wont even show up and he can continue scamming. A honest person can have loads of positive trades and none of them will even show up, but one "trusted" member leaves him negative for no reason and boom, he now looks like a scammer.

That's why I added "relatively small transactions", I personally don't use it, not here nor in other forums.
It's a nice thing to have, like indicators, but nobody should trust it without additional research as you said

That would be hard to do. Being able to define when someone has done a trade would have to be done manually. Which would require the staff to do a lot of work. That also requires hiring a lot more staff. Even then you have staff which will be involved in a private trade. Which a lot of people will not agree to as a lot like their privacy.

It's the persons responsibility to search up the person who has left negative trust. You wouldn't trust a random person on the street so why would you on the internet. You would want to ask questions and research. The trust system is a guideline. Makes it easier to contact those who left bad feedback for the particular person. Granted some people do see the trust system as a end all system. As soon as they see "Trade with caution" they immediately assume they are a scammer. But, people have been proven to be irrational and there is no fix for that. None of them will show up? You can enable this on your profile to show untrusted ratings by default.

No you can't. But, this site isn't just a trading site like ebay. If someone is acting suspicious then people can state that in the trust section. Remember trading is a very small part of the forum. People mainly come here to find out information and discuss. I would say a big part of the forum too is seeing what the world thinks about Bitcoin.

I would also like to state that if you allowed only to give feedback/trust when you have traded with someone it would be blocking others giving trust for people posting malicious links, websites and other suspicious activities.

So OP didn't PM you before posting here?  Love when people get on the soapbox before trying to resolve the issue the right way.

I don't think it would be that hard to implement, nor does it have to involve staff. Just both users have to agree to a trade by checking a box or clicking a link etc before any feedback can be left.

Thanks for that Goat!

I was shocked to see that neg rep coming from you, since I respect you for the work you do to get the word out for BTC.

You know not everyone was lucky enough to get on early on BTC and LTC.

For many guys out there this coin is the next big hope including me. No other coin in history of cryptos has seen such virality, media coverage plus getting on 4 major exchanges in first 2 weeks of launch.

I was mad-angry on you, I have to admit it.

Good to see your other, side though  :) you proved everyone wrong

Yes, I know about that. That's the uniqueness of it. Every fan of it can buy like 2000 of them for $1

Also, the positive thing is, it is attracting loads and loads of attention of kids, teenagers, meme lovers and common-men to crypto which actually is a good news for bitcoin, since it is the king of all crypto anyways - if you can see from a broader perspective.

I hold 2-3 million of them, so even if it gets to 10 cents each, my life is changed, you know.

Lol, I think you should chose another coin to back. You'd be better off buying Bitcoin and hoping that the price will skyrocet again in the future.

Then why the **** is he in the depth of DefaultTrust?

Do you really want to know, or are you just being cute?

The trust system is entirely public, you can tell exactly why goat is on the default list. There have even been threads about it.

It's gotta be that one, because whiskers must research things before posting them.  I'm assuming that based off of him getting all worked up over the people who didn't look up anything about avatars.

yet another case of the squeaky wheel getting the oil.

well done to the op, it's always worth complaining

Newbies are in DefaultTrust. Those who learn about the system will remove it and put in their own Trust if they choose. I did one deal whereby John K was my escrow and now my Trust looks, expectedly, like DefaultTrust (with Goat in there, no surprise). You'll learn sooner or later that if these folks are marking scam, they have reason to do so, till they don't. In this case a simple PM resolved it, but some people still want to make a mountain of a molehill.

Looks like I'm goat's latest victim.

No big deal, I owed him a negative trust rating in any case— him rating me just reminded me to put it in and removed the disincentive of wanting to avoid attracting his attention.

BadBear removed Goat from his trust list at some point (not sure when), so he's not part of the default trust network anymore.

Pretty well detailed description in the feedback he left.

http://puu.sh/66olx.png

It's a little silly:  I go out of my way to avoid engaging trades with sketchy people because I don't want to enable this kind of reputation-extortion. The net result is that there are relatively few ratings of me in the trust system, although practically all of you are running software I wrote (both in Bitcoin, as well as in Firefox and Google Chrome, and probably dozens of other programs), using cryptographic constructs I invented, etc.

Kinda interesting how fast people noticed! Three people have contacted me over it already— (sadly two asked me if they should be "worried" ... uh, people why are you asking ME this!)

I dunno, as we all know, the Trust system is completely subjective. The best a person can do is post their information and link their sources, and its up for the reader to detirmine its validity.

For the record, I would trust Goat with my money, and find him to be a very trustworthy person. However I agree with not having you on the default trust list, not that its a vote anyway, tis Badbear's decision. Nothing personal, however some of your feedback ratings have been driven by personal fights you have had with people, and not whether or not they are financially or morally untrustworthy. You have helped to tag scammers and I do appreciate that, but the default trust list isn't about who is trustworthy, its about who can give fair feedback to establish a larger trust network.

Well this may be related to a problem that the Bitcoin-OTC trust system shares:  Trust for trades is not the same thing as trust for trust.  There are people I'd gladly let hold my money, but I'd take their opinions of others with a big grain of salt because they're too trusting, too critical, or are just big on grudges and retaliation.

(I was going to say that trust-trust is a subset of trade-trust, but I can think of at least one forum member who's ratings I'd weigh heavily but that I'd never trade with them)

Wait how did I miss this event?  Using CP as a weapon?  That is pretty low.   I have no love for pool hopper but they merely exploit the poorly constructed rules of prop pools.  A good thing IMHO as it has driven those pools (mostly) out of existence replaced with fairer distribution systems.

The forum's trust system is better than bitcoin-otc in this area because you can give someone a positive rating without trusting their ratings. Your situation is caused by two other defects in the forum's trust system:
- If you trust someone in your trust list and your depth is 1+, you will trust everyone they trust. There's no fancy WoT algorithm here, or even a way to add manual exceptions. So I can't remove Goat from my trust network without also removing DeaDTerra.
- The trust score algorithm isn't very good in general. In this case it sees that you're a new user of the trust system, so it penalizes you in various ways. But this is really not appropriate for you...

I asked the question, thats it. I'd also asked it of you privately without getting an answer.

You didn't disclose what you were doing, I was told by people whos opinions I trust that they believed you were using it to launder money and weren't giving out fresh coins. This was also long after pool hopping was a well known and decreasingly effective thing (or so I believe(d)). I wasn't aware of any plausible lawful scheme that would have returned enough to support 115% PPS. (Jan 2012, I considered pool hooping completely dead months before that)

So  I asked the pointed question in public. Not all miners had considered that they ought to be asking questions like that, or that they might be complicit in some scheme they might not approve of (including pool hopping!). You could have just had a trusted third party certify that your operation was nothing like that and accepted that people asking questions is a cost of doing a sketchy looking business (especially one that operates by ripping people off), instead you behaved in a really concerning way. ...

People not asking and being able to entertain tough questions has been a factor behind any major scam on the forum.  And yet you attack me for trying to look out for others?

Please read the actual post?  He was not even claiming to be a pool hopper at the time, and I stand by my message. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54467.msg725229#msg725229

I wasn't the only person to be targeted by Goat's "bounties" either:

"Linking"

Here is my complete message:

After you responded with your "bounties" I also replied (in part):
I also offered to go hide the first part of my message ("if it is a distraction which is preventing you from controlling your emotion long enough to give straight factual answers to these questions which I believe are of great interest to the community here.").

You responded to this message with:

But apparently that wasn't true. You instead just decided to wait two years before going after me again.

Hm. I notice that you added that rating immediately after responding to my bet thread highlighting how strongly I believe that current mining hardware prices are overpriced that I'm in fact willing to sell people forward contracts on mining, with funds in escrow: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395243.0

Are you concerned that my views might reduce your ability to offload your own Cointerra (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=389614.0) units?  If thats whats bothering you, I can add a note that my opinion is related to the April delivery pricing. I wouldn't offer a future like this for January miners.

Why did you wait two years for the anger to boil over?   This seems strange.   What is the ulterior motive here?

It was my choice to remove Goat, nobody asked or told me to. I just don't think it's very fair to negative feedback for something that was settled a long time ago, and I felt responsible for it.

No hard feelings on my end, I like Goat once we got to talking and settled our differences.

I, personally, only rate people I can definitively proof to be scammers (even in these cases, it's a negative rating with no coins marked as lost), or have done actual bonafide trades with. I kind of wish others would do the same. :/

Couldn't you both remove your ratings due to the fact that you've never actually incurred any losses and don't have definitive proof that the opposing person is intentionally scamming others?

On Goat's side, I don't find his bounty all that unwarranted. He called for both a bounty on himself and gmaxwell. The intention was to show "I'm just as clean as you".

On gmaxwell's side, it sounds like the rating from Goat was unwarranted, but I can't find any record of it presently as it looks like it's been modified to be reactionary, so either Goat has already rescinded the original or I'm confusing who initiated which.

Well, I wasted a bunch of time creating a simulated drug trafficking picture only to have it rescinded on me (I can show you privately if you don't believe me :) ) when I made the suggestion.

He's also repeated it again today, in general discussion this time, now restricted the subject matter now and he's now saying that I claim to be involved in it:
(I've ROT13ed the text to avoid further propagating it.)
Have you ever personally had someone put a $150,000 bounty out to implicate you in a loathsome activity?

Do you really think that he's not deserving of a negative rating not only from me, but from everyone whos witnessing this behavior? Would you really trade with a person who handles a dispute in this manner?

Yea, he modified it. Originally it claimed that I was spreading lies about him and such. It took me completely by surprise, I've aggressively avoided Goat since that incident two years ago— to the extent of avoiding posting in threads he's participating in, and also have him on ignore (on sole account of that incident). I would have ignored this too, if not for the red WARNING it put next to my name, which kinda had to be responded to... and honestly, I think people ought to know what kind of reactions he has before they choose to deal with him.

(In retroperspective: how was payout 115% possible?)

 Something about jumping proportional pools at >43% CDF per round, then mining PPS otherwise, added up to gains over time.

 From Wikipedia:

In probability theory and statistics, the cumulative distribution function (CDF), or just distribution function, describes the probability that a real-valued random variable X with a given probability distribution will be found at a value less than or equal to x. In the case of a continuous distribution, it gives the area under the probability density function from minus infinity to x. Cumulative distribution functions are also used to specify the distribution of multivariate random variables.

 I thought the Trust System was designed/intended for business transaction dealings, not for "I just don't like you" reasons ?

It is to a major extent but the default trust list determines how trust is distributed in the system as these users have a high weight on the overall in the system.

Personally I still treat it like a judgement system but easy enough to confirm if you read through all the trust results.

I think it's more a "this guy will likely scam you" system

Sort of. You are welcome to leave "I don't like you" trust, as long as in the reason for your bad feedback rating you write, "I don't like this person" the system is designed so that not someone with 100 trust is automatically trusted, its just a way to log feedback from different sources. Before trading with anyone its highly recommended that you actually read people's feedback and judge for yourself the validity.

For example, I have negative feedback from a scammer I busted, however it doesn't seem to hurt me too much, as people read it and judge its validity for themselves, not to mention the guy actually did use the system correctly more or less. He said there was a 10 BTC loss involved, which is the only part that isn't true, but the other part is.

Trust also isn't an absolute method. If I want to buy something from a known scammer, I don't hesistate to, I just make sure there are the correct safeguards in place.



This is it exactly. Being on the default trust list doesn't make you completely trustworthy, people should always read ones feedback and judge validity for themselves. There are incredibly few ocassions where anyone should refuse to use escrow, so if you aren't completely convinced by someone's record, an you don't have the highest confidence in them, use escrow.

It's a conceptually flawed system, with a whole plethora of problems.
If the system is moderated, than it becomes the collective opinion of the mods.  Left unmoderated, it is equally useless, since it could be gamed and abused in every way possible.
One of the clever things about bitcoin is its non-reliance on trusted authorities.  This is a huge thing, without which bitcoin would have been stillborn.
The trust system tries to use a shortcut, Default Trust - the turtle on which all the rest of the turtles get to stand.  Default Trust Group seems like the antithesis to everything that is bitcoin.  Add to that duplicate accounts, most users misunderstanding how the trust system works, the impossible to see "show untrusted ratings" option, and you got... this.

wat

Could someone other than Goat comment on this?  Who has the authority to amend the default trust list, and was Goat removed from that list for leaving a negative rating to a default trust member?  

BadBear already commented on this. The reason was kinda convincing by the way.

1) Only theymos
2) No, BadBear removed him from his trustlist (thus removing him from the default trust) because he doesn't agree with the rating Goat gives (you can find the source in the recent Meta threads)

 I was stunned when I saw that happen :(

 In fact, I think that was the day I removed the Default Trust settings altogether.

 Taking things a step further, I would argue that there should not be a Default Trust list at all - It should be something that each user constructs themselves.

This.  The concept of a trust web is very decentralized and open however the default trust web essentially undermines the entire system as given the "easy way out" most users will simply use the default.  Now one could argue well it doesn't matter what other people do but that is simplistic.   If a super super super majority of users trust the default trust (because they never decided to educate themselves) then for a persons interaction with those users all that matters is what the default trust thinks, nothing more, nothing less.

Absolutely.

When the trust page opens, only the trusted ratings are shown.  For 99% of the users that happens to be the default trust (wild guess here, but I'd say a safe one).
Like so:
https://i.imgur.com/R4PlztP.jpg

What happens when you click on "Show ratings." ?


Just out of curiosity, is the real number public?

Nothing happens wen you don't click it.
But if you got good eyes and are curious enough to click, you'll see the ratings.

I don't want to be picky, but it's not what I'd call impossible
"Too hidden" maybe
"untrusted feedback" is pretty clear though, it's normal to be hidden: the real problem is that nearly nobody choses his own list

Don't get me wrong though, I don't like the current trust system and we are to keep it I'd like that newbies start with an empty list

You're right, "impossible" is a bit strong.  More like "you need to interact to see it."
As far as changing the default trust, I haven't done it myself.  I don't think the system was intentionally rigged, but it's impossible difficult not to let personal bias and self-interest creep in, even with best intentions.  It just feels too hierarchical, with a small group in control of the only feedback that matters.  There's no way to rise up through the ranks - no matter how many positives you get from the great unwashed.  And  here's where I climb up on a soapbox and “Forum Nerds of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!”
(so yeah, I get that this is a private forum, I get that this is a petty issue, but coming up with a trustless trust system (i know) is a fun concept to think about.  Would be a perfect sidekick for bitcoin.

No. But I don't think it would bother me. In fact, the larger the bounty, the more unbelievable one would find the evidence, that's kind of the way I take it. He knows there's nothing so he knows it's a safe bet. That kind of highlights the absurdity of it.


To the first, my answer is basically yes I don't think you should rate each other, you never did any deals together. I guess it's just a difference in opinion on what the Trust Network should be. I think (or thought from the beginning, anyway) it should be a trading indicator system, not an actual popularity rating system. But if it's really going to be a popularity/trust system, the folks in Default Trust should be those most capable of catching scammers and all the votes should be negative, not positive, not a "I don't like this person so here's my negative rating and this guy has the same politics as me so here's a positive rating" system. Goat's completely right that a centralized system whereby folks get to just negatively rate their enemies and positively rate their friends is going to be VERY bad in the long run. In that regard, both of your ratings suck. :/

But yes, it's looking more and more like everyone just makes up their own ratings. One user has you rated as having done a 500,000 BTC trade? Or is that having saved people 500k from potential scammers?

Maybe there should be a trade recording system (Trust as it presently is) and an actual trust system that changes dynamically based on Activity level. I'm not sure what the algorithm would be, but the higher the activity, the higher your rating would be weighted on someone. Then I'd argue there should be no "Default Trust" mechanism outside of that. It just doesn't make sense. This would be a good way to catch and identify sockpuppets as well, because there'd be a huge incentive to use them to negatively upvote or whatever and any correlation activities among potential sockpuppets would identified pretty easily. Plus it gives even new users an incentive to participate.

His username has been changed to ""Default Trust" is Tyrannically Centralized! (goat)"

Are VIPs able to change their own usernames?  I can't see Theymos changing a username to that, but I could be wrong.

VIPs and staff both have the ability to do it.

It probably will be tweaked as issues are found with it, but do keep in mind, the trust system was the most asked for feature for the forums. I've actually wondered how much having Tradefortress on the default trust list actually effected anything. He had like >200 Positive feedback left for him because he ran a long term successful Bitcoin business, all being on the default trust list did for him was made others trust the same people as him by default, it didn't give him a better score. Tradefortress didn't get any special power to his account directly from it. There are a lot of people on the default trust list who aren't as trustworthy as Tradefortress was statistically speaking. I'm on there because I give accurate feedback and am reasonably trustworthy, but in all honesty, Tradefortress had earned far more trust before the theft than I have. For example, if Bitpay was added to the default trust list, I don't think it would really effect people's perception of them, they are a successful business, whether they are on the default trust list or not, it would be a shock if they stole user's funds. Inputs.io is where Tradefortress got his reputation from, not from his ability to add others to the list of people who can leave "Trusted" feedback.

But, Theymos has said more than a few times the Trust system isn't perfect, so he should be completely open to ideas if you come up with any that are possible to program.

Plus you forgot the part where people paid TF to get on the list. So this is very skewed list.

I think the default list shouldn't exist. New people are easily swayed by it. It does more harm then good. I envision a trust system that uses GPG with a blockchain, every trust feedback cost 1 -2 cents to have it added, free to removed but it is never truly removed but removed from the overall score of someone. So you can see how the trust actually evolves, and the cost should get rid of spammers. 

You are right that there is no such thing about a perfect trust system. In my opinion, there is only one way to trust a person, and it has to do with self interest. If someone is operating a service, and making 1 Bitcoin per week, you can be fairly certain they can be trusted with 1 Bitcoin, because why would they steal your 1 Bitcoin and lose their guarenteed long term income for a small short gain? I use a more complex version of that system pretty religiously and have never been scammed before. The slightly harder part to take into account, is that you have to factor in others as well. If I give that person 1 Bitcoin, and 49 others do as well, we are no longer trusting them with 1 Bitcoin, they are trusted with 50 Bitcoins, and different trust calculations have to be done.

A completely decentralized system, like OTC has it faults as well. Its susceptible to "fake" trust. I like to use the example of how I got into Bitcoins in the first place. I was 14 or 15 when I got into Bitcoin, and it was damn near impossible to buy them, especially since I had limited payment options besides cash that I had earned doing odd jobs. So what I'd do was go to the local 7-11, buy money paks, and trade them for Bitcoins to this nice chap named Pirateat40 on OTC who had quite a bit of feedback. Because he had this trust from people I had never heard of, I put blind faith into him, and got lucky. I bought a lot of Bitcoins off of him, so I can say that I trust him for X amount, people see that we had done X BTC in trades sucessfully, so might as well trust him with X BTC as well, building what could have been an undeserved and unaccountable trust rating. We all know how that turned out in the long run. What centralizing the trust system does, is adds accountability. If person on Tier 1 trusts person who is now on Tier 2, it is against Person 1's self interest to allow person 2 to represent them if they are not what is desired in a trust sytem.

My suggestion, would be to get rid of trust score in the first place. Rather than a trust system, I think just a strict feedback system would work better. Remove the numbers, so people will be forced to read why someone received feedback and from who. What the default trust system in this case would do, is makes it so scammers can't make 100 accounts, leave themselves tons of feedback, and go off and scam people with their fake trust, but they wouldn't have any added weight.

If the intentions are to make a newbie-friendly trust system, it needs to have BTC trades removed from it. I'd hate to lose that recorded info, because the fact that actual BTC amounts are in there and stay in there for longer and longer periods of time, it only adds to their validity and the level of trust to which one could afford someone, but, that said, I think I agree that it sounds like all people really want out of this is just a quick and dirty indication of who can and cannot be trusted. In that case, it needs to focus more on those finding scammers and if one default trust member distrusts another person in default trust, it needs to simply be allowed, but not negatively drop any one individual disproportionately. We've all got other longstanding members that we simply don't trust.

I still think a "trade record" of some sort would be nice to have for the few of us willing to use it. I like BitcoinOTC, but don't really have the wherewithal to use it since it is clunky for new users to figure out and use, and those are probably the biggest customers and most likely to do trading, especially with regards to mining equipment and etc. I have a feeling most of them see BitcoinOTC and the Web of Trust as "that complicated system the old miners use, if they are on there, I can probably trust them, but I'm not going to take the time to figure it out and either rate them or use PGP to confirm that they are who they say they are."

I have to say that 'newbies' really do look at trust. I clearly have no problems with escrow and prefer it (when John K is around). But when a buyer sees my previous feedback, they foregoe it entirelly and don't want to pay for it any more.

I doubt I'm even close to the default list, but what I failed at saying was it DOES make a difference.

Oh, this is now a TF topic.

About that, here are some facts:

- Perfect scammers do post exactly the same as the most legit, trusted users. That's how they build up.
- Perfect scammers, thus, do get a lot of positive feedback.

Hence:
Let people publish negative feedback publicly.
Let people record positive feedback personnaly.

This way, you get the warnings, balanced by your own choice to trust.

That's not a bad idea, Kouye. Some sort of a trust network where if you are in someone's trust list, you can also see the BTC amount they trusted to a person, but otherwise it's a private system whereby you can see they only have a positive trust rating, but not why. That way they don't build trust to abuse but more to actually do business.

FWIW, I wasn't aware that TF was an actual scammer, though, only that he was just very foolish with security.

I know this is going to sound ageist, but most of the "scammers" I've researched are under the age of 25, and most of the folks that others have thought were trustworthy on here and were not were 19 or younger. Bulanula was only 16-17 while involved in Bitcoin. I don't think folks under 21 are truly malicious so much as foolish. Also, I was just plain dumb to have assumed he was going to be rational and repay what he owed. :(